1. What are the general logic and the presuppositions of the problem of evil? 2. How can the problem of evil be called into question and how can one develop grammatical methods and philosophical tools to build a successful antitheodicy? 3. How can one develop a grammatical metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem through a philosophical grammar of the underlying language/world and being/meaning-links? 4. How can the grammatical approach to metaphysical questions and to the metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem of evil be used to analyse religious and worldview questions, and articulate ways of existential, humanistic and religious sense-making that overcome the problem?
ellauri151.html on line 616: reality. [...] The grammatical rules applying to it determine the meaning
ellauri151.html on line 619: it; it has a grammatical body behind it, so to speak. Its meaning cannot
ellauri151.html on line 621: grammatical rules with it. They describe its usage subsequently. (LWL:
ellauri153.html on line 322: the Book of Job and the Gospels can be condensed into five grammatical remarks, or rules of
ellauri153.html on line 354: We can now give game-theoretical analogues for the grammatical principles concerning “goodness” and “omnipotence” for the justice-of-God game G. Note that goodness holds by definition.
ellauri153.html on line 424: and strategic grammatical descriptions of the stories about the victory of God, and with
ellauri153.html on line 454: game. Moreover, they capture the essence of God in the stories, as they function as grammatical
ellauri153.html on line 554: Now that the problem of evil has been exposed as a conceptual confusion, the way is clear for a Jamesian science of religions and worldviews. The methods of grammatical description can be extended to the practices and ways of sense-making in different worldviews: how they give meaning to moral practices and how do they approach the intelligibility of the world? What practical responses do they have for coping with evil? For example, the grammar of seeing-as for models and metaphors can be applied to the metaphors in the Hebrew Bible for God’s activity to understand what it is to see the world as God’s creation. The grammar of virtues can be used to describe Buddhist practices and explore, how these approaches contribute to the human good. Similar approaches can be taken to secular worldviews as well. These descriptions can then be used to assess the worldviews through dialogical encounters between them. However, one thing should be clear. There is no point in devaluing the world by arguing for the meaninglessness of life or atheism on the basis of evil, or in giving justifications for evils that can stand in the way of divine or human meliorist projects of fighting for justice. To paraphrase the judgment of the Divine Judge in the Book of Job, such approaches are not even wrong. They are as meaningless as life itself.
ellauri197.html on line 297: This grammatical confusion continues in the third line where there is no subject given for the sentiment. Nothing is stated as the thing that “[w]ould be an easy adversity,” so structurally, the statement lacks clarity. A more correct formulation would be given by
ellauri197.html on line 305: An interesting thing to note, however, is that the “adversity” is treated in a beautiful way by being addressed as a “Bloom.” The capitalization can be written off with the notion that even a bad memory could be important enough to merit capitalization, but a “Bloom” has a connotation of natural beauty and livelihood. This could simply mean the negativity from the circumstance grows with time, but the choice of such a soft verb gives the feeling that the narrator has warm feelings about whatever happened to cause this bad memory—maybe a relationship she loved but lost or a friend who was dear but forsaken. This would again give a reason for the grammatical chaos of the lack of subject and mismatched verb tenses since, it seems, the narrator does not know how she feels about the memory.
ellauri412.html on line 676: Look, if you’re reading the Bible as an atheist and asking about a reasonable interpretation, then the world is your oyster. You are not required to accept the worldview of the authors of the Bible, who all believed in God and wrote about Him from that perspective. And at the same time, as someone who does not believe God exists and does not accept the inspired nature or inerrancy of scripture, you have limited your possible interpretations of Scripture to only natural explanations that do not invoke God. This is going to cause significant problems with your use of the historical-grammatical method, which strives to discover the biblical author’s original intended meaning in the text. For example, every time Isaiah writes, “thus says the Lord” (which is a lot!), how will you interpret that? For an atheist, a statement like that either makes Isiah delusional (he believed a non-existent God told him something) or a charlatan (he’s knowingly asserting a false attribution).
xxx/ellauri166.html on line 363: ShekinAH (AH as in "Glory"), the "AH" aspect of YahuAH (Hebrew: שכינה) is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew word that means the dwelling or settling, and is used to denote the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of Yahuah.
xxx/ellauri166.html on line 421: The Tosafot do not constitute a continuous commentary, but rather (like the "Dissensiones" to the Roman Code of the first quarter of the twelfth century) deal only with difficult passages of the Talmud. Single sentences are explained by quotations which are taken from other Talmudic treatises and which seem at first glance to have no connection with the sentences in question. On the other hand, sentences which seem to be related and interdependent are separated and embodied in different treatises. The Tosafot can be understood only by those who are well advanced in the study of the Talmud, for the most entangled discussions are treated as though they were simple. Glosses explaining the meaning of a word or containing a grammatical observation are very rare.
xxx/ellauri416.html on line 722: El means "God" in the Ugaritic and the Canaanite languages. The literal meaning of Shaddai, however, is the subject of debate. Some scholars have argued that it came from Akkadian shadû ("mountain") or from the Hebrew verb shaddad שדד meaning "Destroyer". Shaddai may have also come from shad שד meaning mammary; shaddai is a typical Biblical Hebrew word (שדי). The plural (Shaddayim -- שדיים) is the typical Modern Hebrew word for human breasts in dual grammatical number.The Deir Alla Inscription contains shaddayin as well as elohin rather than elohim. Scholars translate this as "shadday-gods," taken to mean unspecified boobs, mountain or destroyer gods. A popular interpretation of the name Shaddai is that it is composed of the Hebrew relative particle she- (Shin plus vowel segol followed by dagesh), or, as in this case, as sha- (Shin plus vowel patach followed by a dagesh). The noun containing the dagesh is the Hebrew word dai meaning "enough, sufficient, sufficiency". However, Day's overview says a "rabbinic view understanding the name meaning 'who suffices' (Se + day) is clearly fanciful and has no support."
17