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.
Sorry, I assumed you knew what an analogy was.
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.
First thank you for addressing the question. Now, based on your comment, please tell me what you think those words mean.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 “reprimanding followers of other beliefs” here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
