06 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobWill do later my friend but can't now. packing up the computer to move to Portland Oregon. Will be back online in a couple days....C ya later.
Well i must be blind because i don't see these effects of Satan. Would you care to divulge these effects that Satan has on the world that every intelligent person should see?
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by galveston75Thats an insult. I have a university degree and you call me unintelligent.
But the really really big differance is the others you speak of have no proof that they exist. But one would have to be blind to not see the affects that Satan has on the world. Right? Of course an intelligent person would see that.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by galveston75No, apparently I do not get it. That is why I quoted the verse and asked for an explanation. Let me try again. The verse is as follows:
Do I use the pictures I take in my worship to God? Do you really not get it?
"You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea."
Am I misunderstanding the context, is it a mistranslation, or does that verse say that you should not make images of any kind for whatever purpose?
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadbig deal, you can assimilate knowledge gleaned from others, as the proverb states, 'there is no talent in identifying the thief after he is caught', originality of thought displays an animated mind, a degree is simply a piece of paper which asserts that you can assimilate, remember and reiterate information gleaned from others.
Thats an insult. I have a university degree and you call me unintelligent.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by galveston75And if one would really think about praying to a inaniment object such as a piece of stone or wood that can do nothing for you because it itself is nothing...How silly can a human get? Just go buy a can of Silly Putty and make it look like a person and pray to it. How incredably dumb!!!!!
The harm my friend is that the Bible condems them. Always has and always will as it's something God has no tollerance for. This is not my opinion but read the Bible and see for yourself.
But if one decides that they want to use an idol which in God's eyes is useless and is something that should not be used in worship to him, then that's their decision ...[text shortened]... 1 scripture that shows Jesus using or saying to use idols or statues or whatever to pray to.
Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not pray to the statue or icon itself. As I pointed out, the veneration of images is more comparable to the treatment of the ark of the covenant. Solomon offers up sacrifices before the covenant. But whatever reverence he gestures towards it, this is only intended for God and the prayer is strictly to God.
I've asked Conraus many times to show me where it is approved to do so and so far nothing. Just 1 scripture that shows Jesus using or saying to use idols or statues or whatever to pray to.
Actually I have pointed out several cases in which God orders the construction of images and which have a central place in Jewish worship (for example, Solomon's sacrifices). And again, as twitehead points out, we object to your use of the word 'idol'. Obviously idols are condemned. The onus is on you to explain what an idol is and how it applies to Catholic and Orthodox veneration.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Actually this is one case in which Catholics will admit they worship in the fullest sense. Since the bread and wine has been consecrated as the body and blood of Jesus Christ (beyond a mere symbolic sense, with his body, blood, soul and divinity present), it deserves supreme worship -- latria. We do bow down, double genuflecting; we do address our prayers to it and we incense it. The status of the Eucharist is so great that we do not permit it to be carried in anything other than gold. Reverence for it is so great that it is a pious custom to receive it on the tongue. In Zahlanzi's church, I am sure they receive the Eucharist on a golden spoon.
Does one bow down to or pray to or kiss the bread and wine?
This should serve to illustrate why Catholics at least do not consider the veneration of images to be worship. Whatever veneration, whatever extravagant gestures people may make to the cross or a statue of Mary, it is nothing compared to the adoration given to the Eucharist.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, I think most tertiary-educated people would disagree with your judgment that a university education is mere rote-learning. In my own experiences, academia requires more than just 'assimilating knowledge'. There must be understanding as well and I guarantee that any material taught at a graduate level will be more conceptually advanced than what an ordinary person might have to deal with.
big deal, you can assimilate knowledge gleaned from others, as the proverb states, 'there is no talent in identifying the thief after he is caught', originality of thought displays an animated mind, a degree is simply a piece of paper which asserts that you can assimilate, remember and reiterate information gleaned from others.
06 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kso what, whether they disagree or not is neither here nor there. Nor do i think the material becomes more conceptually advanced, it simply narrows into a field of a speciality.
Well, I think most tertiary-educated people would disagree with your judgment that a university education is mere rote-learning. In my own experiences, academia requires more than just 'assimilating knowledge'. There must be understanding as well and I guarantee that any material taught at a graduate level will be more conceptually advanced than what an ordinary person might have to deal with.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you undertaken tertiary education at all? I think that is the crucial qualifying factor here. I am currently completing an undergraduate and I can say that your characterisation here does not bear out in my experiences. The material is not only more specific but also more difficult.
so what, whether they disagree or not is neither here nor there. Nor do i think the material becomes more conceptually advanced, it simply narrows into a field of a speciality.
I will illustrate with one example. When I studied syntax, not only did I have to acquire new grammatical terminology (specialised knowledge) but I also had to apply that new knowledge in very difficult tasks (more conceptually advanced). For assessment, I was given language data (a collection of sentences with no translation) from obscure languages and asked to formulate phrase structure rules which would correctly describe all well-formed sentences for that language data. Not only that, the assignment required me to identify what were verbs and nouns (again, without any of these sentences translated.) The pass rate was very low for this assignment. Everyone understood the grammatical terminology; the data, however, was extremely difficult to understand and interpret.
