The series of Dr. Elaine Pagel's exposition on both media and books are "Facts or Fictions", "Believe-it-or-not" narratives that challenge the depth of understanding of her audience. Her presentations are pretty well convincing rather than exploratory. Gnostics or Gnosticism are prevalent term she uses to define the "secrets" enveloped in the hidden gospels..... I admire her candid approach and charisma. To those who believe, no explanation is needed ..... To those who do not, no explanation is possible. Her only aim is to educate rather than to eradicate.
Spiritual but not religious is not a vague or dubious way of describing your inner processes. One of the root words in religion is the "lig" part. This root is share with other words such as ligature, ligament and ligation. They all mean a kind of tying or binding; ie it represents your allegiences or the standards ( also in the meaning of flags) under which you operate and to which you officially belong or are beholden and subject to.This is a nasty mean and narrow view of an individual's continuous spiritual development or inner contact with the source. No wonder those who consider with humility and sobriety their deep connection with the divine eternal, usually don't have much praise for the inevitable stupid self righteous beaurocrats and government pragmatists that crawl into positions of cosy office and fiefdom in the institutions of the churches mosques or temples. I'm with them on this one,... in fact I think it not impossible to imagine that it's hard to be religious and try and awaken your spiritual inner self without first ditching the rituals and continuing by yourself ( not necessarily in the desert, but even if it was the ritual which first led you to a spiritual experience, for myself I had to get free of that claustrophobic institution of the usual bible and protestant rigmarole unless other voices may have made my mind up for me, and this was something I felt I had to do on my own. I've nothing against having a community to engage with, but I find sermons, group prayers, and even hymn singing sometimes boring and distracting from contemplation. Your community should be groups of friends that share some common interests, and that's enough for me, but all are free to do the church thing if it works for them. After all, most of my early family was torn apart by people joining then leaving a very " cultish" church, so my judgement may be biased, but too many people seem to want to out source their spiritual life to a clerical official, just as they outsource their care of their own health to a doctor, and outsource their own memory to a phone list on a digital device, and their need for exercise to an artificially created work scenario at a gym with a personal trainer, instead of finding a certain useful physical outlet in their normal everyday life which produces something else apart from themselves.) Each to their own, but I feel it's the other way around... you can't achieve spirituality from religion! It might happen sometimes during religion, but is more likely despite religion not because of it. It's more likely to happen if you're actually using your "imagination" which is just the same as "intuition". Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote" We call these moments intuitions, and all later teachings as "tuitions".
Very well, if you please set out what you call religion or seek to convey when you use the word religion, or if you wish I can set out my definition, and bear in mind that a definition must be able to embrace all instances of what it seeks to define. That fool woman simply assumes" religion has something to do with the god fantasy which is idle, but then she is idle, she does not, for example understand that socialism is a religion as is climate-change/global-warming_ism and as are wimminism and homosexualism, but then there are probably aas many different understandings of religion as there are men(human beongs/dreaming machines) Perhaps one way of looking at it is to ask what in particular *makes* religion religion that is common to all religions. What is it about legion that*makes* it religion? You will get as many different answers to that as however many people you ask.
