# Your god, in the Study, with the Kleenex
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [August 8, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917 "2006-08-08T20:33:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/81 "2006-08-15T16:02:46Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> You have made one attempt at giving a reason why my analogy is inapt, namely “… because there is not a group of people who believe there is only one true cheese.” I’ve pondered this, but it seems like a complete non sequitur to me.
What in the world are you rambling about? And I gave you two reason. Read again. Next time I’ll number everything. The second one goes to provability.
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> How does the non-existence of this group make my analogy inapt?
Sorry, I assumed you knew what an analogy was.
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> It’s of no moment anyway. If you think my analogy is inapt because in real life there is no “group of people who believe there is only one true cheese”, then let’s alter the analogy:
No, let’s take a dumb analogy and allow it to die, not try to frankenstein it into something that may make some sense a hundred posts from now after you sew another condition on here and there and switch out the stuff that just doesn’t work. A good analogy is elegant. It fits. It’s, what’s the word— “analogous”.
Look, I played your childish game with your mighty logic trap and gave you the answer you wanted. I even translated my answer into the one-word answer you so desired. Now, making your silly analogy contorted does not make it better, just sillier and more contorted. I really can’t address this inanity any longer. I suggest if you wish to understand my thoughts on the subect that you simply go back and reread my posts. The thread is rather short and I don’t have that many posts. You are simply playing semantic games. Grow up.
If you have a point you are so dying to make, try explaining yourself. An analogy is but one tool in the shed. Sometimes they are helpful, sometimes other tools are better. Try something else. Just a suggestion.
Now, on to to the commandment.
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> The commandment is an example of badly worded and confusing language that is not presently interpreted by a particular religious group to mean what it literally says. That is not going to help you prove that some other geezer who made an similarly badly worded statement didn’t accidentally end up saying something that he didn’t mean.
First thank you for addressing the question. Now, based on your comment, please tell me what you think those words mean.
---
### Author:  [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/82 "2006-08-15T16:31:50Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
I think that **magellan01** has answered your question several times over, but I’ll take a different approach and see if you and I can’t come to understand one another, even if we disagree in our understanding.
I don’t believe that I can answer your hypothetical with a simple yes or no. If I take your scenario without any other background information, then I would say that yes, you probably believe in the existence of more than one cheese. But our real-world situation isn’t at all devoid of background.
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> Flight all you are doing is making my point for me. The reason you say “let me explain which Theory of Evolution” is because there is more than one theory. All that it takes for a theory to exist is for someone to propound it. Acknowledging that other people believe in a theory is precisely to acknowledge that the theory exists.
>
> Which theory is correct is an entirely separate issue.
This statement implies to me that you’re confusing (or intentionally refusing to draw a distinction between) two separate actions, those being:
a) acknowledging the existence of other gods; and,
b) acknowledging the existence of other theories of God.
There’s a huge difference between the two. It seems fairly obvious to me that Jeremy White’s opening statement does the latter but does not do the former.
Finally, I’ll assume your ignored my question to you because you were still waiting for an answer to your own question regarding the hypothetical cheese.
> [@Asimovian](#):
>
> What do you think he SHOULD have said in order to make it clear that he acknowledges that other folks believe in a different God or gods than the only God he believes exists?
I’ll try again. What should Mr. White have said to convey his understanding that others have different theories of God or gods, but that he feels his belief in God is the only correct one? If you shared his belief, how would you have phrased it differently?
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/83 "2006-08-15T17:36:13Z")
> [@Asimovian](#):
>
> Finally, I’ll assume your ignored my question to you because you were still waiting for an answer to your own question regarding the hypothetical cheese.I’ll try again. What should Mr. White have said to convey his understanding that others have different theories of God or gods, but that he feels his belief in God is the only correct one? If you shared his belief, how would you have phrased it differently?
I’ll try. The purpose of the ceremony at which he was speaking was to honor the memory of his late father upon the occasion of his father’s induction into the Football Hall of Fame. That’s the entire reason he was supplied with a podium, a microphone, and a speaker’s listing in the program.
As a man of belief, his making an expression of gratitude to his deity was not at all inappropriate. A lecture on comparative religions would have been entirely inappropriate. Although he didn’t go that far, Mr. White’s insistence on specificity is branching off in the direction of such a lecture.
Personally, I don’t think it was his intention to convey his grasp of comparative religions; the presence of such an aside at a ceremony of this type suggests strongly that he was delivering a side-door rebuke to those whom he deems as not worshipping the RIGHT god; or more broadly, not adhering to the RIGHT religion.
Not very smoothly done, and not very classy.
If I shared his belief, I would have left out any references to what anybody else believes, and phrased it in terms of what I believed.
> [@Jeremy White](#):
>
> Hello. I would first like to thank the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for making me, my dad, and this whole event, giving us the strength that I know me and my mom are about to receive.
---
### Author:  [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/84 "2006-08-15T18:00:38Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> Personally, I don’t think it was his intention to convey his grasp of comparative religions; the presence of such an aside at a ceremony of this type suggests strongly that he was delivering a side-door rebuke to those whom he deems as not worshipping the RIGHT god; or more broadly, not adhering to the RIGHT religion.
I feel as though I’m teetering on the edge of a semantics debate, but your statement as it is worded reflects (I think) exactly the sentiment that **Oakminster** and **Princhester** were conveying – that these other gods exist, but that White’s God is better than anyone else’s. I don’t believe that’s what White was saying, even unintentionally. I believe he was saying “I know you believe in other gods, but you’re incorrect. There is no god but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
For the record, I agree with you entirely about the lack of class displayed by reprimanded followers of other beliefs in such a speech.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/85 "2006-08-15T19:17:37Z")
> [@Asimovian](#):
>
> I feel as though I’m teetering on the edge of a semantics debate, but your statement as it is worded reflects (I think) exactly the sentiment that **Oakminster** and **Princhester** were conveying – that these other gods exist, but that White’s God is better than anyone else’s. I don’t believe that’s what White was saying, even unintentionally. I believe he was saying “I know you believe in other gods, but you’re incorrect. There is no god but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
I tried to convey that that is what I believe he was saying to. Evidently, I failed, and I thank you for providing me with an opportunity to clarify that.
