You made a claim about nouns. My response used many examples of nouns which seem not to meet your claim. One might expect that there would be at least an attempt to show that those examples do meet your claim.
For example, Utopia has no physicality. A Penrose triangle has no effects, let alone measured or quantified.
You used the nouns “realm”", “authority”.and “physicality”. Can you measure them? Do they have physicallty? Is there any proof of them?
2 Likes
I cannot answer this without descending to your level of assertion about right and wrong. Clearly I do not agree with your view but unless either one of us considers themselves superior or in possession of “The Truth” (whatever that might be) then any answer will be a personal belief.
So, with the caveat that this is how I view it, and as such has no more or less validation than your view:
Sin is a clarifier. It is a quality. As such it has no for or expression other than as a description of an action or thought.
Sin (As a noun) is a shortened form of “sinful action or thought” It cannot be used without reference to one or the other…
Sin (as a verb) is the shortened form of “to commit a sinful action or thought” again without the action or thought it is meaningless.
In religious context, sin is a transgression against divine law or a law of the deities.[1] Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. While sins are generally considered actions, any thought, word, or act (Wiki)
If you look up sin in a dictionary it will describe its use as a noun in the same manner. So “technically” sin is not a noun in its own right.
In Scripture that is how it is used.
This action was a sin. Do not sin (commit a sin) again. The understanding is clear. Sin has no form or expression but is expressed as an action or thought.
That is my view and as an individual I do not have to change it. On the same basis you do not have to agree with it (and almost certainly will not). But, as a view it is neither right nor wrong in comparison with yours or any other.
Richard
Edit
Grammatically it is a compound noun
Thanks for clarifying the message that I wrote in a hurry.
Yes, whether the loss of species from an ecosystem is bad or not is a value-judgement. Loose enough of species and you risk also the wellfare or even survival of humans in the area. It is also a value-judgement if the humans have value.
Christianity gives value to humans while all philosophies do not. I would claim that classic Christianity gives also value to the other species because they are part of the creation that God made, like humans. Sadly, many Christians act in ways that do not respect the creation of God. This is becoming more evident as wars, economical issues and other short-term problems dominate the public discussion. Many believers seem to think that attempts to save the creation or the world of the future generations should be postponed until the acute economical and other short-term issues have been solved. That is problematic because there will always be problems in human societies, so if we wait until the short-term problems are solved, we will never invest in solving the longer-term problems. Future generations will not thank us.
2 Likes
Dinosaurs are not entire ecosystems, so that is not the question at hand.
However, to answer your different question, if extinctions occur naturally, i.e., not as the result of overexploitation by humans, I don’t put a value judgment on it, either good or bad…its just what nature does, out of our control.
3 Likes
Just to follow up, I have constructed this sentence which uses several common English nouns, used in an ordinary sense, but which do not make reference, even to non-existent, impossible, vague or abstractions (philosophical. theological. mathematical). The example sentence is
“For that matter, of course, a lot of them would not take, for the sake of difference, or to be on the safe side, such a sort of way.”
The designated nouns being: “matter”, “course”, “lot”, “sake”, “side”, and maybe “way”.
These are, IMHO, examples where the conventional, semantic description of nouns as names of persons, places or things, or as having reference, but are nouns in the grammatical sense, functioning syntactically.
1 Like
Nouns do not have to be objects – that is a grammar-school white lie to get the concept started. Indeed our most important nouns are not objects: excellence, fear, respect, liberty, beauty, etc.
I got jumped on for using the example of a light on the control board of a passenger jet – the very thing that brought down on jet once, a bulb with a cost less than the price of a cup of coffee – not because we know what species are critical but because we don’t, so we should be careful of all of them. I was called a “dirty ecofreak” for suggesting that all species are valuable.
Excrementum – he gave examples.
Did you even read what he wrote?
That is far, far better, than your claim to be able to redefine anything you please so you can be right.
Grammar is what it is. It isn’t established by opinion, it is established by how language works. All you’re doing is whining, “I don’t want to do it that way!” and objecting to reality.
How you understand sin is one thing. Denying the rules of grammar to do so is not legitimate. To take from one of your posts, I could say that the rule about proper nouns is just subjective, and insist that I can refer to you as richard, no upper case letter needed.
He said no such thing. Please try actually reading what was written! Changing what was said to fit one of your subjective categories is disrespectful.
A single word cannot be a compound noun. “Sin” is a single word, and is only part of a compound if an adjective precedes it, e.g. “egregious sin”, “intentional sin” – and it is the noun component of such a compound, not the adjectival component.
1 Like
I will not bother to pursue this. You have a closed mind. You seem to know everything about everything except humility.
Enjoy your conceit. I will not trouble you at this time and place.
Richard
Uncountable nouns are used less often in English, and they:
- Are abstract ideas, qualities, or masses that can’t be separated and counted individually
Excellance, Beauty, respect are uncountable nouns
That is they have no form so cannot be counted.
Of course someone (mentioning no names) will tell me that you can count the number of sins someone doe. But, that is not the only way sin is used or understood
Whe used as an action, sin is understood like a compound noun inasmuch as it has two parts but convention makes the second word absent.that answers “What is a sin?”