@@vhawk1951kl I would define religion as canonical adherence in the application of a model or a formula for an ethical and yet still functional way of living. Whether enforced or voluntary, its a formula thats seeks to summarise or show the structure of proposed behaviour. Much like the rows of crotchets and minims on the musical clefs on a piece of paper are loosely called "Music". Of course they are not music, just a set of instructions for the individual or group that is going to actually perform the music. Even then it is not musically really in existence until an audience of one or many hear it apart from the musician his or herself. People confuse the reason for religion with the moving mysterious effect it can have on the listener, and that's really where the spirit soul of music actually is initially, and shouldn't be confused with some rules to sign on a contract offered to us under duress so we can asusge our fears. This use of Jesus is confusing the human man with his divine message, like shoot the messenger except the opposite, and is condescending and controlling because some feel that ordinary people are too stupid to understand or approach God or the eternal breath of life that is the source of the universe, and find not only a good job being beaurocrats and bossing around the lesser people, but an absolute corruption of themselves by the sin of pride and power that consumes you. At this point mist people think, " I don't like these elitist pricks saying they have the only phone line to God", and turn away from reaching inside and contemplating the divine spark we all represent, to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson. Religion is the discarded husk of what may be human systems that evolved originally to help one have a spiritual experience. They're a roadmap that's been argued over by businesses at various points on the way that will gain or lose patronage if people decide their iwn route. There have been so many things scribbled on it, and so many things changed as new roads are made, and so many things perposfully edited out because the chairman of the committee is backed by shifting factions, that these horrible venal, political, and secular priorities have made the roadmap practically useless, and even dangerous, because power and influence corrupt and extreme power and influence corrupt extremely. By now people are so mesmerised by intellectual curiosity and theology, that thing like the Bible, the Koran, and the bagvadghita, are more of a hinderance ( religion) to spiritual growth and well-adjustedness than a help. Some manage to find their way through this mess by inate appreciation of the symbology, and find things like the bible inspirational, but they are the exception that proves the rule in my opinion. What one finds spiritually uplifting, another sees as a Jedi mind trick or rhythmic neuro-linguistic programming or PR, designed to set off known resonances and fears in order to sell the mark a bill of goods. But that's just my opinion! By the way, is Homophobia a religion?
@@chrisgmurray3622 You obviously do not yet understand the rules for a definition apart from it must be able to embrace all instances of what it seeks to define and may not consist of examples ,descriptions cognates and synonyms and other forms of begging the question at which latter fence your-n-too-bad effort falls, now can you see how and why it falls at the circularity fence? That is not *your* definition is it? It’s a copy of a definition of another is it not? The giveaway was the use of canonical which uses the very thing you are trying to define in its definition and that is how I know that you offering was not *your_own*, but it is rare in this contemporary set of conditions to encounter a man(human being/dreaming machine that has*anything* of-his-own, or a *real*idiot in the original sense of that word;as a general rule men tend to be the repositories of any amount of *other_people’s*rubbish, so much so that it is the work of lifetime to discover in all that cubbish(not all of which is necessarily useless) anything of-one’s-*own -or so to say become oneself- whatever that might be. I’m afraid it tends to be rather obvious that you offering or effort is a crib of *someone_else’s* work, which yours clearly is, and thus also falls at the plagiarism fence, and I’m going to guess that you don’t have a university degree or other form of higher learning, to say nothing of not having anything of.... your.... own, to which yshp -your servant here present does not lay claim. I have the advantage of you because over the last two years or so I have been obliged to come up with *my _own*definition for the purpose of a book or essay or whatever that I have spent the last twenty years trying to write, which requires me to come p with a bullet-proof definition of religion with which I will not bore you and less you specifically ask me to do so You got your offering from whom or where? It is more of a description than a definition. Now try t setting out what it is about religion that*makes* it religion?Could be all sorts of things. pick one.
