Symbols are not exclusive: there can be MANY meanings associated with symbols.
adam
lol, what have i been saying all this time!?
let me also correct you. you are seeing a PICTURE of a mask, not the masks themselves.
cantleave had a valid opinion. Is God like a pencil-pointless?
by KateWild 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
adamah
Monsieur said-
let me also correct you. you are seeing a PICTURE of a mask, not the masks themselves.
And?
Do you not KNOW that ALL representations (whether they're drawn in dirt on the ground, appearing on my computer screen, etc) are simply different ways to depict the same symbol?
Adam
-
adamah
To anyone who didn't yet know of the meaning associated with the symbol (in ALL of it's various permutations), it carries no meaning: they wouldn't KNOW that it's a symbol for the theater since it has to be TAUGHT. It is a LEARNED association, and one accepted and used as a convention.
You cannot now claim that the two masks actually represent, say, the used cars sales profession, and expect anyone else to honor that re-definition of it's meaning. Yet that's precisely what you are attempting to do by "moving the goalposts" and changing the definition of God into something else than what is commonly associated with the word.
Adam
-
Monsieur
And?
and?! please see your comment below.
Thus saying "God is love" is connecting two imperceptible concepts together, but neither one is perceptible, and hence neither can be described as a symbol for the other.
yet the PICTURE (which represents comedy and tragedy) of the mask IS symbolizing THEATER (another imperceptible).
in other words, one symbol IS reprenting another symbol, (otherwise know as layering) perfectly possible by virtue of what a SYMBOL is.
your next post then neatly falls into place
To anyone who didn't yet know of the meaning associated with the symbol (in ALL of it's various permutations), it carries no meaning: they wouldn't KNOW that it's a symbol for the theater since it has to be TAUGHT. It is a LEARNED association, and one accepted and used as a convention.
totally agree with this.
You cannot now claim that the two masks actually represent, say, the used cars sales profession, and expect anyone else to honor that re-definition of it's meaning. Yet that's precisely what you are attempting to do by "moving the goalposts" and changing the definition of God into something else than what is commonly associated with the word.
here, however, you contradict your previous comment, or at least your are limiting the individual who wishes to comprehend a symbol's deeper meaning by stating to him that his first understanding upon seeing the symbol is the ONLY acceptable understanding.
this is not 'changing the goalposts', it is progressive understanding.
you MUST agree that the 'conventional' idea of God is a failed idea.
-
adamah
Monsieur said-
you MUST agree that the 'conventional' idea of God is a failed idea.
Yes, but that's a different topic (although it explains WHY I'm an atheist. I don't believe in ANY God, however you may want to redefine it to be able to say you still believe in God and keep a straight face, while knowing inside that it's an intellectually-dishonest tactic and likely done to deceive others and yourself, making you feel better. Are you sure you're not just engaging in semantics to play Pascal's Wager?).
BTW, four pages later, so are you yet able to admit why God is NOT a symbol for anything (although God CAN be symbolized by other perceptible 'things')?
Adam
-
Caedes
there are two obstacles that are currently preventing you from understanding what i am stating. you believe that i am being complicted and two, you are still seeing 'God' as a literal person in the heavens somewhere ready to dispatch angels of death to inflict punishment on the next sinner.
I have no idea what complicted means, I am going to guess that you meant to say complicated. I actually believe you are simply obfuscating. I don't see gods as anything but fiction, I was merely responding to your claim that your god is mentioned in the bible as a god of love. That specific god is exactly as I described, if you are claiming that your god is the same one mentioned in the bible then it is up to you to attempt to reconcile the murderous god of the bible with what you believe.
i am not being complex, i simply stated that 'God' is a SYMBOL. a symbol represents MANY things. that is not complex! therefore, God CAN be love, loyalty, wisdom, power, intelect, insight, why? Because these are all GOOD things, and God is also defined as good.
If you are satisfied with a god that simply means all good things then as I stated before your god is a an ephemeral god with no substance and can be discounted as having no effect on this universe. But I suspect that this is where your description of a symbolic god will fall down because your god will have to have an effect on this universe for the concept to have any meaning. After all, all the words you have used are simply description of behaviours or qualities not of substance.
When we read that God is perfect and infalliable, it cannot possibly be an old man in heaven, because you and i know that he doesnt exist due to lack of proof. Obviously then, 'God' must be something else. what? what is perfect and infalliable, indefinetely trustworthy? i argue that in this case, it is science and math, AND your mother's love (or MY mother's love).
Why must god be something else? The simple alternative is that god is a fiction. I would argue that there is nothing perfect, infallable or infinitely trustworthy.
This is possible because 'God' is a SYMBOL, representing many things. Remeber, the name attributed to God is Jehovah Yahweh, and it is suppose to mean 'I will be WHATEVER i need to be'.
Almost like a story you mean?
i used Galileo in an improper comparison. but with a very specific reason. that the current line of thought is always open to questioning and reinterpretation, as i am doing in this thread.
Funny.
After all when we talk about power, justice, wisdom and love we are talking about our (humans) power, justice, wisdom and love since those concepts were defined long before the bible was written.
here i will differ with you. can we REALLY prove that the concept of 'God' came along well after the these listed attributes? if we can't, then we should not assume it as fact. I am open to the idea that both of these concepts originate in the mind of man at about the same time.
You really need to work on your comprehension skills, I said before the bible was written. Yes, we do know that other, older civilisations had these concepts long before they were discussed in the bible. We have archeological evidence. Remember that you were the one that first started mentioning the bible in the context of your god. If you now wish to discuss a different earlier god then by all means start a new thread.
here is where you make the second mistake. you KNOW 'God' is not a literal bearded man somewhere in heaven, yet your reaction toward these accounts would indicate otherwise. You react to a SYMBOL as you would react to a literal person. Man has a tendency to do this, watching a fictitious movie can arise strong emotions in us for example.
