The Resurrection

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Just a tell that you're talking about two different things rather than one.

These words do not describe two different things. They describe the same thing in two different ways, one abstract and one concrete. What is your argument here? That a house cannot be a home?

Of course they describe different things. A home isn’t necessarily a house. A child’s dad may or may not be that child’s father. And why is a job concrete but a career is abstract?

You’re reaching, china.

Boru

[Paleophyte]

Just a tell that you're talking about two different things rather than one.

These words do not describe two different things. They describe the same thing in two different ways, one abstract and one concrete. What is your argument here? That a house cannot be a home?

That you needed two words to describe it. One for the abstract concept of the home and one for the tangible building of the house. The fact that you can have either one without the other proves the point.

Your god continually needs to be excused from reason and this is no different.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Of course they describe different things. A home isn’t necessarily a house.

Obviously; but in this conversation they are different ways of describing the same object. Your point that they can also describe different objects makes my point more salient. They aren't simple different names for the same thing, like soda vs pop, but rather entirely different aspects of the same object.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course they describe different things. A home isn’t necessarily a house.

Obviously; but in this conversation they are different ways of describing the same object. Your point that they can also describe different objects makes my point more salient. They aren't simple different names for the same thing, like soda vs pop, but rather entirely different aspects of the same object.

A four-bedroom structure with mod coms and indoor plumbing is a house. If it is unoccupied, it is not a home. 

A tramp sleeping rough in an alley or a park has a home, not a house.

And now you’re backpedaling.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

And now you’re backpedaling.

Boru

I'll gladly concede such an obvious and irrelevant point.

[Paleophyte]

Of course they describe different things. A home isn’t necessarily a house.

Obviously; but in this conversation they are different ways of describing the same object. Your point that they can also describe different objects makes my point more salient. They aren't simple different names for the same thing, like soda vs pop, but rather entirely different aspects of the same object.

Tellingly, you keep using the word "object". It's easy enough to find houses that aren't homes and homes that aren't houses, so clearly you're talking about two different things.

This thing here, it's called a "rose". I pricked my finger on it, so it's pretty concrete.
This here, that's what we call "red". I can't hand you a bucket full of "red" because it's an abstract.

And this here, that's what some people call a "man-god". It's simultaneously human and divine. Don't worry about it because it doesn't exist. Not because of doubt or skepticism, but because it's been defined as a contradiction to itself.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And yet, nobody would object that roses are entirely red and entirely flowers. Or that a given building is entirely a house and entirely a home. And neither should you object that a given person can be entirely man and entirely God.

[arewethereyet]

Word games and the pretense of deepities.

Yawn

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And yet, nobody would object that roses are entirely red and entirely flowers.

A botanist or a horticulturalist might. And people with the ability to, you know, see colours.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

A botanist or a horticulturalist might. And people with the ability to, you know, see colours.

Another non-issue I'll happy concede to.