@@vhawk1951kl Interesting.I make no assumptions about you but I agree that I'm using words like idiot not really in a strict literal way. I'm aware that idiot means someone of very limited mental capacity, and I use the word in a way that many normal people use it in everyday culture. Real meanings of words, as you're no doubt aware, evolve and change. People at high levels of academia can use a passive aggressive way of consistently appealing to precision in terminology, which is necessarily a good practice in dialogue, but everyone may not have wholly the best reasons for so doing. It is often used as a way of delaying the point which, as long as the parties involved have a ball park agreement on the terms of reference, could be seen as evading the proposition. I'm not automatically assuming that this is your point of view, but remember we all have a point of view. The definition, for instance, of idiot, is actually a proposed example anyway, or st least when I looked it up a couple of years ago it appeared to be. In order to define you must assume not that the definition fits all examples, but that whoever you're defining for has some shared view of what your looking at in the process. Most dictionaries give examples and description to define as far as I can tell, but no-one died and made me the arbiter of what is commonly understood in language. No mass populist or elitist academic has that privilege either. My life doesn't require me to have tertiary education and split hairs in clarifying terminology in order to communicate effectively in a TH-cam comment, unlike you. I think about things I observe in life and resist burrowing through text from the world's best libraries "precisely" because I don't want to absorb ideas from so called experts, but make my own view of life paramount. The reason I used "canonical" was because a few years ago it popped up in a crossword and I looked up some of its meaning. This seems to refer to a rule or a compunction of sorts, and rather than be cross-examined , using the excuse of clarification of terminology, I'd prefer that the conversation continued. Anything I've heard seen or read about philosophies of life has been only ever a sense of recognition of someone thinking along similar lines to my own learning through personal experience and reflection, and never have I noted any person or any book, unless it is with a sense of deja-vu, if you'll allow me to use that term. It doesn't take twenty years of research and study to look at life, form your own ideas and explanations, then spend another twenty refining your model, then catch a drift from someone or something else that coincidentally seems to have also come to a similar conclusion, to make your take on something known. Just because unbeknownst to me a book or video uses similar terms, doesn't mean I got my opinions or ideas second hand. After all in the centrifuged slurry of human discourse someone else might see my comments as reflecting those of some school of thought or demographic to which I derive my current view ...; let's just say that no amount of semantic double talk can offer any good evidence for that conclusion. I don't claim that my view of reality or meaning of words or symbols is right and you and anyone else is wrong; it's just the way it seems to me, and sorry, but it is my own opinion, and I've had many ither opinions suggested to me that I welcome,but yours doesn't negate mine and visa versa. When you ask how would I define "religion", I give you my view in my terms, I don't need to be forced to play by your game's rules. I mistakenly thought you were asking what I saw religion as being in my experience, and answered candidly according to my own life's experiences and conclusions. But now I see you were challenging me to an academic dispute about what "definition" means. I don't care. I used a symbolic reference comparing it to the performance instructions for music, as opposed to what, in my view "music" really is. I don't know how much clearer I can be, and I don't worry about the definition of definition. I applaud you desire for care and precision in discourse, but perhaps you didn't notice that neither of us used a word that has not pre-existed, and yet it's not entirely impossible that either of us could use known words to " convey" the "spirit" of an original idea, even if others have arrived at the same thought destination independently... it doesn't disqualify their take on things. " Religion" seems to me to be the technology ofhow spiritual matters are discussed or propagated, rather than the actual content of ideas, apart from maybe a set of rules for belonging to a particular group of agreed thinkers. I wish you success in carrying out your set task of writing, but as I'm not required to subscribe to your personal code of discursive conduct, I'll at least respect your right to your angle, and use my own description ir example or symbol or parable to convey my ideas, since apart from common courtesy I don't tolerate being excused from the discussion because I don't comport with imposed style. Maybe I don't know what definition means; that doesn't mean I have none of my own ideas. One of my own ideas is to level the playing field and speak as myself without letters after my name that show only that I have been indoctrinated to the point that I cant use imposed conditions to make an independent observation. It's no use speculating as to your scholarly situation, or as to whether it has made you a slave to your own will, because I don't like to make assumptions, but clearly you're committed to a course you've been on for a long time, and I don't actually know what if anything your view of this matter is, so rather than ask you to be an engineer and define religion, why don't you actually put yourself in the frame and tell me what you think it is, or what you think people think it is, or what you think it should be . Rather than telling me my words are misused,( which they may well be) why not address my ideas rather than how I frame them. After all, hopefully you're not one of those ivory tower intellectual snobs that belittles people's handwriting rather than engage with their arguments or opinions. Hope your book gies well. Let me know if it's published and I may look at it, rather than argue with you about the meaning of of.
