Religion and Ambiguous Language

[Resha Caner]

So, I'd say that in many ways, you and I are on similar wavelengths as to the basic construction of faith.

Then you should feel comfortable at an LCMS church anytime you're ready to join. Come on in!

Good talking to you, Resha. (...and Merry Christmas)

Merry Christmas!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Further, don't take "God is love" to mean that's all He is. If I were to say DogmaHunter is patient, you wouldn't think I mean you exist only as the Platonic Form of patience would you? That would be a rather obtuse interpretation of language. The phrase simply means God perfectly exhibits all those characteristics that make up love.

Awesome, Resha! I love your articulation on this ...

And I've never heard of Shannon's Theorem. I'll be adding that to my theoretical stockpile. Thanks!

 

[quatona]

<snip>

While I agree completely (one of my pet peeves is "God is truth"), your post touches a topic that I have been thinking about a lot recently:

Language in general and each individual language by their nature and structure limit the "speakable" (and thus, the verbally thinkeable) to that which conforms with the assumptions about reality that the construction of the language is based upon. I consider this a serious epistemological problem.

As a prime example, I find myself struggling with the fact that all our languages are object-based (and therefore inevitably force an object-based understanding of reality on us).

(This, by no means, is meant to be an excuse for those folks who carelessly throw out catch phrases in big words as though this would automatically render these phrases meaningful, though).

 

[quatona]

Further, don't take "God is love" to mean that's all He is. If I were to say DogmaHunter is patient, you wouldn't think I mean you exist only as the Platonic Form of patience would you?

If you´d say "DogmaHunter is patience" (which would be the accurate analogy), I would.

 

[Shempster]

Well, for starters, "God is love" is taken directly from scripture but separated from context. People do this sometimes for a couple of reasons. Sometimes people do it because they either don't related to or don't understand the rest of the scripture that surrounds it, and they are picking and choosing. Sometimes the Holy Spirit actually speaks fragments of scripture to someone's spirit, and it conveys something to that person. Very well. But then it gets repeated so many times that what was originally conveyed is lost and all that's left is a fragment; we need to get back to the context - 1 John 4:7-9. That would be a good study, but we are hear to discuss ambiguous language.....

I agree that when people talk, they need to clarify the meaning of any jargon or ambiguous terms to include people who may not be conversant with those terms in the same way. If we never find ourselves needing to clarify, that means we have not ventured outside our own little bubble of likeminded Christians. How will we ever share the gospel in that way? How will we ever grow from what Christians outside our circle have come to know?

Great! For many years my goal in life was to discover why many if not the vast majority of truths could be challenged and/or debunked with a different bit of evidence. Why was Jesus and Paul so vague on issues that cause division? A little more clarity would have been nice. Then maybe we would only have 8,000 denominations instead of 14,000.
The answer is the huge Ockham's Razor because whatever definition or meaning of whatever term it is you want to clarify IS NOT EVEN THE ISSUE (Im not screamin) What the issue is the "nature" of who we are. Do we have the nature of Christ guiding how we think and treat others OR are we carnal? Saved, but ruled by the flesh? I have a feeling when we are judged by Him, out "beliefs" will get chucked because it didn't really matter if we were a bit "off"...because we all are a bit "off"

Wow. Its really just all that simple.

 

[talitha]

Great! For many years my goal in life was to discover why many if not the vast majority of truths could be challenged and/or debunked with a different bit of evidence. Why was Jesus and Paul so vague on issues that cause division? A little more clarity would have been nice. Then maybe we would only have 8,000 denominations instead of 14,000.
The answer is the huge Ockham's Razor because whatever definition or meaning of whatever term it is you want to clarify IS NOT EVEN THE ISSUE (Im not screamin) What the issue is the "nature" of who we are. Do we have the nature of Christ guiding how we think and treat others OR are we carnal? Saved, but ruled by the flesh? I have a feeling when we are judged by Him, out "beliefs" will get chucked because it didn't really matter if we were a bit "off"...because we all are a bit "off"

Wow. Its really just all that simple.

I totally don't get what you're saying, but okay, whatevs!

 

[Cearbhall]

One of the most irritating things that I find discussing the religious topics with other people is the fact that a lot of religious concepts are wrapped up in a rather ambiguous language that people fill with their own concepts and ideas. Then, this language is thrown around as though everyone is on the same page, but when asked to deconstruct the meaning, people tend to struggle a bit.

Agreed. They then expect their opinion to be accepted by others as objective truth, refusing to ackowledge that ten other groups are saying the same thing about their own very different opinions.

 

[katerinah1947]

Great! For many years my goal in life was to discover why many if not the vast majority of truths could be challenged and/or debunked with a different bit of evidence. Why was Jesus and Paul so vague on issues that cause division? A little more clarity would have been nice. Then maybe we would only have 8,000 denominations instead of 14,000.
The answer is the huge Ockham's Razor because whatever definition or meaning of whatever term it is you want to clarify IS NOT EVEN THE ISSUE (Im not screamin) What the issue is the "nature" of who we are. Do we have the nature of Christ guiding how we think and treat others OR are we carnal? Saved, but ruled by the flesh? I have a feeling when we are judged by Him, out "beliefs" will get chucked because it didn't really matter if we were a bit "off"...because we all are a bit "off"

Wow. Its really just all that simple.

Hi,

Here is a reference for you on Occam's razor. It seems as though you understand that erroneously, and why confuse things Pedantically on purpose or not, by the use of an esoteric word?

The whole concept of Occam's razor is abstruse, and has false ways to use it.

Also, as used by many, it is and has been proven false on occasions by just about everyone in existence, capable of any remote understanding of the way it is being applied. The concept is that hard. Sometimes the more complex answer is correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

LOVE,

 

[Dre Khipov]

Whatever faults our understanding may possess don't endanger us because it is God who is doing the work.