I Know no such thing, there is a complete lack of evidence to support the idea of any sort of god. I do not KNOW there is no god.
what you are reading Caedes, are also symbols, NOT actual accounts of literal occurrences. If you don't believe me, show me proof that they actually happened.
Proof that what actually happened? Are you talking about the bible? The bible that I think is largely a work of fiction? If you are saying that you think the bible is figurative, I would ask how do differentiate between the bits that are figurative and the bits that aren't?
-
Monsieur
adam,
the topic was about what God trully is. (pointless or not) not about defining symbols (that was you.)
while knowing inside that it's an intellectually-dishonest tactic and likely done to deceive others and yourself, making you feel better. Are you sure you're not just engaging in semantics to play Pascal's Wager?).
four pages later you've circled back to your assertion that i am intellectually dishonest.
who do i decieve by stating that God is a symbol? why am i decieving myself? pleasee DO explain.
Pascal's wager unfortunately also assumes that God is a literal person in heaven dispensing punishment via thunderbolts or hell. So it's irrelivent.
-
Monsieur
caedes,
That specific god is exactly as I described, if you are claiming that your god is the same one mentioned in the bible then it is up to you to attempt to reconcile the murderous god of the bible with what you believe.
big emphasis on the word IF. God is mentioned everywhere, not just the Bible. But, in the Bible, there is a verse that says 'God is love', hence my inclusion of it.
If you are satisfied with a god that simply means all good things then as I stated before your god is a an ephemeral god with no substance and can be discounted as having no effect on this universe. But I suspect that this is where your description of a symbolic god will fall down because your god will have to have an effect on this universe for the concept to have any meaning. After all, all the words you have used are simply description of behaviours or qualities not of substance.
you suspect wrong caedes. i would not categorize math and science as having no effect on the universe or of being unsubstantial. our solar system's perfect transit alone is purely mathematical.
on a more 'down to earth' sense, i would argue that my mother's love has had an immense effect on me.
Why must god be something else? The simple alternative is that god is a fiction. I would argue that there is nothing perfect, infallable or infinitely trustworthy.
God as an angry old man in heaven is fiction. Again, math and science are not. Care to argue against mathematics? i can guarantee you that you wll lose every time.
You really need to work on your comprehension skills, I said before the bible was written. Yes, we do know that other, older civilisations had these concepts long before they were discussed in the bible. We have archeological evidence. Remember that you were the one that first started mentioning the bible in the context of your god. If you now wish to discuss a different earlier god then by all means start a new thread.
you assumed that my interpretation of 'God' was limited by the Bible. My response to you had the objective of clarifying otherwise. your comprehension skills here unfortunately failed you.
here is where you make the second mistake. you KNOW 'God' is not a literal bearded man somewhere in heaven, yet your reaction toward these accounts would indicate otherwise. You react to a SYMBOL as you would react to a literal person. Man has a tendency to do this, watching a fictitious movie can arise strong emotions in us for example.
I Know no such thing, there is a complete lack of evidence to support the idea of any sort of god.
for starters, there is plenty of love in the world to go around.
I do not KNOW there is no god.
here adam would say 'you cannot use TWO negatives in the same sentence.'
If you are saying that you think the bible is figurative, I would ask how do differentiate between the bits that are figurative and the bits that aren't?
this is rather very simple to do.
what did REALISTICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY, actually happen. Apply this rule to the various bits, and the answer becomes obvious.
-
adamah
Monsieur said-
the topic was about what God trully is. (pointless or not) not about defining symbols (that was you.)
Yeah, since you misused the term 'symbol' in order to engage in the predicted and tiresome game you like to play, namely refining God to be whatever you want him to be, eg:
When we read that God is perfect and infalliable, it cannot possibly be an old man in heaven, because you and i know that he doesnt exist due to lack of proof. Obviously then, 'God' must be something else. what? what is perfect and infalliable, indefinetely trustworthy? i argue that in this case, it is science and math, AND your mother's love (or MY mother's love).
See, science and math ALREADY have names, so calling them 'God' is only going to be redundant and unneccessary (and just think of all the textbooks that will have to be reprinted, to accommodate your change!)
Monsieur said-
Pascal's wager unfortunately also assumes that God is a literal person in heaven dispensing punishment via thunderbolts or hell. So it's irrelivent.
You're kidding, right? You've said that a couple of times now, so it can't be a mistake. Virtually NO ONE (I'm leaving room for you) thinks of God as being a "literal person"?
Perhaps you meant to say a 'REAL ENTITY' or the like, then you need to account for the roughly 4 BILLION believers Worldwide who profess a belief in some form of a God. THEY believe God is REAL, and is able to exert influence on the World.
Words mean what they actually mean, and someone who hasn't even learned what their current definitions are is going to have a hard time convincing others to change their current meanings.
I'd advise reviewing some of the basic concepts of perception, communication, linguistics, literary devices, etc, since no offense, but you are only trying to reinvent the wheel, forging paths where the questions have been answered a long ago by others, but you're simply unaware of their work.
Adam
-
Monsieur
adam
Words mean what they actually mean, and someone who hasn't even learned what their current definitions are is going to have a hard time convincing others to change their current meanings.
God is attributed with being omnipresent, all powerfull, all knowing.
This pretty much means (correct me if im wrong) that God can be pretty much ANYTHING, or am i wrong??
I didn't stick these attributes on God yesterday, adam. 'God' has had them, well since forever.