Originally posted by FreakyKBH
First off, ouch. Secondly, the dictionary is only helpful if one knows how to spell the word in the first place. I know perfectly well how to spell most of the words that I use: it's my fingers who refuse to abide by the same rules.

Now, more to the point. Common usage/understanding notwithstanding, as v pointed out, your list of words find their mea ...[text shortened]... inglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.

That being said, these aspects of human existence transcend the same to find their meaning from source(s) outside of the human experience--- so much so, that without an understanding of their source, the words would eventually devolve into meaninglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.

???

Or, rather:

(1) That being said, these aspects of human existence transcend the same to find their meaning from source(s) outside of the human experience

???

—Sign (signifier + signified) and referent. No inherent need for the signified to entail an actual referent (e.g., hobbits), nor for the referent to “transcend” human experience. Your assertion is analogous to claiming that earthly language, to have meaning, must have some alien (extra-terrestrial) source, simply expanding that to an extra-cosmic source.

(2) ...so much so, that without an understanding of their [presumably experience-transcendent] source, the words would eventually devolve into meaninglessness:

???

—This question, of course refers to the same experience-transcendent claim as (1), hence my bracketed addition. I am not suggesting that language does not derive meaning from natural experience.

(3) ...isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.

???

—I’m not sure there can be a language “endemic to but one person.”

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
First off, ouch. Secondly, the dictionary is only helpful if one knows how to spell the word in the first place. I know perfectly well how to spell most of the words that I use: it's my fingers who refuse to abide by the same rules.

Now, more to the point. Common usage/understanding notwithstanding, as v pointed out, your list of words find their mea ...[text shortened]... inglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.

Secondly, the dictionary is only helpful if one knows how to spell the word in the first place.

Nonsense. Even in a printed dictionary, it is easy enough to try plausible alternate spellings. Online, m-w.com has this great feature that suggests alternate spellings.

I know perfectly well how to spell most of the words that I use: it's my fingers who refuse to abide by the same rules.

Normally, I don't play the grammar or spelling Nazi, but it strikes me as funny when certain words, like "uninformed" or "illiterate" or "ignorant", are misspelled.

Now, more to the point. Common usage/understanding notwithstanding, as v pointed out, your list of words find their meaning by virtue of their association with concepts of human existence. That being said, these aspects of human existence transcend the same to find their meaning from source(s) outside of the human experience--- so much so, that without an understanding of their source, the words would eventually devolve into meaninglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.

When Christians use the words I have listed in their Bizarro-form, the meaning they apply does not transcend the original meaning of the word, it replaces it with something completely alien, or flatly contradictory, to any of its 'human-experience' based meanings. I can accept that there are many plausible definitions of a word like 'love'. What trips me up is when a word is given contradictory definitions.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Really?
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very p ...[text shortened]... same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
(Romans 9:14-21, emp. added).

Of coarse there are two ways of looking at the issue. One way is to say that God causes our belief/disbelief by showing mercy to some but not others, thus we choose him based upon such mercy shown or withheld. God simply looks at our hearts and judges at that time who to show mercy to and who not to show mercy to. Another way of looking at it, however, is that his showing mercy on some but not others has no bearing on whether we believe or disbelieve in the end, rather, it is simply an adjunct to our free will that God knows beforehand.

I guess the real issue is free will. Could it exist if God has formed us and is able to effect our lives on earth? For an all powerful God the answer must be yes no matter how unfathomable it may be to us. Otherwise it would be akin to God playing tic tac toe with himself mindlessly.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Obviously the cult of the flying spaghetti monster is the worst of all religions, because it so blatantly lays bare the hypocrisy and stupidity of all other faiths.

I think this is precisely what makes it the best religion!

Originally posted by The Dude 84
I think this is precisely what makes it the best religion!

Personally, I think the Stripper Factory and Beer Volcano make it the best religion, but that's just me.....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Personally, I think the Stripper Factory and Beer Volcano make it the best religion, but that's just me.....

That's only in heaven though...I go to sleep at night terrified I'll live an eternal existence of flat, warm, American beer!

Stripper factories would rank among the best inventions up there with telephones and the internet if they didn't produce strippers with VD. They should get recalled like the lead filled toys in China.

Originally posted by vistesd
That being said, these aspects of human existence transcend the same to find their meaning from source(s) outside of the human experience--- so much so, that without an understanding of their source, the words would eventually devolve into meaninglessness: isolated and restricted to self-application, a language endemic to but one person.

???

Or, ra ...[text shortened]... but one person.[/b]

???

—I’m not sure there can be a language “endemic to but one person.”[/b]

Your assertion is analogous to claiming that earthly language, to have meaning, must have some alien (extra-terrestrial) source, simply expanding that to an extra-cosmic source.
In a sense, yes. However, as it applies to these specific concepts, absolutely.

I am not suggesting that language does not derive meaning from natural experience.
Nor am I erecting restrictions to the same. I believe that some concepts can only be based on the transcendent truth.

—I’m not sure there can be a language “endemic to but one person.”
Tell that to Tolkien!