I really would disagree with you on the above. You really have no way of knowing that other than ascribing whatever it is that you think being done to the "work of God". In any context be it negative or positive, there really is no way to know other than God saying "Hey Resha. Calm down, It's me". You can guess. You can presuppose. But it can end up being what most of the religion tends to be - a projection of our inner desires.

Likewise, "don't endanger us" part isn't thought through. False understanding can and does put one in danger at times. Other people can also be in danger of those with false perception. Look at any religious extremism.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Like you, I too ascribe "mystery" to the how's, but I am also tempted to do so with at least some of the what's as well. However, I don't want to give the impression that I've gone completely Kierkegaardian with everything, because I haven't. It's just that I don't think any epistemology can get us to the face of God (Jesus) by itself; God has to reach down and do "His thing" for any one of us to react in faith. There has to be both a temporal facet and a mysterious one working in tandem for us to believe.

I don't think that the issue about the mystery of the "How", because at certain level it's unavoidable. The real issue here is how we communicate meaning using word-concepts. Some ambiguous concepts can exist as "empty boxes" that people fill with whatever they want. If the purpose of language is to communicate meaning, then precision of that meaning should be of some importance.

But many of the religious concepts that are used today don't really provide any meaningful framework of understanding in these cases. Thus, it becomes a form of "empty language" that we throw at each other to fill the gaps and pretend that it makes sense.

When you talk about being "Kierkegaardian", in a sense we are talking about "Christian realism". It has to manifest in some meaningful way in our reality other than an "unknown mystery out there".

That's why I don't really take the "well you can just go with humanism" type of charges seriously. What else is there in terms of certain experience? Humanism is at center of Christianity, otherwise all of the things that Christ was described doing here are pointless. There is no other experience you can relate to other than being a human. If religion isn't about elevating our collective well-being and understanding on the level of our existence... then it's useless and should be discarded. Pandering to mystery provides very little to the scope of our existence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think that the issue about the mystery of the "How", because at certain level it's unavoidable. The real issue here is how we communicate meaning using word-concepts. Some ambiguous concepts can exist as "empty boxes" that people fill with whatever they want. If the purpose of language is to communicate meaning, then precision of that meaning should be of some importance.

As a student of philosophy, and as someone familiar with the field of Analytical Philosophy, I concur with your general notion that clear and precise communication is not only helpful, but also something Christians should strive after.

But many of the religious concepts that are used today don't really provide any meaningful framework of understanding in these cases. Thus, it becomes a form of "empty language" that we throw at each other to fill the gaps and pretend that it makes sense.

Yes, some of the theological jargon we toss back and forth in the Church (and out of the Church) can be seen as "empty." But, how much success do you expect people to have when attempting to codify the world of the spirit? Can we really put some of these Christian theological ideas into a "box"?

When you talk about being "Kierkegaardian", in a sense we are talking about "Christian realism". It has to manifest in some meaningful way in our reality other than an "unknown mystery out there".

Sure. We need to do our best to articulate our doctrines and inspirations, but how do you propose that we make a clear distinction between those ideas which God intends for us to "put in a box" versus those He leaves open to exploration and speculation? Do you have a method or technique? (I'm asking these last two questions because some of this bleeds over into the area of hermeneutics.)

That's why I don't really take the "well you can just go with humanism" type of charges seriously. What else is there in terms of certain experience? Humanism is at center of Christianity, otherwise all of the things that Christ was described doing here are pointless. There is no other experience you can relate to other than being a human. If religion isn't about elevating our collective well-being and understanding on the level of our existence... then it's useless and should be discarded. Pandering to mystery provides very little to the scope of our existence.

I'm afraid that I'm not understanding how your first sentence plays into the following sentences in the above paragraph. Are you eschewing the act of "just going with humanism," or are you instead affirming it?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Resha Caner]

I really would disagree with you on the above. You really have no way of knowing that other than ascribing whatever it is that you think being done to the "work of God". In any context be it negative or positive, there really is no way to know other than God saying "Hey Resha. Calm down, It's me". You can guess. You can presuppose. But it can end up being what most of the religion tends to be - a projection of our inner desires.

I'm not disagreeing with you. One certainly does need God to say, "Hey, it's me."

If that's not happened to you, I'm not asking you to pretend like it has. Neither am I going to pretend I can wave a magic wand and make it happen for you. God is his own person, and he will decide when and how he will reveal himself to you.

What I can do is testify to my own experiences. It's then your decision how much you trust that I've not been deceived.

Further, I can tell you what God has promised to do (or what promises I've not heard). In that sense, I'm saying: 1) For those who don't believe God has spoken to them, I don't see the point in trying to appropriate Jesus to some social gospel - to make him into a great teacher who had a 7-step plan. Neither is Christianity a pick-and-choose religion - a drive through menu of religious options. IMO those people are trying just as hard to fill in the empty boxes as those they accuse of using empty language. It's a bit hypocritical. 2) At the same time, since I don't know how God will reach out to people, I encourage you not to close the door. If there is something pointing you toward Christianity, I would encourage you to listen. 3) So, finally, maybe you have encountered God and you're disappointed because it didn't meet your expectations. For example, maybe you've been baptized. I can say from my own experience that often these things are not single events. Baptism is not a single event. I wrestled with my baptism for a good 30 years before I embraced it.

But at this point I'm not sure what you're after. Even though I've agreed with you that much of the religious language people use is empty, it seems like you're trying to get yet a further concession from me, and I don't know what that is. Does it bother you that I agree much religious language is empty, yet I'm still convinced Christ really is the Savior - even the Savior of those very people using that empty language?