strongvoicesforward
I'm back.
- Messages
- 1,289
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- The primordial soup
Mars Man said:
lol. Oh... the art of subtle insult.
Btw, good to see you again, too, Mars Man-san!
-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Religion Was the "Virgin" Mary unfaithful ?
- Thread starter strongvoicesforward
- Start date
lol. Oh... the art of subtle insult.
Btw, good to see you again, too, Mars Man-san!
Hi again Mikawa san ! I was seeing things along that line--though not worrying about the act so much. I think that if we were to amplify those questions in light of how those prime constituents (subjects and objects) were understood by the questioner, it would probably read something like this: (likely amplified reading)
Did [an entity which I do not believe to exist or to have existed as described and identified by a collection of writings which I believe to be untrue] commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating [a woman who was said to have been the mother of the personage who (as described, portrayed, and identified by the same above writings which I do not accept as true) I do not believe in]?
For easier reading: Did [A] commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating ? Where A=the first set of brackets and B= the second set of brackets including parenthesis.
Taking a deep, long, serious look into the logic of those questions in light of the declared negation of the very prime constituents involved in, and determining the meaning of the questions, it seems to me to be quite obvious that they are meaningless.
Strongvoicesforward san, thanks for that comment there, it caused a connection which I hadn't thought of yet flash up in my mind--a connection that may help me explain this other matter to you more concretely.
The set loaded question and the set insult intersect at set intention. The intention of the mind from which a statement comes is the true determiner of the intention born in that same statement. The reciever of that statement, weather second person or third relative to the originator, may only have at least two ways to interpret the intention involved--first person testimony or circumstantial evidence tied to first person.
In otherwords, if a statement is actually an insult, depends solely on the intention of the speaker/writer. If a question is loaded or not, likewise depends on the intention of the speaker/writer. Neither depend on the reciever.
Now, I could be wrong somewhere here, and would hope that if I am, someone would kindly point it out to me--otherwise, I think this is a secure understanding on the matter.
Did [an entity which I do not believe to exist or to have existed as described and identified by a collection of writings which I believe to be untrue] commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating [a woman who was said to have been the mother of the personage who (as described, portrayed, and identified by the same above writings which I do not accept as true) I do not believe in]?
For easier reading: Did [A] commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating ? Where A=the first set of brackets and B= the second set of brackets including parenthesis.
Taking a deep, long, serious look into the logic of those questions in light of the declared negation of the very prime constituents involved in, and determining the meaning of the questions, it seems to me to be quite obvious that they are meaningless.
Strongvoicesforward san, thanks for that comment there, it caused a connection which I hadn't thought of yet flash up in my mind--a connection that may help me explain this other matter to you more concretely.
The set loaded question and the set insult intersect at set intention. The intention of the mind from which a statement comes is the true determiner of the intention born in that same statement. The reciever of that statement, weather second person or third relative to the originator, may only have at least two ways to interpret the intention involved--first person testimony or circumstantial evidence tied to first person.
In otherwords, if a statement is actually an insult, depends solely on the intention of the speaker/writer. If a question is loaded or not, likewise depends on the intention of the speaker/writer. Neither depend on the reciever.
Now, I could be wrong somewhere here, and would hope that if I am, someone would kindly point it out to me--otherwise, I think this is a secure understanding on the matter.
Last edited:
strongvoicesforward
I'm back.
- Messages
- 1,289
- Reaction score
- 23
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- The primordial soup
Tsuyoiko said:
Are you or Nurizeko saying Joseph and Mary were not betrothed and in fact Married at the time she discovered she was pregnant?
If so then just come out and say the Bible is in error on that point. I will accept that.
You still haven`t addressed the point that Mary is lying about her stating she is a virgin, for she says she has not known a man. If Nurizeko is right and you are supporting his view, which I don`t mind, then I geuss Mary is making a statement that is a lie or the story is being made up by someone not very good at weaving a story without holes in it.
Either answer is fine with me.
P.S. :blush: "Alone" is bad - whether there was Maria the virgin or father of Jesus - it was Joseph... - what attitude has to Jesus Christ?... Unless His Doctrine from it began others?... And "alone" is good - lifting these questions - we try to understand, that there are we and our belief...:angel: