Fundamentalist Christian?

[Eddiesilence]

Deanne, with respect, I pride myself in being able to unravel the most convoluted points, and seeing through the most opaque language. I still can't see through yours. What is your point?

[Guest Deanne65]

Science keeps itself in check don't worry about that. Fundamentalist religious groups don't.

I would disagree: science is not intrinsically self correcting. Science is, ideally, a morally neutral enterprise, but I believe that if one examines the history of science, it will be made manifestingly clear that it is men (and women) who do the science. Science does not occur in a vacuum; it is informed by moral, political and social values and norms. Such a truism presents a challenge for any science claiming itself to be dispassionately concerned with "truths".

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[trebor]

im proper out of me depth in this forum anyways but just thought i'd say my grammar education aint worth a toss here . its like trying to read something from the scientologists

[Archangel]

However, in no small way, the Fundamentalists, and Christian "cults", do inform politics and social issues, to a point., but mostly peripherally.

America and most of the developed world were built on religious cults, that originated in Israel. The majority of congress are Christian god fearing bible believers, as are all western leaders to my knowledge. (Though most dont publicise it, Blair for example, but American leaders always end their speeches with god blesses us or some cultist brainwashing bullshit)

The inclusion of "In God We Trust" on all U.S currency was required by law in 1955...cultish much?

Religious fundamentalism is still the dominant controlling force on this planet its science thats peripheral, but things are changing and the sooner the better.

Even science cant explain science, so we'll remain mad with confusion for the foreseeable...

Edited February 8, 2010 by Archangel

[Arbuscule]

Deanne, with respect, I pride myself in being able to unravel the most convoluted points, and seeing through the most opaque language. I still can't see through yours. What is your point?

me too Eddie mate, I'm well baffled Derrida etc're easy by comparison. C'mon Deanne, again with respect, I'd like to figure out what you're saying :wink:

[sam-i-am]

Just one small question Deanne.

Are the seeds you use packed by hand or machine?

[Guest Deanne65]

Deanne, with respect, I pride myself in being able to unravel the most convoluted points, and seeing through the most opaque language. I still can't see through yours. What is your point?

me too Eddie mate, I'm well baffled Derrida etc're easy by comparison. C'mon Deanne, again with respect, I'd like to figure out what you're saying :wink:

There is no "understanding" me. Take your cue from Derrida, and deconstruct what you so deem necessary. Like a rich ore mine, there is some working over to do, to get to the mother lode. Oh, yes, I realized-and rather late, as I was stoned beforehand-that my first reply to the thread was rather non sequitur! However, and rather fortuitously, a whole new can of worms was opened up!

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[Guest Deanne65]

However, in no small way, the Fundamentalists, and Christian "cults", do inform politics and social issues, to a point., but mostly peripherally.

America and most of the developed world were built on religious cults, that originated in Israel. The majority of congress are Christian god fearing bible believers, as are all western leaders to my knowledge. (Though most dont publicise it, Blair for example, but American leaders always end their speeches with god blesses us or some cultist brainwashing bullshit)

The inclusion of "In God We Trust" on all U.S currency was required by law in 1955...cultish much?

Religious fundamentalism is still the dominant controlling force on this planet its science thats peripheral, but things are changing and the sooner the better.

Even science cant explain science, so we'll remain mad with confusion for the foreseeable...

You are right, that Christianity does inform politics, as you have made abundantly clear. The British mightt have a better impression of America, by way of The Guardian, than by any American newspaper.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[Arnold Layne]

I've ploughed through Calvin, both his commentaries and the Institutes; I've read and studied John Owen and I've studied puritan theology in depth. Despite the density of their words I managed it. But Deanne, your posts have me beat, full stop. You redefine the word "incomprehensible".

[Arbuscule]

Deanne, with respect, I pride myself in being able to unravel the most convoluted points, and seeing through the most opaque language. I still can't see through yours. What is your point?

me too Eddie mate, I'm well baffled Derrida etc're easy by comparison. C'mon Deanne, again with respect, I'd like to figure out what you're saying

There is no "understanding" me. Take your cue from Derrida, and deconstruct what you so deem necessary. Like a rich ore mine, there is some working over to do, to get to the mother lode. Oh, yes, I realized-and rather late, as I was stoned beforehand-that my first reply to the thread was rather non sequitur! However, and rather fortuitously, a whole new can of worms was opened up!

Hiya Deanne

I fully appreciate the limits of 'understanding' and like Arnie above I've been on my hermenuetical jaunts. Trouble is, I need convincingthat there is indeed a 'rich ore mine' to be uncovered - there's few things in life I deem necessary. Life's so short man - 'understanding' posts on 420 isn't at the top of the list.

Still nice to see another critical theory head about though Be well man

e2a - origonal post, um yeah - Tracey's still barking. Partly she's a predictable product of her environment, but how come there's peeps from round there (presumably) who don't share her bigoted views. That's more of a puzzle, the invisible non-players in the debate who don't go with the flow of the majority

To account for Tracey and her views needs more than environment in my view. It's at least environment plus a dollop of pig-shit thick ignorance, maybe as a conseqence of fuc*ed up genes through inbreeding.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Arbuscule

[Guest Deanne65]

Deanne, with respect, I pride myself in being able to unravel the most convoluted points, and seeing through the most opaque language. I still can't see through yours. What is your point?

me too Eddie mate, I'm well baffled Derrida etc're easy by comparison. C'mon Deanne, again with respect, I'd like to figure out what you're saying

There is no "understanding" me. Take your cue from Derrida, and deconstruct what you so deem necessary. Like a rich ore mine, there is some working over to do, to get to the mother lode. Oh, yes, I realized-and rather late, as I was stoned beforehand-that my first reply to the thread was rather non sequitur! However, and rather fortuitously, a whole new can of worms was opened up!

Hiya Deanne

I fully appreciate the limits of 'understanding' and like Arnie above I've been on my hermenuetical jaunts. Trouble is, I need convincingthat there is indeed a 'rich ore mine' to be uncovered - there's few things in life I deem necessary. Life's so short man - 'understanding' posts on 420 isn't at the top of the list.

Still nice to see another critical theory head about though Be well man

e2a - origonal post, um yeah - Tracey's still barking. Partly she's a predictable product of her environment, but how come there's peeps from round there (presumably) who don't share her bigoted views. That's more of a puzzle, the invisible non-players in the debate who don't go with the flow of the majority

To account for Tracey and her views needs more than environment in my view. It's at least environment plus a dollop of pig-shit thick ignorance, maybe as a conseqence of fuc*ed up genes through inbreeding.

Hermeneutics: the use of knowledge in realizing further knowledge? This is not opacity of writing that is the problem. Perhaps if I'd availed myself to stick to one particular point, rather than meandering to and fro, this pandemic of confusion might have been prevented. One salient point in all this is the clash of world views: between the secular and the religious. Moreover, both religious and scientific ideologies have a way of refracting social, political, and moral questions. Religions, more or less, frame-and construe-mankind as moral; science, as it is deployed in a scientistic and reductive fashion, frames man as determined; morality-for good or bad-figures less importantly. As it appears to me, there seem to be those, here on UK420, who either gravitate toward a "scientific" world view, which, as I have said before, is fraught with its own measure of inconsistency and shortsightedness , as are purely religious world views.

Again, the secular and the religious outlook have their respective, intrinsic limits, and it isn't by repudiating one perspective that, by default, the "other" wins out in any ongoing discussion over the "human condition". Perhaps this concept of the human condition, as convoluted as it is, would best be understood by a melding of the moral and the scientific (and medical). But scientific methodology can be- and is- tainted by the claim that science will eventually make man understandable; this is the inherent danger posed by Scientism and its reductive, (quantitative) methodological approach. Two very interesting books to read are R.C. Lewontin's "Not in our genes"; and, Schoeck and Wiggins', "Scientism and values".

Edited February 8, 2010 by Deanne65

[~nobody~]

pandemic case of confusion

jebus

[Arnold Layne]

Hermeneutics: the use of knowledge in realizing further knowledge?

No.

Guess again

OK, here it is ... "Hermeneutics" = the art or science of interpretation, especially of Scriptures. I'm surprised you did not know that, since you've clearly swallowed several dictionaries :wink:

Is English your first language?

[Bill Dick]

Those of a religious bent like to talk in riddles, it adds to the "mystery" of the man upstairs. Don't be fooled.

[Eddiesilence]

Trebor:

The problem isn't with you - you aren't out of your depth at all.

This is not opacity of writing that is the problem.

That's exactly the problem Deanne, review this thread and you'll see that a litany of extremely bright people are saying the same thing.

Your impenetrable language prevents you from being able to communicate, full stop. It's not even about your tendency to hop from one point to another, because we don't get the first point you make before you switch to the next.

If you make it easier for people to follow your train of thought, I promise you'll have a far more enriching conversation!