There seem to be some linguistic issues when debating religion... For example, it seems the word "faith" changes meaning constantly... The terms God and god have an ambiguous relationship...
Are there similar problems in other languages?
2007-12-20 06:21:06 · 18 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
UP, Du sprechen Deutsch? Ich habe 10 Jahre von Deutsch gehabt...
2007-12-20 06:29:34 · update #1
Super Bobo, I feel like no matter how much time to spent defining terms, sometimes, misunderstandings are inevitable.
2007-12-20 06:33:13 · update #2
Through a Korean interpreter. Pretty funny really.
Don't you find it interesting how much time is spent, in almost every philosophical discussion, how much effort is required in defining terms? Half the battle is coming to some common ground on what specific terms mean to those involved.
'Faith' is one of those terms -
-------------------
Edit:
11-T - I completely agree - one of the many reasons we find ourselves in conflict with everyone from mom and dad to the mailman, neighbor, waitress, etc. Not the only reason, but it is one of the big ones, from my perspective anyway.
2007-12-20 06:27:40 · answer #1 · answered by super Bobo 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ich habe nicht, aber andererseits, sind meine Fähigkeiten nicht bis zu Debattieren in einer Fremdsprache. Bezüglich der dynamischen von Übersetzung nehme ich an, dass es von der Sprache abhängen würde. Einige Sprachen haben weniger Zweideutigkeit als andere.
(I haven't, but then again, my skills aren't up to debating in a foreign language. As to the dynamics of translation, I suppose that it would depend on the language. Some languages have less ambiguity than others.)
2007-12-20 06:27:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
i have discussed religion at length in french.
i never had much in the way of the problems that you suggest - essentially because the people i was discussing with all had a basic catholic background (though we were not all catholics) and we could all refer to classical formulations of the major ideas (sometimes using latin terminology) if we needed to.
as a general principle one needs some kind of a grounding in catholic apologetics to discuss christianity with any real degree of success - because catholic apologetics is the only real apologetics there is for (western) christianity.
i don't often agree with erigena (and hardly ever with aquinas), but at least what they said was coherent.
talking religion to most protestants is like trying to discuss quantum physics with a dahlia.
2007-12-20 06:33:10 · answer #3 · answered by synopsis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nein, Ich kanne das nicht...
Ich spreche Deutsch wie ein kind...
I habe auf Deutschland gewohnt fur sieben jaren. Aber, Ich habe viel vergessen... das is shade. I war ins Nurnberg und Kaiserslautern.
2007-12-20 06:25:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Nope- when I study with a group it is in hebrew- since the Tanakh was originally written in hebrew, and those of us studying understand the varying nuances- from the obvious, to the legalistic to the alluded to meanings- we manage just fine.
2007-12-20 07:37:50 · answer #5 · answered by allonyoav 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My second degree in Philosophy involved the use of German, and i wouldn't say there was a big difference, although it might be interesting to do it in Sanskrit or Hebrew i suppose. However, it's a really interesting question.
2007-12-20 06:29:58 · answer #6 · answered by grayure 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In German, not so much difference.
But then again, English is a Germanic based language. I do find less ambiguity in debating anything in German
2007-12-20 06:28:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I assume you could try to debate in tongues....there would be no semantic issues...but that benefit hardly outweighs the whole problem of babbling incoherently...
2007-12-20 06:29:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very clever. Brilliant
2016-05-25 04:49:01 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Semantics could drive you nuts in any language!
2007-12-20 06:26:09 · answer #10 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