Oh, I know this!
Radiators run at different temperatures, radiators could run at around 80 C which is enough to “steam”. In my part of the world, we’ve lowered the water temperature to not scald people neither on the radiators nor if they’d start leaking. OTOH we now have more radiator surface area and insulation.
Now you’re just re-asserting your point.
Let’s not talk in circles and just end this interaction here.
So then the correct interpretation is that women are not to speak over men, at least in matters within the domain of the faith? And as such the OP stands at face value, no?
Ah, I read you as saying that the verse is to be taken as only relevant to Timothy. If it does indeed inform how to run Christian churches as part of the official Word, they should be followed, no?
Or is the argument that they only inform overall sect marketing strategy, just as Leviticus should only pertain if you’re to enter a church? (As it was God’s commands for Israelites to be in the presence of God)
(Let’s set aside the discussion on how to interpret context, as each denomination seem to have their own and seldom any actual historical methodology in how to form that context.)
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
If it isn’t this and solved by putting a new tank in and letting it run for a bit, it could possibly be an air leakage (usually deforms the flame a bit as well).
Check so nothing is loose and/or damaged, and any rubber without cracks or dry spots.
In point 2. you equate your criticism for liberal democracy with that for the scientific method. Your latest argument doesn’t factually or logically hold true for the scientific method.
Thus I must conclude that a. your arguments for point 1. and 2. are different, and b. your statements are uncorrelated even though they partially argue the same point.
I mean, I guessed as much, but taking them as logically connected made for an entertainingly surprising take, and I thought I’d share it with you and the class.
Read together, it looks like you’re preferring people’s democracy because liberal democracy handles too much nuance.
Hadn’t heard that take before!
What if inflation isn’t about the money losing value, but you having access to more money and thus spending it more frivolously?
Selling my organs, or testing risky medical procedures.
Not in my country, maybe there’s something else going on in yours?
I was expecting Slavic Superman to sweep the table when the shots came out.
There’s definite anti-intellectualism, but what you’re describing is the loss of qualified/high innovation industry in the US.
The previous generation of higher education graduates cannot find gainful employment offsetting their student loans, not to mention qualified work at all. There isn’t enough employment or market to make use of that knowledge (there’s also a discussion to be had about the quality of that knowledge, but with the rest of the world managing – let’s set that aside for now), whereas there’s high demand for the trades.
The last few centuries have shown that economic growth is greatly accelerated with higher education, and that access to an educated workforce has been key to post-world-war growth. Meaning it might get rough for the next US generation…
deleted by creator
Thank you for the clarification.
I’d say the semantics arguments come from countering religions’ manipulative perversion of language.
Many religions use tricky language to confuse, conflate and abuse. One such example is that Christian apologists have conflated atheist with heretic for the better part of two millennia. Which is of course absurd, as most Christians are atheist towards Hindu gods, and are thus definitionally more atheist than Hindus.
Yet atheist/heretic/apostate remains as a dirty label, and includes judgement of character, and in many parts of the world persecution or lesser worth.
Reclaiming the word serves in part to actually give it usefulness beyond a boogeyman, to allow for discussions on fundamentals of belief, epistemology, and the contrast of belief vs reasons vs knowableness.
It also helps bridge some of the damage religion has done. When religious people get some nuance to the boogeyman term, they typically are more open to seeing the human cost of stereotyping and shunning people because of that label.
Other perverted terms common to religious trauma are gnosticism (ofc), but also love, grief, acceptance, morality and righteousness.
Things that us having to break free from religion all had to relearn the hard way, and typically while hiding from our still religious close ones.
Thank you for your generous answer.
Your perspective on what your religion views as up for question is very interesting, although it gives rise to many follow up questions (how does proclamation work when obviously contradicted by lower clergy? Who gets to question which parts of the dogma? If everything is up for question, what is the commonality of the religion?) I’m afraid we’ll have to leave for another time if we’re to get anywhere on the primary topic.
You cite Collins:
“If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion.”
I’ll give you that it’s the weakest of the lot, but I read “converts to a different religion” as having you leave the first to then adhere to another.
As we previously established atheism isn’t a religion I find it hard to see that you could have been converted.
If we look at the usage for beliefs, Collins isn’t very clear if the definition includes “into another belief”, luckily the other three are and include the new belief in their descriptions.
So, I seem to find that the lexical definition for conversion does indeed include another positive end belief, in contrast to what you claimed the dictionary people were about. I was curious if there were subtle differences in world view behind this, but currently I understand this more as a difference in how we understand definitions rather than how we view questioning.
According to the first page of my search the Cambridge, Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionaries all imply conversion needs also adopting a new belief/opinion/religion.
I feel it’s a commonly propagated lie within certain religions that atheism is a belief, which of course it’s not (it’s the lack of belief, like most people have about fairies, flat Earth or the Mayan end of the world). I don’t know if your mention of this statement is that you agree or not, but if you do - how do you arrive at the position that questioning is being the same as (lexical) conversion?
I get that a large part of Abrahamitic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be accepted in the religion (and not a heretic); is it that the questioning positions you outside of the religion and thus deconverts? Is that how you arrive at the “change”?
I apologise for the clumsy phrasing, but if we’re reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I must assume we’re using words differently and would need to backtrack to find our last point of common understanding.
That is precisely the point, well spotted.
Don’t worry, with the current education policies it will be, soon.