@@chrisgmurray3622 Bravo. I am so impressed by the measured and reasonable(and if I may say so, mature ) nature of your response that I would rather not just dash off any-old- thing as a response but would ask you to give me time to address particular parts of it which deserve more care- the scalpel or rifle rather than the meat cleaver or shot gun. In the premises I shall copy it into a word document enabling me to look at it with more care-which it clearly merits, so for the moment this is an acknowledgment of service and gives you the opportunity to draw my particular attention to those parts of it that are - so-to-say closer to your heart. . I was right to say that you lifted what you perhaps inadvertently-certainly not dishonestly from other than your_own* was I not? If it is of any assistance to you Churchill did not go to university and had no degree.The role of the university is not so much to acquire bits of paper(as the wizard of Oz might say) but rather as a training camp for the disciplining of the wits-very often the as- is- said*Hard_way*(and as I told my results or children *there_is* no other or *easy * way, and although we lawyers are " briefed", we are rarely brief- tend not to use one word where ten thousand will do. As for idiots or those that have something of.... their.. own, more anon. It is sometimes said that "we" if there is a"we" start off as clean sheets of paper on which the not_we(not giving a flying fcuk about the harm they do) proceed to scribble, without waiting to be asked. While you are pondering on whether not to do the sensible thing and tell yshp-your servant here present , to fcuk off and die or go boil his head for a turnip, might I commend as a source of breathing in whatever you can discover of Tom-later Lord(and now very dead)Denning, whom I once had the singular honour to meet if not appear before him, he having as -is- said popped his clogs some time before I was called to the Bar-but what a man!Now, that said I shall return to what you wrote, for which I am grateful.
And who put more of a is that and the spokes connect all those times but also it was because there's not since you mentioned nothing could've been more devastating than the loss of our son we was 6 1/2 his death and then the death of my husband which was in total shock and surprise her in the hiking accident billion you later and after we dropped into children two babies so we have a three month old baby and a Uni have a baby and suddenly it was weird and and that was I don't have to tell you it was overwhelming I and and because in the situation you either go on her you don't I did and to do that you have to poop in the background the the the feeling is that the roses I couldn't of done anything so it went into what I thought was like a black hole in it was just the Grand Canyon is just way way in the background
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child,? No *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Just wow. I’m new to Dr. Pagels and I’m so all I’ll find her.
I can't imagine. Thank you for going on (and for your work, Elaine!). It's definitely helped me on my own journey.
Elaine is such a wonderful person, I'm so glad she decided to go on
I love this Lady. I wish I could ist at her feet and listen to her teach for a week.
2.5 minutes before he introduced Dr.Pagel..
The series of Dr. Elaine Pagel's exposition on both media and books are "Facts or Fictions", "Believe-it-or-not" narratives that challenge the depth of understanding of her audience. Her presentations are pretty well convincing rather than exploratory.
Gnostics or Gnosticism are prevalent term she uses to define the "secrets" enveloped in the hidden gospels..... I admire her candid approach and charisma.
To those who believe, no explanation is needed ..... To those who do not, no explanation is possible.
Her only aim is to educate rather than to eradicate.
Fantastic presentation- I tend to believe people like Elaine who use their life experiences to ground what they say.
Is this wonderful life not enough to comprehend without magic?
Spiritual but not religious is not a vague or dubious way of describing your inner processes. One of the root words in religion is the "lig" part. This root is share with other words such as ligature, ligament and ligation. They all mean a kind of tying or binding; ie it represents your allegiences or the standards ( also in the meaning of flags) under which you operate and to which you officially belong or are beholden and subject to.This is a nasty mean and narrow view of an individual's continuous spiritual development or inner contact with the source. No wonder those who consider with humility and sobriety their deep connection with the divine eternal, usually don't have much praise for the inevitable stupid self righteous beaurocrats and government pragmatists that crawl into positions of cosy office and fiefdom in the institutions of the churches mosques or temples. I'm with them on this one,... in fact I think it not impossible to imagine that it's hard to be religious and try and awaken your spiritual inner self without first ditching the rituals and continuing by yourself ( not necessarily in the desert, but even if it was the ritual which first led you to a spiritual experience, for myself I had to get free of that claustrophobic institution of the usual bible and protestant rigmarole unless other voices may have made my mind up for me, and this was something I felt I had to do on my own. I've nothing against having a community to engage with, but I find sermons, group prayers, and even hymn singing sometimes boring and distracting from contemplation. Your community should be groups of friends that share some common interests, and that's enough for me, but all are free to do the church thing if it works for them. After all, most of my early family was torn apart by people joining then leaving a very " cultish" church, so my judgement may be biased, but too many people seem to want to out source their spiritual life to a clerical official, just as they outsource their care of their own health to a doctor, and outsource their own memory to a phone list on a digital device, and their need for exercise to an artificially created work scenario at a gym with a personal trainer, instead of finding a certain useful physical outlet in their normal everyday life which produces something else apart from themselves.) Each to their own, but I feel it's the other way around... you can't achieve spirituality from religion! It might happen sometimes during religion, but is more likely despite religion not because of it. It's more likely to happen if you're actually using your "imagination" which is just the same as "intuition". Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote" We call these moments intuitions, and all later teachings as "tuitions".
