Page 69 of 79 FirstFirst ... 19596768697071 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 787

Thread: Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

  1. #681
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    My tendency is to try to use words as they are conventionally defined.

    Spiritual: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL (Merriam Webster).
    In philosophy, theology, and generally any sort of specialized field, it's fairly common to find word usage which doesn't comport with colloquial usage. For example, I talk a lot about mathematics. If I'm talking about a "sexy prime," I'm not discussing numbers to which I am physically attracted.

    This is compounded even further when talking about a translation of a philosophical or theological work from another language; and further still when that language has been dead for centuries.

    While the spiritual and physical have often been suggested to coexist - they are not equivalent. What is being suggested by Seer is a physical body that is spiritual, not a physical body that coexists with the spiritual. The latter would be no different than any other body. The former is an oxymoron, AFAICT.
    As this is one of those cases where we are discussing specialized-field terminology used in translation of a dead language, if you don't understand how the words can be utilized in conjunct, it is appropriate to ask the other person what they mean by those words rather than insisting upon your own preferred definition. If that person's definitions are particularly out of phase with common usage, you might wonder why the person chose those particular words, but as long as they are consistent and not equivocating between usages I don't see any issue.

    For example, I've used "psychic" and "pneumatic" body to translate Paul, here. But these are obviously out of phase with the modern, common understandings of the words "psychic" and "pneumatic." In fact, when I say "psychic body" in this context, I mean almost precisely the opposite of what a normal modern English speaker usually means when using the term "psychic." I've chosen to use that word as it is the modern English cognate for the ancient Greek ψυχικόν, despite the fact that the definitions are so vastly out of sync.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  2. #682
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,119
    Amen (Given)
    2269
    Amen (Received)
    1759
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    In philosophy, theology, and generally any sort of specialized field, it's fairly common to find word usage which doesn't comport with colloquial usage. For example, I talk a lot about mathematics. If I'm talking about a "sexy prime," I'm not discussing numbers to which I am physically attracted.

    This is compounded even further when talking about a translation of a philosophical or theological work from another language; and further still when that language has been dead for centuries.

    As this is one of those cases where we are discussing specialized-field terminology used in translation of a dead language, if you don't understand how the words can be utilized in conjunct, it is appropriate to ask the other person what they mean by those words rather than insisting upon your own preferred definition. If that person's definitions are particularly out of phase with common usage, you might wonder why the person chose those particular words, but as long as they are consistent and not equivocating between usages I don't see any issue.

    For example, I've used "psychic" and "pneumatic" body to translate Paul, here. But these are obviously out of phase with the modern, common understandings of the words "psychic" and "pneumatic." In fact, when I say "psychic body" in this context, I mean almost precisely the opposite of what a normal modern English speaker usually means when using the term "psychic." I've chosen to use that word as it is the modern English cognate for the ancient Greek ψυχικόν, despite the fact that the definitions are so vastly out of sync.
    Pneuma is the word for spirit, right. So how is it wrong to translate Pauls words to mean a spiritual resurrection, rather than a physical resurrection?

  3. #683
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,544
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    1418
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    In philosophy, theology, and generally any sort of specialized field, it's fairly common to find word usage which doesn't comport with colloquial usage. For example, I talk a lot about mathematics. If I'm talking about a "sexy prime," I'm not discussing numbers to which I am physically attracted.

    This is compounded even further when talking about a translation of a philosophical or theological work from another language; and further still when that language has been dead for centuries.

    As this is one of those cases where we are discussing specialized-field terminology used in translation of a dead language, if you don't understand how the words can be utilized in conjunct, it is appropriate to ask the other person what they mean by those words rather than insisting upon your own preferred definition.
    It's not "my own preferred definition," BP. It's one of many similar dictionary definitions, which means it is the definition commonly used. I didn't just "make it up."

    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    If that person's definitions are particularly out of phase with common usage, you might wonder why the person chose those particular words, but as long as they are consistent and not equivocating between usages I don't see any issue.
    Except that how words are conventionally used is the basis for how we communicate. If someone uses a word in a manner that is not aligned with common parlance, I suggest it is on them to clarify their meaning. If they don't, then the common usage meaning will be assumed and there will be a miscommunication.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    For example, I've used "psychic" and "pneumatic" body to translate Paul, here. But these are obviously out of phase with the modern, common understandings of the words "psychic" and "pneumatic." In fact, when I say "psychic body" in this context, I mean almost precisely the opposite of what a normal modern English speaker usually means when using the term "psychic." I've chosen to use that word as it is the modern English cognate for the ancient Greek ψυχικόν, despite the fact that the definitions are so vastly out of sync.
    Then you are inviting miscommunication.

    I suggest you either use different terminology, or you use descriptions of the concepts that provide a clearer sense of what you mean. Meanwhile, I am left with two terms that don't fit together and no clue what either one of you are talking about - because the terms being used are oxymoronic in the way they are being used.

    ETA: This entire discussion is one I have with my wife fairly often. She seems to be under the impression, often, that it is the recipient of the communication that bears the burden for successful communication. While it is true that the recipient needs to be open to the communication, it is the person who wishes to communicate something that bears the burden for ensuring that their communication is successful. If they do not - then the communication will likely not succeed.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-09-2020 at 06:46 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  4. #684
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    It's not "my own preferred definition," BP. It's one of many similar dictionary definitions, which means it is the definition commonly used. I didn't just "make it up."
    I never accused you of making it up. I said that you prefer it. The fact that it came from the dictionary doesn't change that.

