At a training event recently I was treated to five hours of shouting and haranguing from a trainer who adopted a style somewhere between a TV evangelist and a drill sergeant. For various reasons I can't go into much detail here but there was one thing that occurs to me that I can comment on. His use of the phrase "are you with me" which he whispered, shouted or screamed at approximately two minute intervals throughout the day.

What occurred to me was that this phrase has two meanings and that even now I am not sure whether he meant "do you understand me" or "do you agree with me".
I understood him only too well and disagreed with him on almost everything he said, but it's an interesting turn of phrase because at no point was it clear. I suspect it was a deliberately ambiguity. Answer "no" and he can take it the first way and repeat whatever assertion he is trying to support. Answer "yes" and he can take it the second way and be validated by your agreement.

Are you with me?

I very much dislike this kind of evangelistic motivational training. It is shallow and of very limited benefit and I won't involve myself with it. Sadly, because it is superficially attractive, many of those who buy training will contract for these kinds of intervention without asking themselves the important question, "What change am I expecting in my participants at the end of this event?"

If the answer cannot be formulated then the change cannot be measured.

quote:

What occurred to me was that this phrase has two meanings and that even now I am not sure whether he meant "do you understand me" or "do you agree with me".

In most contexts I'd take it as, "do you understand me?"

But, if you are not with me then you are against me.

quote:

But, if you are not with me then you are against me.

Only if I'm George Bush...

I know President Bush said that but I'm pretty sure the quote is older, possibly much older. Does anyone have an earlier reference for that particular form of words?

quote:

you are not with me then you are against me

Matthew 12:22-30, according to one source. So Jesus was Republican?

quote:

So Jesus was Republican?

Well, duh.

Thanks proof.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

you are not with me then you are against me

Matthew 12:22-30, according to one source. So Jesus was Republican?

If this quotation is accurate then it reduces still further my belief in the supposed wisdom of the Bible.

Clearly anyone can support another's ideas 100% or reject them 100%. What is apparently not so clear to George Bush or Matthew is that it is possible to give partial support to an idea - from 1% or less up to 99% or more.

As I said, I do not have much faith in the writings of the Bible - but that does not mean I reject them 100%; I suspect that there is a small amount of truth mixed in with the myth, mumbo jumbo and legend. To me it would be a ludicrous suggestion that I can only believe in the book 100% or not at all.

I've looked it up. It's accurate but out of context. It is the last bit of a section about casting out devils. It's Jesus saying that he can only cast out devils because God is opposed to them.
It seems to be saying that anyone not on the side of the angels is by definition on the side of the devils.

It's a viewpoint, I suppose.

I had already seen Neveu's link. There is also a project under way by a conservative group to edit the Bible to remove all liberal, socialist or communist words from it and "restore" the "original" meanings. One cited example was "comrade", which is used in the NT three times and they insist it should be either deleted or changed. I think they've altered one section so Jesus enters Jerusalem in a Hummer driven by oil executives, waving an American flag.

I always find he mind set revealed by paintings like that to be very very scary indeed. Given the way that people like the artist obviously feel it's my opinion that the apocalypse is going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

quote:

But, if you are not with me then you are against me.

Well, quotes often evolve with the times. This one, I think, to most people means, "do you understand me?", at least here in the U.S. Professors use it all the time, and they don't mean "do you agree with me?"; they mean, "Are you understanding this?"

"Are you with me", meaning "do you understand me?" is commonly used in England as well. But were I to reply to such and enquiry, "No" I'd not mean that I was against the questioner; it would simply mean that I didn't understand.

In other words, the opposite must be to the implied question, not to the stated question.

But the phrase as used by GWB and others, "You are either with me or you're against me" is one with which I completely disagree. It is pointless simply because it is meaningless.

I don't agree that "You are either with me or against me" is meaningless. hat it says to me, in a rather less verbose form is
"In my view of the world I do not acknowledge the existence of any middle ground. Everyone who does not support my view must therefore oppose it and is therefore my enemy and so I am justified in treating him as my enemy. Support me or suffer the consequences."
Seems to me to be rather a meaningful little statement. Just because I think it's a dumb world view doesn't make it a meaningless statement.

Possibly meaningless was the wrong adjective. But it is a statement that is so surrounded with falsehoods and impracticalities that is is pointless since few if any can ever agree with it.