Do word's have any meaning?

The Gospel of John begins with the uniquely profound yet impossibly simple words: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.'Since we live in this post-modern ethos, I wanted to find out who among you believes that words have an objective meaning. Or who among you does not!Social issues?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Your topic needs more substance.Explain what the scripture has to do with your question or post-modern ethos and maybe some background on what sparks the question.I also suggest that you provide your own position on what you're asking.Right now it has potential, but isn't very clear cut.Let me know when you want me to review the OP again.

No, it was Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche.I apologize for the paraphrase and lazy research. Here is the proper quote: (Friedrich Nietzsche)Dr A:When it comes to the term supernatural you are correct. I think I am right, but I do lobby for a re-evaluation of the term.But it is you who ignored the appropriate definition by Websters that I used for 'Artificial' in that context. And if my memory serves me, it was you who said that convention is the authority on both matters.It is only now that you speak of actual meaning.Convention does not give actual meaning, it gives conventional meaning. You might want to look up those definitions in Websters. there is a descisive difference.If your teeth are gnashing, it is of no fault of mine. The truth should be your friend and companion, not your enemy.Laboring against reality will always cause massive existential angst. It is tolerable and invisible in a society who's convention hides you from it. But it is thrust back into your face when confronted with one like myself who is not swayed by the pathetic whims of convention. And in the final analysis, it will either lead to an honest confession by you, or crucifixion of the messenger.Before you know it, you will be conspiring with other modern day Pharisees to parse words, law, and order in a desperate and vain attempt to divide reality into neat little pandoras boxes. That way you can ostricize unco-operative rebels with little man-made rules about topic and the like.There is only one topic at EVC. And creation vs. evolution are only one aspect of that topic.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

My own position is that words do have meaning. This is easily sustained. And as you can see I have provided one of several examples of how this topic is being debated already.I ask for the promotion of this topic with minimal restriction. it is rather self appearing in terms of the what and the why. And that is why I fear it is of no interest to your agenda.

Specifically, which words? Is this a Biblical Inerrency argument?If so, all that will happen is that believers will state that the Bible has absolute truth meanings and non-believers will not. To be honest, Rob...if you clarify the topic a bit, you can honestly expose your agenda and we then can know where to place it and what type of debate it shall be.

Make your case in the OP.State your question and give your position to the question with support for your position.Put your energy into writing a clear opening post.Let me know when you want me to review the OP again.

All words...Not a Biblical inerracny argument, rather a logic inerrancy argument. (same difference to me, the Bible being exquisitely and inhumanly logical... but I am focusing on logic itself for this topic).The concept in John 1 really conveys something we can distinguish as reality without invoking the Bible per se. It is the idea that reality itself is absolutely sensible and reasonable. An attribute you and I attribute to Christ's deity (his grace and truth), but in this case I am only really looking at it from a purely philosophical angle.Wisdom, understanding; concepts, ideas, and knoledge themselves are only valid if words have an objective meaning. I wish to discus this.It is almost a straw man because if words do no thave any meaning, then you wouldn't know what I am saying. But it keeps coming up in thread after thread; the qustion, that is...The base point, is that many today believe that we give words meaning. But they use words to tell us that.What are they saying?It is not complicated. It's a simple question. Do words have any meaning? Do words have any intrinsic value, or do we impart that value?Who would be foolish enough to question it you might ask...That is why I want the precident set. And in case there is a challenge to my position; that words do have an objective and intrisic value, I can deal with it quickly here.I only ask for one restriction... That Ringo not be allowed to participate!Just kidding!

PDNow... See message 7 aboveIt's a simple question.

Correction...I said:I must be specific... words having meaning and all.People who say this do not actually believe it. But they say it.They don't even know what they are saying. They subconsciously see themselves as seperate from the words they are using. They have not become one with their own concepts. They have not had communion with the words.So to them, words are only a tool for them to play with. They have no objective value. The power and reality of the ideas eludes them. It is as though they are not fully conscious. They are not living in the ideas. It is a fabrication to them. Yet they live somewhere... They are dead in some sense to their own existence and it's glory.I suppose that won't help in terms of topic promotion. I just wanted to clarify.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I'm not inclined to promote the OP as written and you apparently aren't inclined to edit.I will leave this open until Wednesday to allow another Admin to take up your cause if they wish.

Topic not promoted due to lack of substance and clarity and due to lack of cooperation from the originator.