mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, Ahab said: ...and remembering experiencing the same kind of thing. But not the same thing. Get your dictionary and look up "simile".
Ahab Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: But not the same thing. Get your dictionary and look up "simile". The other day I went to get some ice cream with my wife. Have you ever had that kind of experience... going somewhere to get ice cream with someone you love? I know you've never gone to get ice cream with my wife, but I would say you have had the same kind of experience. Do you know what I mean now or would you rather just be nit-picky?
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Ahab said: Not at all relevant to the point I was making. What is it called, a strawman, or a red herring? I'm not totally sure which one. Yeah, I get it. Language is confusing, both here and in "making your point" Edited October 19, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 30 minutes ago, Ahab said: I know you've never gone to get ice cream with my wife, but I would say you have had the same kind of experience. OK well this is the last of this for me. Who defines "same kind" in this context and how do we know in what sense is it the "same". You yourself admit that it could NOT be the "same" because I am not married to your wife. You just keep contradicting yourself, talking about things being the same and then limiting them with the word "kind of thing", without providing a way to define "kind". This is precisely what caused the apostasy, trying to define "substance" or "kind" or "essence" resulting in the belief that Christ has two separate natures of different "kinds", that bread can be flesh because it is only a difference in appearance and not "kind", that God could not have a body since bodies and spirits are different "kinds" of reality, etc etc etc. Nice chat but I am done.
Ahab Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: OK well this is the last of this for me. Who defines "same kind" in this context and how do we know in what sense is it the "same". Answer: The sender(s) and receiver(s) of the message? You were maybe thinking somebody else? Both parties either understand or they misunderstand each other. You were maybe thinking of some other outcome? 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You yourself admit that it could NOT be the "same" because I am not married to your wife. You just keep contradicting yourself, talking about things being the same and then limiting them with the word "kind of thing", without providing a way to define "kind". Words have their own definitions. They do have meaning. Do you not know how to look up the words "kind" and "same" in a dictionary? Do you not know how to ask me to clarify what I mean when I say something? Have you never had the experience of going to get some ice cream with someone you love? Isn't ice cream the same thing for everybody... isn't it all ice cream? 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: This is precisely what caused the apostasy, trying to define "substance" or "kind" or "essence" resulting in the belief that Christ has two separate natures of different "kinds", that bread can be flesh because it is only a difference in appearance and not "kind", that God could not have a body since bodies and spirits are different "kinds" of reality, etc etc etc. Nice chat but I am done. Yep, misunderstandings are a big part of all of the problems with the world, I think. But it's not as if misunderstandings can not be resolved. The gospel has been restored in its fulness now, and we both know what it is. Or at least I do, and I am pretty sure that you know and correctly understand what the gospel is, too.
Ahab Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah, I get it. Language is confusing, both here and in "making your point" As I said before and will now say so again, with some other words this time, language is confusing ONLY WHEN there is a misunderstanding between the sender(s) and receiver(s) of messages. Otherwise it is not confusing. In other words, it is only when people don't correctly understand each other that we see problems when using words to communicate. Sometimes the person sending a message doesn't use the correct words, according to dictionary definitions, and sometimes the receiver of that message doesn't know which definition that person is using when using that word. A understandable situation given the fact that words have multiple definitions, and sometimes a word is totally unknown to either a sender or receiver, but the problem is not arising due to a "jump from the truth of direct experience to words" as Mark claimed. Words are very useful tools to describe and refer to "the truth of direct experience" as long as the correct words are used and understood by both the sender and receiver of a message.
mfbukowski Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: As I said before and will now say so again, with some other words this time, language is confusing ONLY WHEN there is a misunderstanding between the sender(s) and receiver(s) of messages. Otherwise it is not confusing. In other words, it is only when people don't correctly understand each other that we see problems when using words to communicate. Sometimes the person sending a message doesn't use the correct words, according to dictionary definitions, and sometimes the receiver of that message doesn't know which definition that person is using when using that word. A understandable situation given the fact that words have multiple definitions, and sometimes a word is totally unknown to either a sender or receiver, but the problem is not arising due to a "jump from the truth of direct experience to words" as Mark claimed. Words are very useful tools to describe and refer to "the truth of direct experience" as long as the correct words are used and understood by both the sender and receiver of a message. We are talking about theology, doctrine and policy. The title of the post is "Empirical Evidence from God", not "How to get along with your wife". Now you will post something about how they "really are the same thing", and I will not answer. End of story.
Ahab Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Just now, mfbukowski said: We are talking about theology, doctrine and policy. The title of the post is "Empirical Evidence from God", not "How to get along with your wife". Now you will post something about how they "really are the same thing", and I will not answer. End of story. Okay let me use another analogy now to see if that helps you understand my point. Or just consider "ice cream" as an analogy to an answer from God, with any answer from God considered to be empirical evidence. I mean, he is the supreme leader or at least one of the supreme leaders of the entire empire of existence, isn't he. You may now bow your head and say Yes. Therefore evidence from him is empirical evidence. Ta da!
Recommended Posts