Very well, if you please set out what you call religion or seek to convey when you use the word religion, or if you wish I can set out my definition, and bear in mind that a definition must be able to embrace all instances of what it seeks to define. That fool woman simply assumes" religion has something to do with the god fantasy which is idle, but then she is idle, she does not, for example understand that socialism is a religion as is climate-change/global-warming_ism and as are wimminism and homosexualism, but then there are probably aas many different understandings of religion as there are men(human beongs/dreaming machines)
Perhaps one way of looking at it is to ask what in particular *makes* religion religion that is common to all religions. What is it about legion that*makes* it religion? You will get as many different answers to that as however many people you ask.
@@vhawk1951kl I would define religion as canonical adherence in the application of a model or a formula for an ethical and yet still functional way of living. Whether enforced or voluntary, its a formula thats seeks to summarise or show the structure of proposed behaviour. Much like the rows of crotchets and minims on the musical clefs on a piece of paper are loosely called "Music". Of course they are not music, just a set of instructions for the individual or group that is going to actually perform the music. Even then it is not musically really in existence until an audience of one or many hear it apart from the musician his or herself. People confuse the reason for religion with the moving mysterious effect it can have on the listener, and that's really where the spirit soul of music actually is initially, and shouldn't be confused with some rules to sign on a contract offered to us under duress so we can asusge our fears. This use of Jesus is confusing the human man with his divine message, like shoot the messenger except the opposite, and is condescending and controlling because some feel that ordinary people are too stupid to understand or approach God or the eternal breath of life that is the source of the universe, and find not only a good job being beaurocrats and bossing around the lesser people, but an absolute corruption of themselves by the sin of pride and power that consumes you. At this point mist people think, " I don't like these elitist pricks saying they have the only phone line to God", and turn away from reaching inside and contemplating the divine spark we all represent, to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson. Religion is the discarded husk of what may be human systems that evolved originally to help one have a spiritual experience. They're a roadmap that's been argued over by businesses at various points on the way that will gain or lose patronage if people decide their iwn route. There have been so many things scribbled on it, and so many things changed as new roads are made, and so many things perposfully edited out because the chairman of the committee is backed by shifting factions, that these horrible venal, political, and secular priorities have made the roadmap practically useless, and even dangerous, because power and influence corrupt and extreme power and influence corrupt extremely. By now people are so mesmerised by intellectual curiosity and theology, that thing like the Bible, the Koran, and the bagvadghita, are more of a hinderance ( religion) to spiritual growth and well-adjustedness than a help. Some manage to find their way through this mess by inate appreciation of the symbology, and find things like the bible inspirational, but they are the exception that proves the rule in my opinion. What one finds spiritually uplifting, another sees as a Jedi mind trick or rhythmic neuro-linguistic programming or PR, designed to set off known resonances and fears in order to sell the mark a bill of goods. But that's just my opinion! By the way, is Homophobia a religion?
@@chrisgmurray3622 You obviously do not yet understand the rules for a definition apart from it must be able to embrace all instances of what it seeks to define and may not consist of examples ,descriptions cognates and synonyms and other forms of begging the question at which latter fence your-n-too-bad effort falls, now can you see how and why it falls at the circularity fence?
That is not *your* definition is it? It’s a copy of a definition of another is it not? The giveaway was the use of canonical which uses the very thing you are trying to define in its definition and that is how I know that you offering was not *your_own*, but it is rare in this contemporary set of conditions to encounter a man(human being/dreaming machine that has*anything* of-his-own, or a *real*idiot in the original sense of that word;as a general rule men tend to be the repositories of any amount of *other_people’s*rubbish, so much so that it is the work of lifetime to discover in all that cubbish(not all of which is necessarily useless) anything of-one’s-*own -or so to say become oneself- whatever that might be.
