>> That is the definition of faith in the context of this
>> statement. If you don't want to read it that way, I have
>> no recourse.
>
>Seems like an awful lot of people "don't want to read it that way", David.
Maybe they just don't like to admit they are sinners :)
>At what point do one seek the obvious "recourse" of questioning ones own
>clairity in communicating the idea.
Since I explicitly define what I mean by faith in the very same statement
(which is more than anyone here does most the time), I don't think it
is unreasonable to place the burden on my readers.
>This isn't clear from your statement. Maybe you could rephrase your Faith
It is clear enough if you attempt to interpret it so that it is true.
Remember the discipline of translation?
I try to use other people's definitions when I interpret their statements,
especially when they provide definitions. It saddens me when I don't get
the same consideration.
>Sin to make that more clear. The "conviction" you speak of is as much of
>a sin in science (becoming locked in a paradigm) as in religion.
That's true (it isn't meant to be limited to religion).
>Projecting definitions is what readers do. Understanding that and
>adjusting the words so that the projection matches the intention is what
>good writers do.
Fair enough. What is a good word for believing something without
or despite evidence? In the past Richard has suggested "stupid"
and Reed has suggested "insane". Do either of those work for you?
(Remember, I'm trying not to insult people.)
>> It would depend on your definitions. In any case I don't think it
>> matters.
>
>Does if your an abortion clinic worker that has to wear a flack jacket to
>work every day. A great deal hangs on those definitions. They do matter,
>often much more than esoteric clap-trap like this ever will!
Isn't it amazing how ignorant you can make someone look when you quote
them out of context?
-- David McFadzean david@kumo.com Memetic Engineer http://www.kumo.com/~david/ Kumo Software Corp. http://www.kumo.com