KMRblue1027
Deity
They? Does that make God the Q Continuum then?
Was Adam a Slave?
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
They? Does that make God the Q Continuum then?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Aside from the fact that justice, laws, and morality are all wrapped up in each other in this ridiculous species of ours? They can be cut apart using specific language as he's doing, to separate specific concepts and actions, but they're so tied at the hip in practice that attempting to claim that they actually fuction independent of each other is a rather serious mistake.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Who is to say that God is not Hermaphrodite 
?
?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Your way of thinking has me confused, Mr Hawk. I confess it freely.
Are you, by any chance, a Christian fundamentalist?
They is also a singular pronoun.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, it isn't really a singular pronoun. Though it is sometimes misused as one.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Unwillingness to learn/accept that grammatical rules can include gender-neutral "he" have meant that PC uses have trumped objective practicality on this one. Which is fine, people take moral/religious stances on how they want to world to be in ways other than "efficient" all the time.
Who's more likely to have gotten it right?
edit: wait, looking into this. The people who thought God used 'we' also thought God destroyed nearly all animal life with a global flood (except for animal pairs), I'm not sure we can really consider their opinion to be gospel.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Hardly. It is a simple statement of fact.
In the original Hebrew scripture, Genesis has God speaking first person plural, eg "Let us make man in our own image." The authors refer to God in the masuline, eg "Male and female, he created them." While the derivation is unclear, it is my belief that Kings use the Royal We in imitation of this fact.
For the record, my prefered team is called the Jayhawks, ie University of Kansas. My screen name comes from #1jayhawkfan. They would not let me start with anything but an alpha character with a 12 character limit, so onejayhawk. My initials are JMN, but you may call me J.
Who's more likely to have gotten it right?
edit: wait, looking into this. The people who thought God used 'we' also thought God destroyed nearly all animal life with a global flood (except for animal pairs), I'm not sure we can really consider their opinion to be gospel.
Of course not. It's Law.
J
Ba dum tish!
"I just missed a call, I wonder what they wanted."
Grammatically false or correct?
I am perfectly aware of the gender-neutral role of "he", I just don't want to send the message that using it sends.
It don't even understand what practicality has to do with it. Unless you count being stuck in questionable social structures as more "practical" because it is more comfortable for you.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
It's ungrammatical - assuming that only one person calls you at a time (and this is usually true).
"I just missed a call, I wonder what it was about" sidesteps the problem.
And yet, as always, usage is king. So, no doubt in time it will become more and more acceptable. At the moment, only early adopters are using "they" to refer to one person.
I don't see what's wrong with using "he or she" if you don't know the gender of a person. Though I'd agree it can be cumbersome.
"I just missed a call, I wonder what it was about" sidesteps the problem.
And yet, as always, usage is king. So, no doubt in time it will become more and more acceptable. At the moment, only early adopters are using "they" to refer to one person.
I don't see what's wrong with using "he or she" if you don't know the gender of a person. Though I'd agree it can be cumbersome.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
You can use "she" too. It doesn't send any particular message at all to use a gender neutral he or she. Somebody that's looking hard enough into this to demand that the pronouns can't be neutral and claim that this is an example of "questionable social structures" really needs to invest themselves in more pressing first world problems instead of inventing new ones borne out of factually misguided assumptions borne from a deep seated need to be judgmental and superior. Eh? (tbh, I think people with this sort of opinion are generally just parroting judgmental jerks rather than actively trying to come up with ways to be jerky themselves)
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
"Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains".
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours".
Bob Dylan said that.
Link to video.
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
"I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours".
Bob Dylan said that.
Link to video.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The apostle Paul would have it so. You can be a slave to God or a slave to carnal desires. Saying we are slaves to our motivations is not a stretch.
J
Narz
keeping it real
You can try all you like to make the word "objective" work but it'd be better just to give it up & admit you can't.
