Linguistic scholars supposedly deny the deity of Christ!!!!!

[teflonfanatic]

Anyway I quoted linguistic scholars

Partially, and adding your own interpretations to theirs, (definitions are intended to define terms so that people don't off-handledly alter them to suit).
 

but I guess they're closed-minded, stupid and don't know what they're talking about to, let's not forget self delusional, according to your belief system

No such assessment was made regarding "linguistic scholars" since their definitions do not "deny the deity of christ", (defining the terms "jesus" and "jehovah" neither confirm nor deny religious beliefs).  As for your assumption, I don't have a "belief system"; something either exists or, does not and a belief or disbelief has no bearing on existance/non-existance.

your not allowed to believe an influential people or human rulers according to the merriam-webster and Oxford dictionaries of God.  

I generally tend to avoid the appeal to authority logical fallacy however, defining terms is a minimum requirement of language.  Unless there is a common consensus of terms, you get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions.

Sigh when logic overrides reason ok i'll quote and respond an order of your comments...

1.  I looked up the definitions of Jesus, Jehovah, God and Atheism, I'm assuming your atheist can you tell me where I partially quoted merriam-webster, American  Heritage and Oxford? Also I used the definition of the words to substantiate not alter

2. Got it so does atheism and theism and all other isms  exist or not? "You said belief systems have no bearing on non existence or existence" Also yes according to the mainstream churches belief system they did deny the deity of Christ see to mainstream Churches Jesus isn't a religious leader he's God the Son literally God on earth in human form. The dictionary doesn't say anything close to that let alone call him God.

3. Then why are you overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy again assuming your Atheist.

@sarabtrayior: I do believe Jesus is the son of God like the dictionary says btw, I just don't believe he's God the son(different unbiblical and just plain backwards) and this world is not at all free that is self-delusional thinking right there.  Also don't say who cares about language scholars to religious scholars 

[falcon9]

Sigh when logic overrides reason ok i'll quote and respond an order of your comments...

Since logic specifically encompasses reason, (reasoning), your lament is ... illogical.

1.  I looked up the definitions of Jesus, Jehovah, God and Atheism, I'm assuming your atheist can you tell me where I partially quoted merriam-webster, American  Heritage and Oxford? Also I used the definition of the words to substantiate not alter

I don't have an atheist on retainer however, I've looked up those words in the distant past.  Assuming their meanings haven't shifted significantly, I understand the terms referred to.

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
2. Got it so does atheism and theism and all other isms  exist or not?
[/quote]

"Isms" exist only as immaterial concepts.  Such concepts can affect what the people holding them do but, have no separate existance in and of themselves.
 

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
"You said belief systems have no bearing on non existence or existence"
[/quote]

Not insofar as the "belief" itself goes, (which is distinct from _someone_ who holds such beliefs).

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
Also yes according to the mainstream churches belief system they did deny the deity of Christ see to mainstream Churches Jesus isn't a religious leader he's God the Son literally God on earth in human form. The dictionary doesn't say anything close to that let alone call him God.
[/quote]

Dictionaries are intended to define terms and assign consensual meaning to those terms.  They are not intended to make 'religious judgements'.

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
3. Then why are you overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy again assuming your Atheist.
[/quote]

In what way do you see my dissenting viewpoints as "overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy"?  My comment related to the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority", (argumentum ad verecundiam), which is "a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner."

[teflonfanatic]

Sigh when logic overrides reason ok i'll quote and respond an order of your comments...

Since logic specifically encompasses reason, (reasoning), your lament is ... illogical.

1.  I looked up the definitions of Jesus, Jehovah, God and Atheism, I'm assuming your atheist can you tell me where I partially quoted merriam-webster, American  Heritage and Oxford? Also I used the definition of the words to substantiate not alter

I don't have an atheist on retainer however, I've looked up those words in the distant past.  Assuming their meanings haven't shifted significantly, I understand the terms referred to.

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
2. Got it so does atheism and theism and all other isms  exist or not?

"Isms" exist only as immaterial concepts.  Such concepts can affect what the people holding them do but, have no separate existance in and of themselves.
 

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
"You said belief systems have no bearing on non existence or existence"
[/quote]

Not insofar as the "belief" itself goes, (which is distinct from _someone_ who holds such beliefs).

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
Also yes according to the mainstream churches belief system they did deny the deity of Christ see to mainstream Churches Jesus isn't a religious leader he's God the Son literally God on earth in human form. The dictionary doesn't say anything close to that let alone call him God.
[/quote]

Dictionaries are intended to define terms and assign consensual meaning to those terms.  They are not intended to make 'religious judgements'.

quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
3. Then why are you overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy again assuming your Atheist.
[/quote]

In what way do you see my dissenting viewpoints as "overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy"?  My comment related to the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority", (argumentum ad verecundiam), which is "a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner."
[/quote]

1.    

2. So according to that logic numbers and emotions don't exist as they're also immaterial, I can't touch 0 or touch happy.

3. Elaborate please

4.  So the linguistic scholars came to a consensus that Jesus is not God any questions?  I'm just pointing out how the dictionary defines a word and comparing how others use it and obviously pointing to the dictionary as superior to their definition, if that's judging then so be it.

