spin

It's all fine and well to question, LP675, but unfortunately you show no knowledge of the notion of intrinsic or "defining" information and extra or "non-defining" information (a study in discourse oriented linguistic analysis would clarify the distinction). The subtle comma is a clear indication that the subordinate clause was only secondary information and not part of the main thought of the writer. Though Sven has said that he is not a native speaker of English, he seems to have had the benefit of a European education, in which grammar is essential and such distinctions are normally made.

My premise is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, as accepted by almost all Cristians.

Note the comma? its action in this sentence is to separate the subordinate clause, telling you that it is an addition to the main idea, ie "My premise is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God". Now this premise is also accepted by "almost all" xians.

Had there been no comma, you might have eked out the odd interpretation that "as accepted by almost all xians" was defining in some way what came before it, ie it was for you intrinsic to the thought. Fortunately, Sven has informed you of your error.

If you really have anything to add to this, could you make it brief (preferably after digesting the defining/non-defining distinction), as it has quite distracted from the OP?


spin

Doctor X

After four pages, topics are allowed to drift, like a conversation.

Anyways, one could always ask Sven for clarification; however, there seems to be enough on-topic and off-topic to conclude that the Flood Myth is not worth "buying."

--J.D.

spin

Sven has clarified... and LP675 has argued against his clarification. Do you get why I'm not impressed?

LP675 has apparently found more interest in changing the subject rather than in dealing with the problems of the flood.


spin

Doctor X

Must admit that I find the objections akin to arguing about where the fish fork should be placed on the third table from the bulkhead on the Titantic.

--J.D.

Julian

I am not sure that I am following LP675's point regarding 'omnibenevolent' as he defines it. 'Omni' according to Webster's is:
[hr]
omni

- \Om"ni-\ [L. omnis all.] A combining form denoting all, every, everywhere; as in omnipotent, all-powerful; omnipresent.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
[hr]
It sounds to me as if "omnibenevolent as accepted by most christians' is actually a new term, namely: 'christian-benevolent' since clearly an omnibenevolent can only good things in the eyes of ALL people, incuding atheists. If only the christians consider him omnibenevolent then he, by definition, is not.

Julian

Doctor X

Julian:

Welcome to the forums . . . mind the hounds. . . .

Weeellll . . . said Christians could claim that only "they" are correct in recognizing Big Daddy is "omnibenevolent." There is a problem with omnibenevolence and reality, of course, and particularly with regards to the Flood Myths.

--J.D.

LP675

I may not be using terms such as 'subordinate' or 'primary' clause in a technical sense that you may be using them in.
As I explained, the second reason you are wrong is that if the sentence is to be understood in that way, it is false. Christians do not accept omni benevolence of the type Sven has assumed. Did you understand that?

Obviously the ‘subordinate’ clause is an addition to the main idea. The type of addition it happens to be is what is in dispute (I would say it is a qualifying clause). Consider this statement :“I believe in reincarnation and the five sacred pillars of belief of the blessed Buddha, as accepted by monks of south west Tibet.” The second ‘clause’ is a qualifying one, an additional thought to explain more precisely what type of reincarnation and interpretation of the five pillars I believe in (i.e. It is the belief I have in common with the monks of south west Tibet). If you want to interpret it as saying “I believe X, so do these monks.”, that is fine. It still provides additional information, that being that the type of belief X I hold, is the same as that of the monks. So even if the ‘subordinate clause was only secondary information’, it is still information that qualifies or adds further depth to our understanding of the primary clause.
I do acknowledge you interpretation is grammatically plausible, however I would regard it as the more tortuous (or ‘odd’) interpretation, considering the use of 'as'.

Good point, I do have to learn to be concise. Was that short enough? (P.s. The legal education I am currently undertaking perhaps isn’t specifically “study in discourse oriented linguistic analysis”, but I suspect an intuitive understanding of it is essential for success, which I might be said to have achieved a small measure of. (Notice the qualifying clause after the comma?)

LP675

Yes. Indeed, lets thank him for that...

I think you have an excellent command of the English language, and I have a great deal of respect for anyone who becomes so proficient in a second language. I think your problem might be instead that you are so used to debates on these topics you assume I am saying something that you expect I would say, and this colours your reading of my posts.

To adequately answer this one I would probably need to start a new thread. I have already been told off by Spin for being too longwinded, so I will just say the standard answer would be this; every human being is a sinner (that is they don’t live a sufficiently moral life to satisfy the requirements of Gods standard, ‘the law’). All sinners without help will therefore not be able to enter into communion with a Holy God (enter heaven), the inevitable consequence of not entering heaven is they won’t be able to avoid hell.

My evidence was Paul’s writings on the subject (Romans 1, and 2).
Probably right there.

spin

Not exactly. I was commenting on longwindedness in the context of irrelevance (note: "it has quite distracted from the OP"). And I do hope you'll accept my clarification without a disagreement over my content.

You notion of morals seems to be bankrupt, if it is based merely on "Gods [sic] standard". What makes you think that God is moral, other than the religious belief that he sets the standard? If God does iniquitous things like letting children be born with AIDS, if God drowns his creations because he botched the job, if God requires a blood sacrifice such as his own son in order for things to be set right in his way of things and you believe this stuff, then you must have a pretty warped view of morals. No-one is perfect, not even the creators of God.

Nice try, but you shouldn't have. What does it qualify? Oh, never mind. One thing you may learn is that there is little intuitive in law -- and less in grammar, especially when you never learn the formalities and they haven't been taught in Anglo-Saxon countries for decades.

a) That actor who I like is very handsome.
b) That actor, who I like, is very handsome.

Which actor is not defined in sentence b -- only elsewhere. Hopefully, I hear the sound of a coin clanking.

Now, do you have problems in the notion that the biblical flood is neither historical nor scientifically justifiable?


spin

LP675

Ok.
Crap that was a poor choice of an example. That’ll teach me. I don’t think you dealt with anything other than my silly quip(ie the monks etc). but you may have, lets see…
No pennies dropping here. It seems to me the actor specified in B is the one ‘I like’ (who happens to be handsome). Otherwise what meaning does ‘who I like’ convey? Have you just exposed a horrible gap in my comprehension of English?
It looks like this thread has died (thank our mighty and omnibenevolent God!), so if you don’t mind I honestly would like to understand what you have just said.
(You seems to have disregarded everything in my posts on this topic except my little indiscretion. I think those points stand unless what I am failing to understand regarding the comma is pertinent by making those points irrelevant).
Hehehe…yeah. But we both know that wasn’t the topic of the thread…