    Except that how words are conventionally used is the basis for how we communicate. If someone uses a word in a manner that is not aligned with common parlance, I suggest it is on them to clarify their meaning. If they don't, then the common usage meaning will be assumed and there will be a miscommunication.
    I actually agree, here. However, there were whole pages of our discussing precisely what Paul means by σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν which had already clarified that we were discussing two different types of physical bodies prior to your insistence that "spiritual" must mean "non-physical."

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Pneuma is the word for spirit, right. So how is it wrong to translate Pauls words to mean a spiritual resurrection, rather than a physical resurrection?
    As mentioned earlier in the discussion, πνευμα did not imply any sort of non-physicality to the Greek speakers of Paul's time and earlier. Quite the contrary, πνευμα was a physical substance, just a different sort of substance than that which composes our current bodies.
    Last edited by Boxing Pythagoras; 05-09-2020 at 07:29 PM.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  5. #685
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,119
    Amen (Given)
    2269
    Amen (Received)
    1759
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    I never accused you of making it up. I said that you prefer it. The fact that it came from the dictionary doesn't change that.

    I actually agree, here. However, there were whole pages of our discussing precisely what Paul means by σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν which had already clarified that we were discussing two different types of physical bodies prior to your insistence that "spiritual" must mean "non-physical."

    As mentioned earlier in the discussion, πνευμα did not imply any sort of non-physicality to the Greek speakers of Paul's time and earlier. Quite the contrary, πνευμα was a physical substance, just a different sort of substance than that which composes our current bodies.
    Thats a bit of a distinction without a difference, wouldn't you say? It's still not the material/physical body, it's what we would call immaterial, or non physical, which is what we usually refer to as spirit, and the spirit which is defined as that which moves the physical body, is not a kind of material/physical substance. Or is it your contention that Paul was suggesting that the spirit associated with the physical body, is a physical substance itself, just a different kind of physical substance.
    Last edited by JimL; 05-09-2020 at 09:15 PM.

  6. #686
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,279
    Amen (Given)
    2627
    Amen (Received)
    1923
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    False, that is not what it says. The mortal body is not lost or destroyed it is transformed. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

    What is the it that is raised here?
    The “IT” that is raised here is NOT the “natural body” it is the ‘spiritual body’. “For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things". It was the 'spiritual body' of Christ which was experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus AND for those he lists in 1 Corinthians 15: "he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

    For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as Christ was”.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  8. #687
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Thats a bit of a distinction without a difference, wouldn't you say? It's still not the material/physical body, it's what we would call immaterial, or non physical, which is what we usually refer to as spirit, and the spirit which is defined as that which moves the physical body, is not a kind of material/physical substance. Or is it your contention that Paul was suggesting that the spirit associated with the physical body, is a physical substance itself, just a different kind of physical substance.
    It is, indeed, my contention that Paul thought the πνευμα is a physical substance, itself. I don't believe that Paul was suggesting the σῶμα πνευματικόν was a non-physical body. Honestly, Paul would likely have thought that the idea of a non-physical body was completely incoherent.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  9. #688
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,119
    Amen (Given)
    2269
    Amen (Received)
    1759
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    It is, indeed, my contention that Paul thought the πνευμα is a physical substance, itself. I don't believe that Paul was suggesting the σῶμα πνευματικόν was a non-physical body. Honestly, Paul would likely have thought that the idea of a non-physical body was completely incoherent.
    So, are you suggesting you believe that what Paul meant by spirit was that we have a different kind of physical (spirit) body within our physical (material) body.

  10. #689
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    So, are you suggesting you believe that what Paul meant by spirit was that we have a different kind of physical (spirit) body within our physical (material) body.
    I think you are confusing two completely separate things, here. The resurrected body is a σῶμα πνευματικόν, a pneumatic body. That doesn't imply that the only πνευμα is that which composes a resurrected body. That said, I do indeed think that Paul would say that the πνευμα which dwells within is a physical thing, too.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  11. #690
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    27,865
    Amen (Given)
    2194
    Amen (Received)
    5770
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The “IT” that is raised here is NOT the “natural body” it is the ‘spiritual body’. “For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things". It was the 'spiritual body' of Christ which was experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus AND for those he lists in 1 Corinthians 15: "he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

    For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as Christ was”.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/
    Again Tass, I'm not denying that it is a spiritual body but the spiritual includes the physical (the mortal made immortal). There are not different its here, the it that is the natural body is made the it that is the spiritual. You link Ehrman, but he agrees with me.


    My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it. Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians is NOT, decidedly not, to argue that Jesus really was raised from the dead physically. That is the view that he accepts as OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians. I say this because some people have claimed that 1 Corinthians 15 is the chapter where Paul tries to prove Jesus resurrection. That’s not true at all. He USES the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection – a belief he shares with his readers – in order to argue a different point, about their OWN resurrection. His point is that since Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection (which the Corinthians agree on), then their own resurrection will as well be bodily. Which means it is not simply spiritual.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/



    Glorifying a body is different from replacing a body (for an example of a glorified body, see the traditions about Jesus’ Transfiguration)

    When Paul says “we shall all be changed” (1 Cor. 15:51) he does *not* say “we will all shed our bodies.” The body is transformed/changed, not abandoned.

    In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, it is the same person, the bodily Jesus, who dies, is buried, is raised, and who appeared to other, including Paul.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-thin...-july-14-2017/
    Last edited by seer; 05-10-2020 at 02:56 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •