Redykeulous, where are't thou?!?!?

This topic has hardly been scratched!

It is a potentially fascinating basis to discuss what constitutes 'reality' for humans, and, ... can 'reality' be an absolute within our human condition (nature) ?!?!?


So here's a second try at my question to you. If it doesn't land clearly to you, don't hesitate to tell me. I'll do my best to clarify.

:)

... and 'scttrbrain',

Would you be kind enough to forward by 'e-mail', the exact address of that 'park bench', BEFORE WINTER'S END!!!

Much appreciated (in advance) 'scttrbrain'.

'redy', I refuse to let this one go !!!

Bounce the ball back won't you please!

Please, please, please, please!!!


:)

sorry Redy, but you are surely joking! Only Christians who complain, I think not, and I am sure if you
think about it, you will know that is not accurate!!

As for religious symbols what do they comprise of? - crosses, buildings? I do not doubt some buildings are larger than life -- heck the English countryside is dotted with them! - Kings and religious leaders tend to get carried away - they are men after all.

I wouldn't want to answer for 'red', 'britty', but I don't think 'red' meant 'symbols' from that particular angle.

I might have to be corrected on that one, but let's wait and see 'red's reply to my question.

Here is that address you requested voil:

HTTP//ALL_IN_YOUR_MIND.WWW.FALSE_IDOL@IMAGININE.THAT.COM LOL

Kat

Voile,

I trust not, one of the things I have in mind should be
fairly obvious, and that seems to have been under attack
way too much in recent years. I may not live there, but
it still grinds on my teeth.

So sorry for my delay. School again, and two topics I am passionate about, psychology and polotics, yea. Lots of reading and (arguing), I even debated with psychology teacher already - Voil, that can't be good, can it?

Back to topic:
I said


Voil responded


The 'request' I refer to, is that the symbols/icons,of religion, be removed from 'public' & 'government' domain.



To interpret speech, we must first have an understanding of all words used in speech. We must use a familiar frame of reference to give a word meaning. That particualar frame of reference is a subjective one and thus a word, known to many, will be understood, relative to a subjective frame of reference.

The interesting aspect of speech is that often times a word is 'defined' by an individual through a complex series of 'other symbolic' references.

Example: If I say truck - every persone who hears it will have a different picture come to mind. We relate the word truck to something we have experienced either personally through our senses or throug a definition that uses words that we are familiar with and thus have a frame of reference.

If I say 'fire-truck', I have narrowed the frame of reference, however, there will still be almost as many subjective 'pictures/symbols' as there are poeple.

So here's the thing - a physical religious icon (symbol) is not ineffectual as far as 'in your face' egotistical icons go. Because as you see, some are offended by the symbols, some feel the need to be 'reminded' by the symbols (like a police officer in public view), some use those symbols to declare the only righteous point of view within a society, and some require the symbol to 'support' a view that there is only one main source of religious value in this country and it should be maintained.

But what does this symbology mean to the god/s to whom it recognises? If ALL such icons or symbols are disallowed in public and government displays, why is one particular religion, above all others, so offended at the loss of the symbol?

Could it possibly be, simply, the loss of control, or sense of control, in what that the symbol represents?

Those are the questions I was asking.

Hi red. (waves hand feverishly) I haven't seen you in a while.

Kat

Redy,

Would you mind if someone decided to pull the American
Flag apart because they were offended by it?

What I am asking is what are the limitations on this
removal of 'religious' symbols - how far does one go
before the intrusion is too much?

I am sure you are thinking of obvious symbols, but there
are others that could be affected.

I wonder what a blind person uses as symbolism? You know...to communicate...

Kat

What I mean is; we...that see...have visual thinking.

scttrbrain,

I'd like to ask you a question, but my religion forbids me to interact with 'icons' such as the one you display under your 'pseudo'.

That guy probably never wants this winter to end!!!

After reading 'red's post, I stand corrected. I had read the thread from 'semiotics', vs first degree 'iconic' symbolism.

My mistake.

Touch, sound......

I believe that the spirit of God communicates with the inner spirit of man.

Lets see...For one; we have different ways of reflecting our words onto one another. Just as many ways to perceive them.
Facial expressions, thoughts, body language. Self image, ours and theirs. Expectations. Conscience and unconscience.
Symbols can be misconstrued, misunderstood. Can have extreme meaning to others while having absolutely no meaning to another.
So....having meaning to one constitutes symbolism to them. But, to another, it could mean a complete something else.

A large cross could mean to me a welcome mat for entrance, but to another it could be a negative symbol to be apart from. I see a cross as good, another sees it as why.

I see a snake as something I would rather did not exist. Something fearful, ugly and cold. Another sees it as a beautiful creature to hold and admire. Different symbolisms. When we talk about a snake we are seeing quite a different ideal. Our minds think it differently, giving for different realities.

I'm trying. Give me a little more time.

Kat

Hows your hand voile??lol There...is that better? Ask away......

Kat, liked your post, and I like the rose.

Britty. Thank you. But...I know this is not what Red is looking for. She needs more datailed description. More factual input.
I am a bit lazy with my mind.

Kat

A large cross could mean to me a welcome mat for entrance, but to another it could be a negative symbol to be apart from. I see a cross as good, another sees it as why.
===============================================
Because language is a symbolic representation of a phenomenon, room for interpretation and distortion of the meaning exists. Including symbols is our language one to another by sight, being mindful of thought and interpretation. To each his (her) own individually or collectively?

(I see a cross as good), Something as valued, included with my belief.

(another sees it as why). As something of disbelief, a source of mistrust.

Both being a state of mind differing from each individuals beliefs, thought processes, meanings and realities.

Kat

Did you ever feel like you were talking to yourself??

Thread killer. I'm changing my profile name to "thread killer".
Shoot...

Kat