My point is that the venue and context were absolutely inappropriate for such a statement.
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> For the record, I agree with you entirely about the lack of class displayed by reprimanded followers of other beliefs in such a speech.
I’m going to hope you meant to write “reprimand_ **ing** _ followers of other beliefs” here. 😉
So I guess we’re on the same page.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/86 "2006-08-15T19:21:51Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> For the record, I agree with you entirely about the lack of class displayed by reprimanded followers of other beliefs in such a speech.
**Princhester**? :smack: Where the H-E-double hockey sticks did _that_ come from?
I say again: :smack:
Sorry; **Asimovian**.
---
### Author:  [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/87 "2006-08-15T19:34:45Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> I tried to convey that that is what I believe he was saying to. Evidently, I failed, and I thank you for providing me with an opportunity to clarify that.
>
> My point is that the venue and context were absolutely inappropriate for such a statement.
>
> I’m going to hope you meant to write “reprimand_ **ing** _ followers of other beliefs” here. 😉
>
> So I guess we’re on the same page.
My turn to :smack: for the unfortunate-but-amusing typo. 🙂
Thanks for the clarification (on your own point and on mine) – we are indeed on the same page!
---
### Author:  [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/88 "2006-08-15T20:15:12Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> Your question, for $50: do I think there is more than one cheese?
Yes, and I would like to take this opportunity to publicly declare my faith in Cheeses.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/89 "2006-08-15T20:27:41Z")
I’d join you in that declaration, **Biffy** , but I recently became an adherent of Goudaism.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/90 "2006-08-16T00:02:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#):
>
> The second one goes to provability.
What does provability have to do with it? I thought we were discussing an assertion about existence of a god or gods, not proof.
What is your answer to the question posed by me at my post #79?
> [@](#):
>
> First thank you for addressing the question. Now, based on your comment, please tell me what you think those words mean.
The commandment is confusing because in the first few words the god speaking seems to say that he is the only one you shall have, but the latter part he seems to imply that other gods are OK as long as they come after him. It’s not well written.
> [@Asimovian](#):
>
> This statement implies to me that you’re confusing (or intentionally refusing to draw a distinction between) two separate actions, those being:
>
> a) acknowledging the existence of other gods; and,
> b) acknowledging the existence of other theories of God.
>
> There’s a huge difference between the two. It seems fairly obvious to me that Jeremy White’s opening statement does the latter but does not do the former.
No, I recognise that distinction. I just don’t see how White’s statement can be read as meaning (on its face) b). You say “it’s fairly obvious”. How so? Which precise words of his statement make that clear to you? Feel free to be specific.
Bear in mind when answering that I’ve already said I realise that White didn’t mean to say what his words mean. So an answer from you to the effect that it’s clear to you that he meant b) not because of what he said but because that’s what he would have meant, is not apt.
> [@](#):
>
> Finally, I’ll assume your ignored my question to you because you were still waiting for an answer to your own question regarding the hypothetical cheese.I’ll try again. What should Mr. White have said to convey his understanding that others have different theories of God or gods, but that he feels his belief in God is the only correct one? If you shared his belief, how would you have phrased it differently?
“I’d like to thank my God, the God of Abraham etc, who is despite what some of you may believe, the only God…”
Offensive as all hell to some no doubt, but if that’s what he wanted to say, there would have been no difficulty doing so clearly.
---
### Author:  [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/91 "2006-08-16T01:03:21Z")
Regardless of the very interesting (not) debate on semantics, I think those that found the speaker’s comment disagreeable feel that way for the same reason;it was tasteless, unnecessary, and borderline hostile.
How ugly it is to use one’s faith to put down others. I don’t even particpate in organized religion and I felt offended by it.
---
### Author:  [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)
#### Post date: [August 16, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917/92 "2006-08-16T16:39:31Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> No, I recognise that distinction. I just don’t see how White’s statement can be read as meaning (on its face) b). You say “it’s fairly obvious”. How so? Which precise words of his statement make that clear to you? Feel free to be specific.
>
> Bear in mind when answering that I’ve already said I realise that White didn’t mean to say what his words mean. So an answer from you to the effect that it’s clear to you that he meant b) not because of what he said but because that’s what he would have meant, is not apt.
>
> …
>
> “I’d like to thank my God, the God of Abraham etc, who is despite what some of you may believe, the only God…”
>
> Offensive as all hell to some no doubt, but if that’s what he wanted to say, there would have been no difficulty doing so clearly.
First, thanks for answering my question. I absolutely agree that your phrasing would have been a much clearer way to make that statement, ugly (uglier, actually) though it would have been.
It was a poor choice of words for me to say “it’s fairly obvious.” I should have said that it is a reasonable assumption, based on what I know of the Bible and my own religious studies, that White’s faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob prohibits his belief in the existence of any other god or gods. However, I think we are now deeply mired in a useless semantics debate. You’re insisting that his words mean the existence of other gods, whether that was his intention or not. I believe that, “on its face” as you put it, the meaning is ambiguous at best, and applying some background knowledge, his words probably don’t mean that at all.
It seems pretty unlikely, given the length of this discussion, that I’m going to convince you otherwise, though, so I will respectfully drop it there.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-god-in-the-study-with-the-kleenex/367917.md?page=4)