What is personally healthy is totally subjective. Not only is it subjective for each subject, it changes day to day. Sometimes it might be better to be strict about keeping a healthy diet, proper bedtime, other times it might be work the social/emotional benefit to stay out late & party with friends. Mimicking the natural cycle of feast & famine, harvest & celebration.
There is no "a person". A person's personaility changes literally day to day & definitely over the course of years. What might be moral at age 15 may not be moral at age 30 (like screwing a 14 year old for instance).
Except we can't. Beyond basic common sense it's very hard to say what's best, what's right, what's healthy. That's why there are a million different diet books, a million different exercise books, etc. And no matter how in tune with yourself you are you never know for sure what we work & must constantly keep adapting.
Most things are a mixed bag. Posting online for instance. I'm up late, staring at a screen in a fairly stationary position, could be doing other things (looking into schools in NY for my daughter, reading a book, etc.) but there are also benefits - speaking to people I would not otherwise met IRL, learning new things, etc.
The idea of "truth" in one's personal life is a bit daft IMO, you just do what you feel is right, notice when you're doing something that isn't working, adapt & adapt & adapt. There is no "truth", whenever I try to make laws or learn "truths" I tend to go astray. That's my experience. Certain rules (like don't eat cookies even if they're gluten free, you'll probably regret it) do usually come in handy but I can always think of exceptions (taking a free cookie sample from a pretty girl in order to lead to conversation, maybe more
, true story actually, I got invited to an awesome party by a girl giving out chocolate samples).There is no "truth". Truth is just a human concept. "It's 45 degrees outside" could be considered a "true" statement but objectively it's meaningless & not even correct. By the time you say it the temperature has changed a few millidegrees & is slightly different a few blocks away.
The full story can never be fully known, it's most important to have a story that works. All human morality is subjective so the morality that serves societies is what survives. For example even horrors like human sacrifice, female circumcision, infanticide & elder abandonment often have interesting sociological/anthropological explanations. I read a fascinating book on the subject (all about the evolution of various cultures thruout the world), I forgot the name... ah found it, it's called "Our Kind: Who We Are, Where We Came From, Where We Are Going", it's a little dated but still worth a read.
The idea that there is one correct way to be/live that is static/finite & measurable & we, in the modern age in America, the pinnacle of all creation, know it is perhaps as ridiculous a belief as any religious one.
Narz
keeping it real
I agree that we our slaves to our motivations. And I respect Christians for trying to sculpt the best human being they can out of themselves, overcoming the lusts that are not so adaptive anymore. That said, I don't do it for God or Jesus but simply because I recognize the best way to be a hedonist is to tame & control my passions.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
It's not. There are some people who cannot divorce personal taste from morality and a bunch more people who can. There are some people who can't divorce legality from ethics from morality and others who can.
I think we can certainly work to understand how many people mix them up, as it's much easier to live that simply.
They do function very independently when coming from people who understand their difference. And we should all strive to be such people.
It doesn't. It does, though, make more sense than saying that if God created a "correct" morality then it's still God's own subjective morality is false because God is a teaching God, which is how this side debate started.
But either way I'm pretty sure you're having a completely different logical experience in your head than the rest of us. You might want to explain the actual cause and effect of your logic than making assertions.
For example below: You were replying to Borachio asking how one is expected to live in accordance with knowing we all share a common ancestor that was but one shrew among many.
See, this doesn't score you any points, bear with me.
It's very strange to think that your life is meaningless or un-propelled without the existence of a God that specifically and hands on created your species without any of the biological lead-up that the system this God created utilizes. It's a very specific thing to believe. Yet that's the logic of your words.
To think that Nihilism or apathy are the only appropriate responses to life if you accept your ancestry, which isn't even denying God as a concept, really strongly requires to come into the conversation with some preexisting notions that most the others in this thread simply don't share with you. So perhaps you can explain how you get to these very confined conclusions.
Similar threads