When you ask “What is the nature of sin?” Then the word is uncountable because there is no form.
However all I am "proving! is that linguistic rules are not as easy to define in terms of usage…
We know what we mean and understand, but others may see it differently
Richard
God used evolution to allow man to justify their unbelief in God. It hijacks the creation story, distorts the science, and takes away the need of the Creator. It is the grandest Tower of Babel for it puts man on top of God and His Word. It enables Christians to participate in science and be part of the academic establishment without carrying their cross defending real science. Although many of these individuals mean well, they fail to be the true light, defending real science, in the academic world.
That is cynicism at its height (or depth) and a rather dim view of God.
I thought that the notion of fossils and such being a misdirection had been dismissed years ago.
Christianity does not have to bow to science but it does have to acknowledge it and the intent behind it,
Richard
God does few things instantaneously or directly. Instead, He acts over a period of time, through processes that make use of things in the world He created. Nearly every example of God interacting with His creation in all of the Bible takes this approach, and it is one that is consistent with creation that was imperfect in its original state.
Many of the miracles recorded in Scripture are, upon closer examination, the result of some type of process which was not merely a matter of God imposing Himself on the material world, but actually using the material world to accomplish His goal. Many of the plagues that Moses foretold would come upon Pharaoh were of this sort, insects and animals and disease and bad weather. The parting of the Red Sea took all night and was accomplished through a “strong east wind” (Exodus 14:21). While wandering in the desert, God punished those Israelites who complained about the journey and the lack of food and water by sending snakes to bite and poison them (Numbers 21:6). In each of these cases, God used a process that recruited the material world into His actions rather than acting more directly to address the issue by Himself.
3 Likes
That post is a bit confusing. Are you saying God really did use evolution? Are you implying that the creation story is not accurate if read literally? What is “real science”, and how does it differ from the science used by biologists?
1 Like
“Hijacks the creation story”? It doesn’t affect it one way or another.
“Distorts the science”? No more than cosmology or the favorite around here, meteorology.
“…puts man on top of God and His Word”? Not possible; science can’t measure God or His Word, so it can’t put man anywhere in relation to Him that man isn’t already.
Evolution is real science – it is observed fact. How exactly it happens is studied no differently than the study of how glaciers behave or galaxies form.
3 Likes
What and you think that this text is referring to uniformatarianisms assumptions about the age of the earth?
For a person who subsceibes ro the notion the bible isnt a scientific textbook, it is intereeting thst you them take a philosophical biblical statemnt and turn it intk a historical evidence that conflicts with not only the first 11 chapters of Genesis, but also conflict with almost a dozen genealogy accounts in subsequent books of the bible right up to the New Testament book of Luke!
Look them all up the biblical internal consistency in its own history record is overwhelming.
One cannot claim the lineages in the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegory or metaphorical…and this causes huge problems for Old Age Earth Christians.
I am sorry, but after you last post I am not going to try and explain anything. It would be a waste of time.
Richard
Richard, you really need to start taking notice of why you are getting hammered from all sides of these forums about immature responses.
People here are not seeking child schoolyard brawls with unintellectual “dummyspit posts”.
You are smarter than this and im dissapointed mainly because in the past, some of your posts on these forums i have found inspiring and i have learned a great deal from them. Its almost as if the individual posting under your name is someone else…a young teenager?
Rather than suggest your account has been hacked, ill just go with you are frustrated . You dont have the appropriate answers which lead to said frustrated responses.
But only when they do not conflict with your views,
I cannot argue with your level of self assurance and conviction. .
Anyone who can claim what God must do is beyond me.
(As in He must judge and He must punish)
But I will throw you a bone
How could Jesus forgive sins before His crucifixion and without the recipients obeying the sacrificial laws of Judaism?
Richard
Edit.
Perhaps you have never encountered a Christian who does not argue using Scripture?
I can understand the doubtful attitude towards those Christians who tell what God thinks.
God is beyond our understanding and His ideas and plans are above our understanding.
In this situation, we can only know about the will of God through what He has revealed to us. Biblical scriptures have been generally accepted among Christians as trustworthy teachings about the will of God. If we accept the claim that these writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be accepted as a standard of our teachings, then we should accept what the scriptures claim is the will of God or the teachings of Jesus Christ. If we do not accept the teachings in the canonical scriptures, what kind of ruler or standard should we use instead?
There remains the issue of the interpretation of the scriptures. Even if we respect what the biblical scriptures teach, we may disagree about the correct interpretation. In such disagreements, we should tell why my interpretation differs from what you claim - justify our claims. Without sufficient justification, our opinions remain just as personal opinions that have no more value than the billions of other opinions among the global humanity.
2 Likes
The problem is not my use of Scripture but the way many Christians use it and their dogmatism of what it says or means.
I learned long ,long ago that it is pointless to “argue” with such people. They will never accept any view or meaning other than theirs and automatically respond with a list of “pet” citations (which are in their eyes irrefutable)
Arguing Scripture against Scripture is never a good idea. Even if you do not believe in inerrancy it still suggests a vulnerability that can damage faith
Of course if you refuse to argue with Scripture you are disbelievig or claiming superiority over it!
Ah well. Ces la vis.
Richard.