Koran burning cancelled

Oh my God, I've never seen so many posts devoted entirely to the subject of whether or not someone has an opinion of an opinion of an interpretation of a creed about interpreting an opinion.Theokhoth

Oh my God, I've never seen so many posts devoted entirely to the subject of whether or not someone has an opinion of an opinion of an interpretation of a creed about interpreting an opinion.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

There is a difference in between not having an opinion on the interpretation, and rejecting it. I believe that you are doing the latter. Without any conceptual interpretation on what the texts means, there isn't a basis to reject what another has interpreted it to mean.

Ninja-Hippo

. I am not saying what it means. I am not commenting in any way about what it means. I am not calling another interpretation right. I am not calling another interpretation wrong. ALL I AM DOING is pointing out that the conclusions made by another are simply inferences, not literal observations, and for that reason they have little authority.

Many would argue that it is fairly literal, but I'll leave that aside. Unless you are not attaching any meaning to what the words state, then one infers.

He took a side with a specific interpretation of text. He hasn't a lack of an opinion. He has a clear rejection of an interpretation. If one doesn't take an opinion on the interpretation of the text, one wouldn't say that text doesn't say xyz. There would simply be a lack of an opinion of whether the text says xyz. Essentially analogous to being an agnostic rather than a gnostic atheist.coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]He took a side with a specific interpretation of text. He hasn't a lack of an opinion. He has a clear rejection of an interpretation. If one doesn't take an opinion on the interpretation of the text, one wouldn't say that text doesn't say xyz. There would simply be a lack of an opinion of whether the text says xyz. Essentially analogous to being an agnostic rather than a gnostic atheist.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You stated what you believed the text to mean. That IS inference.:|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]He took a side with a specific interpretation of text. He hasn't a lack of an opinion. He has a clear rejection of an interpretation. If one doesn't take an opinion on the interpretation of the text, one wouldn't say that text doesn't say xyz. There would simply be a lack of an opinion of whether the text says xyz. Essentially analogous to being an agnostic rather than a gnostic atheist.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

He took a side with a specific interpretation of text.

Ninja-Hippo

I must have repeated this about a dozen times now. :P

You stated that Matthew 16:19 doesn't say that the pope is infallible. Hence, an interpretation, or a blind opinion.

Oh my God, I've never seen so many posts devoted entirely to the subject of whether or not someone has an opinion of an opinion of an interpretation of a creed about interpreting an opinion.Theokhoth

I do this in real life too.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Oh my God, I've never seen so many posts devoted entirely to the subject of whether or not someone has an opinion of an opinion of an interpretation of a creed about interpreting an opinion.coolbeans90

I do this in real life too.

You inferred it did not meet the standard.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You stated what you believed the text to mean. That IS inference.:|LJS9502_basic

Man A has no opinion on the origins of the universe. He is an agnostic and he does not really agree fully with either explanation or creationism or evolution or what have you.

Man B says the Universe was created by a magical unicorn who lives under the sea.

Man A says 'er, i don't think.'

By the logic you just proposed, Man A either MUST have an opinion on how the universe was formed (he does not) OR is just a guy who argues for the sake of it. :|

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You stated what you believed the text to mean. That IS inference.:|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Oh my God, I've never seen so many posts devoted entirely to the subject of whether or not someone has an opinion of an opinion of an interpretation of a creed about interpreting an opinion.coolbeans90

I do this in real life too.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]He took a side with a specific interpretation of text. He hasn't a lack of an opinion. He has a clear rejection of an interpretation. If one doesn't take an opinion on the interpretation of the text, one wouldn't say that text doesn't say xyz. There would simply be a lack of an opinion of whether the text says xyz. Essentially analogous to being an agnostic rather than a gnostic atheist.Teenaged

A clear rejection of an interpretation either has merit based upon the text, or it's purely presumptuous. The "middle" position is agnosticism, or a lack of opinion, neither affirming nor denying.

I would hope that Man A thinks before he speaks. And has a reason for what he says,....but apparently that is not the way it supposed to be? One can just disagree because....without any thought? LJS9502_basic

A clear rejection of an interpretation either has merit based upon the text, or it's purely presumptuous. The "middle" position is agnosticism, or a lack of opinion, neither affirming nor denying.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]He took a side with a specific interpretation of text. He hasn't a lack of an opinion. He has a clear rejection of an interpretation. If one doesn't take an opinion on the interpretation of the text, one wouldn't say that text doesn't say xyz. There would simply be a lack of an opinion of whether the text says xyz. Essentially analogous to being an agnostic rather than a gnostic atheist.coolbeans90

A clear rejection of an interpretation either has merit based upon the text, or it's purely presumptuous. The "middle" position is agnosticism, or a lack of opinion, neither affirming nor denying.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Oh my God, I've never seen so many posts devoted entirely to the subject of whether or not someone has an opinion of an opinion of an interpretation of a creed about interpreting an opinion.Ninja-Hippo

I do this in real life too.