I imagine that people's experiences would be the same for, say, advanced pure mathematics or, say, logic. You may acquire knowledge but using that knowledge can often be very difficult.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau Ki have already posted my educational qualifications on this forum, twice, i hope that i will need not do so again.
Have you undertaken tertiary education at all? I think that is the crucial qualifying factor here. I am currently completing an undergraduate and I can say that your characterisation here does not bear out in my experiences. The material is not only more specific but also more difficult.
I will illustrate with one example. When I studied syntax, not onl ...[text shortened]... or, say, logic. You may acquire knowledge but using that knowledge can often be very difficult.
aquiring new grammatical terminology = assimilation of material, originality of thought , none.
difficult tasks? you mean problem solving? well well, you were made to think for yourself, now that is refreshing.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am sorry, Robbie, but I do not scan the forums to read all your posts. Since this discussion really hinges on what your academic qualifications are, I believe that you ought to post them again.
i have already posted my educational qualifications on this forum, twice, i hope that i will need not do so again.
aquiring new grammatical terminology = assimilation of material, originality of thought , none.
difficult tasks? you mean problem solving? well well, you were made to think for yourself, now that is refreshing.
aquiring new grammatical terminology = assimilation of material, originality of thought , none.
difficult tasks? you mean problem solving? well well, you were made to think for yourself, now that is refreshing.
Hang on Robbie. I acknowledged that acquiring new grammatical terminology involved only the assimilation of knowledge. I am not arguing that it involved any originality of thought (although, I have to say, some knowledge is more difficult than others. Pure mathematics is harder to 'assimilate' than psychology.)
Anyway, you have acknowledged my point. Tertiary education does require people to think for themselves. It is wrong to characterise the student as simply passive in the learning experience. Problem solving requires active thought. This is exactly why a degree should be valued.
07 Apr 10
4 edits
no i shall not post them again, nor does it hinge on anything other than a proper evaluation of not only my own experience but what i have observed in others.
The statement was made, 'i have a degree, therefore i am intelligent'. What an utter piece of nonsense that was.
For example, i had a friend, Gavin MacNay, he was a brother in my previous congregation, Gavin obtained a first class honours degree in mathematics at Glasgow University. He specialised in number theory and wrote a dissertation of which, literally a handful of people on the planet could understand. He travelled to Russia and America to explain his theory. Was Gavin intelligent? No he was simply a brilliant mathematician, for he confided in me that he was unable to pass his ordinary english exam at the third attempt. What are we to say about this assertion now? I have a degree therefore i am intelligent? Nonsense.
What about Robert Fischer, a brilliant chess player, with an I.Q. Level of 180. In an interview he was asked, are you a misogynist? He sat back and smiled, then rather politely, he had to ask the interview what a misogynist was. Intelligent? Nope, simply brilliant in a particular specialised branch of knowledge, chess.
I could also relate of my friend from Ghana, who came here sponsored by the Ghanan government as a research fellow at Strathclyde university, a biochemist doing research into chemical compounds for certain diseases. Again, he was doing a postgraduate course, simply specialising in a particular branch of knowledge.
'I have a degree therefore i am intelligent', sorry but I really dont think you can measure intelligence in such a way as the examples i have shown clearly illustrate. A degree is simply the specialisation of knowledge in a particular field.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, you have simply misrepresented what Twhitehead said. The fact that he has a degree does not mean he is intelligent; it does, however, mean that he should not be cast off as unintelligent. Galveston should be more cautious in what he defines intelligence by.
no i shall not post them again, nor does it hinge on anything other than a proper evaluation of not only my own experience but what i have observed in others.
The statement was made, 'i have a degree, therefore i am intelligent'. What an utter piece of nonsense that was.
For example, i had a friend, Gavin MacNay, he was a brother in my pre ...[text shortened]... early illustrate. A degree is simply the specialisation of knowledge in a particular field.
In all the cases you cited, I am profoundly impressed by their intelligence. I think you do a great injustice to them. Knowing the definition of the word 'misogynistic' is not an indicator of intelligence. It says nothing of the conceptual abilities of the person. Nor is English literacy exactly a good litmus test. Our grammatical knowledge is largely unconscious; we have internalised it. so when a person lacks grammatical intuitions, this indicates a failure, not in intelligence, but in education, upbringing or some deeper genetic or congenital problem.
Anyway, all these cases are exceptional. Most people who graduate with a degree have not merely acquired new knowledge. They have had to think for themselves. They have been intellectually challenged, not just in their ability to memorise information, but to analyse and understand it. Obviously this does not necessarily mean that they are intelligent.
Lastly, my argument is not about whether tertiary education indicates intelligence. I am disputing your chaaracterisation of education as a passive acquisition of knowledge from others. That is the crux of my criticism. Understanding and critical appreciation of this knowledge is a crucial element of education as well. This is why I ask for your academic qualifications because, as it seems to me, your description does not accord with my personal experiences.