I’m afraid it tends to be rather obvious that you offering or effort is a crib of *someone_else’s* work, which yours clearly is, and thus also falls at the plagiarism fence, and I’m going to guess that you don’t have a university degree or other form of higher learning, to say nothing of not having anything of.... your.... own, to which yshp -your servant here present does not lay claim.
I have the advantage of you because over the last two years or so I have been obliged to come up with *my _own*definition for the purpose of a book or essay or whatever that I have spent the last twenty years trying to write, which requires me to come p with a bullet-proof definition of religion with which I will not bore you and less you specifically ask me to do so
You got your offering from whom or where?
It is more of a description than a definition.
Now try t setting out what it is about religion that*makes* it religion?Could be all sorts of things. pick one.
@@vhawk1951kl Interesting.I make no assumptions about you but I agree that I'm using words like idiot not really in a strict literal way. I'm aware that idiot means someone of very limited mental capacity, and I use the word in a way that many normal people use it in everyday culture. Real meanings of words, as you're no doubt aware, evolve and change. People at high levels of academia can use a passive aggressive way of consistently appealing to precision in terminology, which is necessarily a good practice in dialogue, but everyone may not have wholly the best reasons for so doing. It is often used as a way of delaying the point which, as long as the parties involved have a ball park agreement on the terms of reference, could be seen as evading the proposition. I'm not automatically assuming that this is your point of view, but remember we all have a point of view. The definition, for instance, of idiot, is actually a proposed example anyway, or st least when I looked it up a couple of years ago it appeared to be. In order to define you must assume not that the definition fits all examples, but that whoever you're defining for has some shared view of what your looking at in the process. Most dictionaries give examples and description to define as far as I can tell, but no-one died and made me the arbiter of what is commonly understood in language. No mass populist or elitist academic has that privilege either. My life doesn't require me to have tertiary education and split hairs in clarifying terminology in order to communicate effectively in a TH-cam comment, unlike you. I think about things I observe in life and resist burrowing through text from the world's best libraries "precisely" because I don't want to absorb ideas from so called experts, but make my own view of life paramount. The reason I used "canonical" was because a few years ago it popped up in a crossword and I looked up some of its meaning. This seems to refer to a rule or a compunction of sorts, and rather than be cross-examined , using the excuse of clarification of terminology, I'd prefer that the conversation continued. Anything I've heard seen or read about philosophies of life has been only ever a sense of recognition of someone thinking along similar lines to my own learning through personal experience and reflection, and never have I noted any person or any book, unless it is with a sense of deja-vu, if you'll allow me to use that term. It doesn't take twenty years of research and study to look at life, form your own ideas and explanations, then spend another twenty refining your model, then catch a drift from someone or something else that coincidentally seems to have also come to a similar conclusion, to make your take on something known. Just because unbeknownst to me a book or video uses similar terms, doesn't mean I got my opinions or ideas second hand. After all in the centrifuged slurry of human discourse someone else might see my comments as reflecting those of some school of thought or demographic to which I derive my current view ...; let's just say that no amount of semantic double talk can offer any good evidence for that conclusion. I don't claim that my view of reality or meaning of words or symbols is right and you and anyone else is wrong; it's just the way it seems to me, and sorry, but it is my own opinion, and I've had many ither opinions suggested to me that I welcome,but yours doesn't negate mine and visa versa. When you ask how would I define "religion", I give you my view in my terms, I don't need to be forced to play by your game's rules. I mistakenly thought you were asking what I saw religion as being in my experience, and answered candidly according to my own life's experiences and conclusions. But now I see you were challenging me to an academic dispute about what "definition" means. I don't care. I used a symbolic reference comparing it to the performance instructions for music, as opposed to what, in my view "music" really is. I don't know how much clearer I can be, and I don't worry about the definition of definition. I applaud you desire for care and precision in discourse, but perhaps you didn't notice that neither of us used a word that has not pre-existed, and yet it's not entirely impossible that either of us could use known words to " convey" the "spirit" of an original idea, even if others have arrived at the same thought