So many replies. Anwyays, this one is serious. I do love playing devil's advocate though, mainly because I love arguing for the sake of it. Admittedly, most of my arguments on this site I do tend to agree with. And I doubt that we are likely to reach any sort of agreement, so I don't know if there is much to discuss further as it appears we've been throwing the same posts at each other for the past 5 rounds with little to no change in the context of the debate itself.

I would hope that Man A thinks before he speaks. And has a reason for what he says,....but apparently that is not the way it supposed to be? One can just disagree because....without any thought? LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I would hope that Man A thinks before he speaks. And has a reason for what he says,....but apparently that is not the way it supposed to be? One can just disagree because....without any thought? Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

A clear rejection of an interpretation either has merit based upon the text, or it's purely presumptuous. The "middle" position is agnosticism, or a lack of opinion, neither affirming nor denying.

Ninja-Hippo

Then you would effectively be required to reject anything the text says at all.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Or we could have some people from the anti mosque committee meet with the owner and tell them why he should move it.

Espada12

And he will ignore them as he always has. Again, he is offering to move it. Just not for free. If this issue is so important, why not pay?

Did they pay the reverend not to burn the qurans?

No. I don't see your point. He stopped it because he seems to be under the idea they're moving it. He also probably doesn't have the money to pay the fines.

Good, he should've been burning the stars and stripes instead. (inside job ;)) :P But that may be against the law..?DanC1989

I don't think it is.

Then you would effectively be required to reject anything the text says at all.

coolbeans90

In doing so, i am offering no inference AT ALL of greater meaning or interpretation, but merely dismissing what someone else is saying as a creation of their own mind.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Making no inferences does not equate to having no clue about what the text says. It only necessarily equates to not having a clear or formed opinion on what it means.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then if you don't have a clear nor formed opinion...you shouldn't say the other guy is wrong.;)LJS9502_basic

saw on the news it was only off because the pastor thought that the islamic center wasn't being built... this whole mess is just idiotic imo.. the fact that 1 guy with like 20 followers can create this kind of worldwide uproar ( with the media's help of course ) is just friggin' ridiculous..comp_atkins

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]How did he take a side if all he did is deny to the a side that was proposed? A clear rejection of an interpretation does not equate to him having his own interpretation. Like I already said I can disagree with an opinion simply if it sounds wrong to me; I dont need to have my own opinion on the matter which opposed the one I heard in order for me to disagree. I actually have been in this position. No the analogy of agnostic/gnostic is flawed since the same distinction exists in theists as well, and that leaves us with a situation with no true middle position; a middle position our analogy requires in order to stand.Teenaged

A clear rejection of an interpretation either has merit based upon the text, or it's purely presumptuous. The "middle" position is agnosticism, or a lack of opinion, neither affirming nor denying.

Do you reject or in other words state that the Bible doesn't support the idea that the earth was created in 6 days? If so, you have to some degree an interpretation with what the text means. Gnostic. You might of course not be entirely sure what a biblical "day" is, but you have still interpreted the bible to not mean something, and likewise pass judgement on it's meaning. If you neither accept nor deny the interpretation of the bible which supports the idea of a 6 day creation, then you would be agnostic.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]In your opinion. Like I already said, I dont have to have a formed opinion for another opinion to sound/seem incorrect and for me to discard it. What you think one should or shouldnt do is not my concern.Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then if you don't have a clear nor formed opinion...you shouldn't say the other guy is wrong.;)LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]saw on the news it was only off because the pastor thought that the islamic center wasn't being built... this whole mess is just idiotic imo.. the fact that 1 guy with like 20 followers can create this kind of worldwide uproar ( with the media's help of course ) is just friggin' ridiculous..Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Then you would effectively be required to reject anything the text says at all.

Ninja-Hippo

In doing so, i am offering no inference AT ALL of greater meaning or interpretation, but merely dismissing what someone else is saying as a creation of their own mind.

Even "literal" meanings are largely subjective. Furthermore, what seems "literal" to you very well isn't always what some else considers to be "literal."