5. So appeal to authority can make strong arguments yet are often used fallaciously? you also said defining terms is a minimum requirement an a consensus is needed to not get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions. So it's a general consensus by linguistic scholars that a powerful ruler is a defining term for God do you accept this?

Merriam-Webster

capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

[falcon9]

2. So according to that logic numbers and emotions don't exist as they're also immaterial, I can't touch 0 or touch happy.

Correct.  One can experience what numbers and emotions represent but, numbers themselves are an intellectual concept.  "Emotions" are nominally the result of a mixture of chemical reactions, (not just in the brain), and irrational thought processes, (which are 'immaterial' in the sense that 'thoughts' are emergent-interconnected phenomenon of electrochemical synaptic functions).

3. Elaborate please

On what?  The above?

4.  So the linguistic scholars came to a consensus that Jesus is not God any questions?

No.  They defined the consensual meanings of the terms "jesus" and "jehovah" which are not intended to draw religious conclusions.
  

I'm just pointing out how the dictionary defines a word and comparing how others use it and obviously pointing to the dictionary as superior to their definition, if that's judging then so be it.

If others wish to use words in ways which contradict the consensual meanings of the words in a language, nothing stops them except for the rejection of illogical redefinitions by others, (who are using established terms and their meanings instead).  Yep, it's "judging" to accept or reject such consensual terminology.

5. So appeal to authority can make strong arguments yet are often used fallaciously?

The reason an appeal to authority is logically fallacious can range from a particular "authority" rendering an opinion outside of their field of expertise, to the absense of expertise, to sophistry.  In other words, being an "authority" is not sufficient alone; the argument must have a logical line of reasoning/evidence/avoid internal inconsistance.
 

you also said defining terms is a minimum requirement an a consensus is needed to not get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions. So it's a general consensus by linguistic scholars that a powerful ruler is a defining term for God do you accept this?

Only theoretically, (since we're probably inherently assuming that "linguistic scholars" are basing such definitions upon derived usage).  There may be some points of contention when words derive from other languages and are variously interpretated/translated.  Look at all the different versions of the "bible" for example; in these, the same 'verse' often has variant translations, depending upon which source is used.  This becomes important when those translations/interpretations come up with different words, (which in turn, carry different meanings).  Another instance occurs when E.A.Wallis Budge mistranslated several aegyptian hieroglyphs from a massively-slanted xtian viewpoint, (which was ironic, considering that for thousands of years, the ancient aegyptians never heard of xtianity. After thousands of years before xtianity existed, they noticed a new 'cult' appear among some disgruntled migrant workers but, that's another story).

Merriam-Webster
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

You'll note the words  "worshipped as" and "believed to have"?  That means that the meaning includes unsubstantiated claims in general usage; a definition does not validate those claims, that requires supporting evidence other than the non-evidence of 'faith/belief'.

[teflonfanatic]

I'm done, this is my last post to you in this thread, you'll find someway to get out of the points I presented. I'll conclude with the following

1. Electricity and chemicals exist I can see chemicals(microscope) and touch electricity although pain is involved and electrochemical is obviously the combination of both so by your logic this material can create immaterial(emotions)

2. And it's the consensual meaning that Jesus is not god, if it was consensual that Jesus was God it would have said it in the dictionary no? It's obviously the consensual meaning that Jehovah is God.

3. You say a definition doesn't validate a claim? Have you ever heard of the term "by definition" there's definitions for legal terms and lawyers go through college to learn those terms and use them to prepare and win cases. A definition does indeed validate a claim especially in the court of law

4. I'm done

[falcon9]

1. Electricity and chemicals exist I can see chemicals(microscope) and touch electricity although pain is involved and electrochemical is obviously the combination of both so by your logic this material can create immaterial(emotions).

Near enough; my contention is that it's an emergent phenomenon process though.

2. And it's the consensual meaning that Jesus is not god, if it was consensual that Jesus was God it would have said it in the dictionary no?

No.  While definitions are partly based upon usage, that isn't the only criteria linguists use to determine a word's meaning. They also rely heavily upon the etymology of the words defined, (that's the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time). A great deal of effort is supposedly expended in determining meanings as 'objectively' as possible so that such subjective matters relating to religion, for example, aren't introduced other than to define the terms.

It's obviously the consensual meaning that Jehovah is God.

That's an interpreted translation of Hebrew, (and possibly other languages around the same timeframe), which "is taken to mean "I AM" or "I AM WHO I AM".  That doesn't lierally mean "god", (which is a derivative interpretation).  Since the original term, (which was "Yhwh", no vowels), the usage has morphed, along with the attending meaning.

3. You say a definition doesn't validate a claim? Have you ever heard of the term "by definition" (?)

Yep, that phrase indicates 'in the literal sense'.  Have you ever looked up the individual words which any definition consists of?  I have, (yeah, boring but, I was curious to back-track the etymologies).
 

there's definitions for legal terms and lawyers go through college to learn those terms and use them to prepare and win cases. A definition does indeed validate a claim especially in the court of law

From the context, I'd say you are generally referring to 'legal precedence', (a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later similar cases), rather than "definitions" specifically.  Either way, it is the veracity of evidence which validates, (or fails to validate), a legal claim.

 




[/quote]