Definitive proof that the Bulldogs are NOT the 2004 Premiers

[Matabele]

Zap, what exactly is belief?

 

[Matabele]

LEt me re-phrase that. What is the semitic understanding of the word belief (also the root of the word in language)?

How does knowing what that means re-shape our understanding of the three major mono theistic religions?

How does it differ from the current, watered down, Western understanding of the word belief?

When you've finished that, answer the same questions for the word "love".

Homework time.

 

[Dan]

It doesnt, change anything.

Why?
Because the can not compare the current understanding/meaning of a word to the meaning of a word in a different time. You need to compare equivilents.

Much like stats

Shall we say instead of belief. Understanding

 

[fLIP]

Here we go again. Off the topic asking us another question. What you feel is right about god is right in your own world. And the same goes with everyone. None of us can prove anything. We wern't their we don't know. We go off books written by corrupt churches. So, its all up to speculation now. We have to find what fits right with us and just believe it. No one should try and say anyone else is wrong because no one is wrong. But nobody can prove themselves correct either. Believe what you want, but still have the realisation and open mind to recognise you could be wrong. Thats what I do and also zap. It also appears we are the least hung up about this issue. You concern for our souls because we don't follow cristianity causes you more stress than necesary mate.

 

[The Wheel]

My opinion - There was a man named Jesus who lived a couple of thousand years ago, I am sure he was persausive, eloquent and knowledge with good intentions (Matabele?). He taught his theories across the Middle East (sounds like Dubbo) and influenced many people.

The bible was written some time (a couple of centuries) after his death, not directly from his teachings but other peoples observations of his teachings (like Fluffs recent effort). The bible has been changed over the mellenium suit the purpose of the church and the greed of the so called people who represent God and Jesus.

I am not sure whether God exixts or not, I reasonably sure that Jesus did live and walk on this earth. When they find Noahs Ark and someone explains to me how they got all the animals on board (including Tassie Tigers, Elephants and Red Belly Balck snakes) and how a carpenter could build a boat that big to house them all, including storing all the food to feed them, I will start going to Church on Sundays.

 

[fLIP]

:lol: GOLD. Well summed up about the bible though.

 

[Matabele]

None of us can prove anything. We wern't their we don't know. We go off books written by corrupt churches.

A good response Flip, but right there is where we differ.

The logical extension to your first sentence is that anything in history cannot be proven. Do you think it possible that people could have the same debates in 2000 years time about who won the Premiership in 2004 (not that they'd care)? Does the fact that some people will doubt it in 2000 years time mean that it didn't happen?

Of course we find that thought prepsoterous now! But in 2000 years time?

Flip I have never argued the fact that the church has subverted the teachings of the Christ to their own ends. However, I do think care needs to be taken when we say that the "bible texts" have not survived this process of "change".

There are thousands of documents sourced from the first and second centuries that are used to verify the current text of the bible (why do you think the Dead Sea scrolls was such an important discovery?). Yes, some of them differ where words have been changed but there is an entire field of study where each word is agonised over, thousands of the historical texts examined and provided with different weightings to ascertain what was the most likely meaning of the word as close to the original time as possible.

It is a hugely complex area that would take me hours to explain in any depth. However, the current "bible", whilst in many languages and versions is as close to the actual historically sourced documents as I think any book could be. Chaucer's writings from 1000 years ago are based off something like 50 base documents. The bible is taken from thousands.

 

[Fluffy]

Mata you wrote this on page 11.

"It's a long story, interwoven through history itself (and therefore provable)"

You implied that because the bible exists, god exists.

Hence my part of the arguement that the bible cannot be proven to exist was proven by your post here.

 

[Matabele]

Wheel - a very good summary. I think you would find that that would be the kind of attitude held by 80% of the population. It is a very "safe" way of looking at it (no offense intended).

For most people they'll live with that impression for all of their life. It's only if, by chance, they beging to scratch below the surface of those assumptions that you start to question whether there is something more.

For the record, Noah and his boat are completely explainable with a grammtico-historical approach to the text. Not so with a literal approach which is interesting. I'm happy to PM you my thoughts However, I do so on the basis that, if convinced, you don't then darken the door of a church. I'd rather the trade-off be a read of the gospels.

 

[Matabele]

Mata you wrote this on page 11.

\"It's a long story, interwoven through history itself (and therefore provable)\"

You implied that because the bible exists, god exists.

Hence my part of the arguement that the bible cannot be proven to exist was proven by your post here.

Okay, thanks Fluffy. What that means is that you can put up what was in the bible against what we know of the ancient world. Are you saying that isn't the case?

Also, you're yet to answer my questions on why it can't be proven.

Cheers.

 

[Dan]

That opens a massive point.

If you cant take that part literally, then what else is stretched and by how much

 

[fLIP]

Still. No one can give hard evidence on god. WHY THE **** CANT WE JUST ACCEPT THAT ITS A BELIEFE AND CANNOT BE PROVEN AS FACT. I can except that my views can and are most likley incorrect, but its what sits right with me at the moment and when something comes my way that changes my views on life, I will change also.

 

[Matabele]

Flip - you can do that. Just as I can believe that Manly are Premiers because they fielded a team of buffoons. I can live with that until I come up with a better theory.

 

[Matabele]

Zap, I don't believe the bible was ever intended to be read literally. Otherwise I'd never clip the sides of my beard, never eat pork and abstain from sex for two weeks in every month.

Context (grammatic historical) is vital to a proper understanding. Yes that does open up a degree of subjectivity, but the subjectivity does need to be balanced and consistent with historical evidence.

Please note, this is a controversial approach. Many churches do take a literal approach ("the word of the Lord is God breathed and not to be changed") which I personally find more ludicrous than a stance of atheism.

 

[fLIP]

So what you are saying is you will decide on a certain way, and walk through life ignoring everything that goes against your beliefes. You don't want to learn anything outside whats happened to you in the last 30 years. I expected more of you. Your 30 years of religious experience, in the billions of years the universe has been around should be enough reason to not jump on the first boat you see and ride it for the rest of your life.

If someone told you that by touching a hot plate you wouldn't get burnt, and, you touched by scolded your hand, would you continue to touch it even though your teacher has been proven wrong. No, you would change you perseption of whats been told to you because its human nature. So don't question my way of thinking. I will just end up happier in the eyes of myself, and not happier in the eyes of my priest.

 

[Matabele]

Flip, do you understand what satire is?

 

[Dan]

Mata that leaves a lot of loopholes and sounds like the perfect excuse for all. I wont persue it i am growing weary of the stalemate

 

[Matabele]

Yep Zap. I've just PM'd you my story. That'll do hey?

 

[Guest]

Tell me Flipper did you do history at school and do you believe Cook landed at 1770. If you do believe that then how can you not believe the stories in the bible as the landing of Captain Cook was a couple of centuries ago and everyone takes what is written in the history books as fact why is it so different with the bible. They both contain eyewitness accounts that we cant prove and are written only by historians just like the bible.

 

[Dan]

would we be in australia if he didnt????

Theres also the question of time.

Things were more accurately recorded the closer you get to our time.

The divergence is smaller and the suprstition and its interference with fact is smaller too