|
I will prove to you that God exists
|
 (Yesterday at 8:35 am)LoneWolf Wrote: In fact this is a misuse of homonyms to gaslight people. It is a bug of religion not a feature. I see what you mean, I think. You perceive the traditional division of language into equivocal, univocal, and analogical, to be an intentional way of misleading people. Is that right?
Oh jesus christ.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 (Yesterday at 8:53 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(Yesterday at 8:35 am)LoneWolf Wrote: In fact this is a misuse of homonyms to gaslight people. It is a bug of religion not a feature. Damn, you're cute.  <Pats on head>
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
 (Yesterday at 8:53 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I see what you mean, I think. No it is more simple than that. Without the outdated notions of equivocal, univocal and analogical that some people still use as some kind of holy validation that immunises from critical scrutiny, it is clear in everyday communication that using the same words with different meaning does not help humanity. (9 hours ago)LoneWolf Wrote:(Yesterday at 8:53 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I see what you mean, I think. I didn't realize that the use of equivocal language made a person immune from critical scrutiny. The writings of Thomas Aquinas, for example, were intensely debated among scholars for a long time before they were generally accepted, and even today many Christians can tell you why they reject his conclusions. Jacob Boehme's writings were banned in his home country, though a network of rich people circulated them in samizdat and debated them. They were never given immunity from critical thought. And anyway, using the same words with different meanings is hardly exclusive to theology. That's something that happens a lot. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