destination independently... it doesn't disqualify their take on things. " Religion" seems to me to be the technology ofhow spiritual matters are discussed or propagated, rather than the actual content of ideas, apart from maybe a set of rules for belonging to a particular group of agreed thinkers. I wish you success in carrying out your set task of writing, but as I'm not required to subscribe to your personal code of discursive conduct, I'll at least respect your right to your angle, and use my own description ir example or symbol or parable to convey my ideas, since apart from common courtesy I don't tolerate being excused from the discussion because I don't comport with imposed style. Maybe I don't know what definition means; that doesn't mean I have none of my own ideas. One of my own ideas is to level the playing field and speak as myself without letters after my name that show only that I have been indoctrinated to the point that I cant use imposed conditions to make an independent observation. It's no use speculating as to your scholarly situation, or as to whether it has made you a slave to your own will, because I don't like to make assumptions, but clearly you're committed to a course you've been on for a long time, and I don't actually know what if anything your view of this matter is, so rather than ask you to be an engineer and define religion, why don't you actually put yourself in the frame and tell me what you think it is, or what you think people think it is, or what you think it should be . Rather than telling me my words are misused,( which they may well be) why not address my ideas rather than how I frame them. After all, hopefully you're not one of those ivory tower intellectual snobs that belittles people's handwriting rather than engage with their arguments or opinions. Hope your book gies well. Let me know if it's published and I may look at it, rather than argue with you about the meaning of of.
@@chrisgmurray3622 Bravo. I am so impressed by the measured and reasonable(and if I may say so, mature ) nature of your response that I would rather not just dash off any-old- thing as a response but would ask you to give me time to address particular parts of it which deserve more care- the scalpel or rifle rather than the meat cleaver or shot gun.
In the premises I shall copy it into a word document enabling me to look at it with more care-which it clearly merits, so for the moment this is an acknowledgment of service and gives you the opportunity to draw my particular attention to those parts of it that are - so-to-say closer to your heart.
. I was right to say that you lifted what you perhaps inadvertently-certainly not dishonestly from other than your_own* was I not?
If it is of any assistance to you Churchill did not go to university and had no degree.The role of the university is not so much to acquire bits of paper(as the wizard of Oz might say) but rather as a training camp for the disciplining of the wits-very often the as- is- said*Hard_way*(and as I told my results or children *there_is* no other or *easy * way, and although we lawyers are " briefed", we are rarely brief- tend not to use one word where ten thousand will do.
As for idiots or those that have something of.... their.. own, more anon. It is sometimes said that "we" if there is a"we" start off as clean sheets of paper on which the not_we(not giving a flying fcuk about the harm they do) proceed to scribble, without waiting to be asked.
While you are pondering on whether not to do the sensible thing and tell yshp-your servant here present , to fcuk off and die or go boil his head for a turnip, might I commend as a source of breathing in whatever you can discover of Tom-later Lord(and now very dead)Denning, whom I once had the singular honour to meet if not appear before him, he having as -is- said popped his clogs some time before I was called to the Bar-but what a man!Now, that said I shall return to what you wrote, for which I am grateful.
And who put more of a is that and the spokes connect all those times but also it was because there's not since you mentioned nothing could've been more devastating than the loss of our son we was 6 1/2 his death and then the death of my husband which was in total shock and surprise her in the hiking accident billion you later and after we dropped into children two babies so we have a three month old baby and a Uni have a baby and suddenly it was weird and and that was I don't have to tell you it was overwhelming I and and because in the situation you either go on her you don't I did and to do that you have to poop in the background the the the feeling is that the roses I couldn't of done anything so it went into what I thought was like a black hole in it was just the Grand Canyon is just way way in the background
🤮If we reach the point in an academic setting of announcing our pronouns just forget
Have you filed a police report after being victimized as you have? You poor, precious, sensitive child. I hope God heals you.
@@dpo8bweeyou must be a ‘they.’
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child,?
No *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you.
here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child.
You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.
"we", being you and which specific identifiable interlocutor?