Nine people convicted in honour killing

[Hack&Lube]

This also happens within Hindu culture and a slew of other traditioanl cultures. I remember there was that large indian family that joined with other familes to own large farms in B.C. and there was a honor killing.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Hi guys, I'd like to offer my 2 cents and just address a few things which either have been incorrectly stated or left as unknowns.

1. Wiki is not exactly something to hold up as the word of god.

I believe I said that when I posted the link . . . . . and didn't much of the the rest of your post simply regurgitate the Wikpedia examination?

Talking about Dowry and Caste system is like comparing apples and oranges when talking about the honour system. They are topics onto themselves. Caste and Dowry are ancient Hindu traditions that have died down in modern times

As noted above, not according to Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Children's Fund.

Cowperson



Cowperson

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

1. Wiki is not exactly something to hold up as the word of god. It can be edited by anyone for any purpose.

I'm sorry, but that was pretty funny. Notwithstanding the pre-warning that Cowperson put before posting the link, you do realize that over the centuries the Bible (aka the word of God) was copied by monks hand writing copies of it. It is believed that many of the bibles we read today have been editted by monks from the Dark Age; either on purpose or often by accident.

So in fact the "word of God" was also editted by anyone who wanted to; anyone who at the time knew how to read of course.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'm sorry, but that was pretty funny. Notwithstanding the pre-warning that Cowperson put before posting the link, you do realize that over the centuries the Bible (aka the word of God) was copied by monks hand writing copies of it. It is believed that many of the bibles we read today have been editted by monks from the Dark Age; either on purpose or often by accident.

So in fact the "word of God" was also editted by anyone who wanted to; anyone who at the time knew how to read of course.

Your comparing the evolution of the bible to an open source encylopedia?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Your comparing the evolution of the bible to an open source encylopedia?

Why not?

The Bible was conceived after the purported life of Jesus and, in fact, was compiled through many centuries of interpretations, alterations and dismissal of competing messages . . . . hundreds if not thousands of unconnected and very mortal people may have had a hand in its evolution (sic).

Cowperson



Cowperson

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Why not?

The Bible was conceived after the purported life of Jesus and, in fact, was compiled through many centuries of interpretations, alterations and dismissal of competing messages . . . . hundreds if not thousands of unconnected and very mortal people may have had a hand in its evolution (sic).

Cowperson

I think its pretty much a given fact that "mortal" people did the write the Bible. And that mortal people edited it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Why not?

The Bible was conceived after the purported life of Jesus and, in fact, was compiled through many centuries of interpretations, alterations and dismissal of competing messages . . . . hundreds if not thousands of unconnected and very mortal people may have had a hand in its evolution (sic).

Cowperson



Cowperson

Thanks Cowperson for the history lesson. I know how the Bible came about...

The two entities are not even close to being the same which would make it like compating apples to oranges.

You have this thing of arguing for the sake of looking at your writing.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thanks Cowperson for the history lesson. I know how the Bible came about...

The two entities are not even close to being the same which would make it like compating apples to oranges.

A brilliant comeback filled with logical riposte.

Would you care to actually argue the point? If you can?

You have this thing of arguing for the sake of looking at your writing.

On occasion, that's true. In this case, however, I've got my foot on your throat.

Cowperson

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A brilliant comeback filled with logical riposte.

Would you care to actually argue the point? If you can?

You have this thing of arguing for the sake of looking at your writing.

On occasion, that's true. In this case, however, I've got my foot on your throat.

Cowperson

Youve got your foot in your mouth more like it.

I agree that the bible is made up of years and years of interpretation and re interpretation. Many people are involved in its creation.

Wikipedia is quite different. Any joe blow can enter info into the data base. It may be an expert or it may be a dim wit. However, entire organizations have not been built on the teachings of Wikipedia as have with the Bible. Many many people have studied the Bible as cannot be said for Wikipedia.

Are there similarities? Of course.......as in any anything. But to me You cannot compare Wikipedia to the information in the Bible.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

But to me You cannot compare Wikipedia to the information in the Bible.

I think you are missing the point. I wasn't saying that the info in one place or another is more widely followed. But as you said yourself:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree that the bible is made up of years and years of interpretation and re interpretation. Many people are involved in its creation.

Which is common for both. However my original point of wiki not being held up as the word of God; that is a flawed analogy. Both sources of information are subject to flaws; and the flaws are common between them due to many people having their hands in it.

Myself, I always tell people to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. The point is the same; it's just the way he chose to word it was funny. And had this thread not turned into a discussion about religion I wouldn't had made the comment.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Youve got your foot in your mouth more like it.

I agree that the bible is made up of years and years of interpretation and re interpretation. Many people are involved in its creation.

Wikipedia is quite different. Any joe blow can enter info into the data base. It may be an expert or it may be a dim wit. However, entire organizations have not been built on the teachings of Wikipedia as have with the Bible. Many many people have studied the Bible as cannot be said for Wikipedia.

Are there similarities? Of course.......as in any anything. But to me You cannot compare Wikipedia to the information in the Bible.

I'll admit up front that I'm to a certain extent playing devil's advocate--but it seems to me that you actually haven't demonstrated any way in which the Bible is importantly different from an open-source encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, your claim is just that the Bible is older (i.e. many people have studied it) and has given birth to more institutions. But you have to realize that it IS the case that "any joe schmo" could change the bible if they wanted--that is, any joe schmo who could read and write, or who had the resources to commission someone else to do it.

Consider this: why do most churches use the King James bible--which was commissioned by King James in the early 17th century for explicitly political reasons? At that time there were dozens of bibles, and they were being added to and changed all the time. The bible is old enough that to call it the "word of god," even if you believe that God came down at the beginning and dictated it to the apostles (which can only be true for the gospel, but that's another story) then by now it's changed enough to be almost unrecognizable.

Kind of like if someone enters something into Wikipedia and then it gets changed a whole bunch of times.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Youve got your foot in your mouth more like it.

I agree that the bible is made up of years and years of interpretation and re interpretation. Many people are involved in its creation.

Wikipedia is quite different. Any joe blow can enter info into the data base. It may be an expert or it may be a dim wit. However, entire organizations have not been built on the teachings of Wikipedia as have with the Bible. Many many people have studied the Bible as cannot be said for Wikipedia.

Are there similarities? Of course.......as in any anything. But to me You cannot compare Wikipedia to the information in the Bible.

As near as I can tell from that answer, you appear to agree with me that both the bible and Wikpedia have been put together by both expert's and dimwits, an amalgam of opinions subject to a tug of war of opinions.

Digging into that comment though, you can certainly see that the term "dimwit" would be more readily applied to the superstitious and myth believing originators of the Bible than it would to Wikpedia.

Their excuse, I suppose, is they might be considered ignorant 1900 to 1500 year-old savages versus the modern warriors arguing over the content of Wikpedia.

In the case of Wikpedia, my primary quibble comes from the evident politicization tug of war that appears to occur in certain topics . . . . . . irritating to be sure but a far cry from lowering itself to the level of the Bible.

However, entire organizations have not been built on the teachings of Wikipedia as have with the Bible.

That, of course, is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Just because "entire organizations" exist does not mean there is any truth behind them . . . . unless you're going to tell us Tom Cruise is legit.

The argument is pretty basic . . . . . is the bible a compendium of opinions gathered, argued about, alternatively accepted and dismissed through a period of time and is the formulation of Wikpedia a comparable to that process?

The answer is obviously yes.

Cowperson

[jolinar of malkshor]

Well I guess the big difference is whether or not you believe there was a higher power involved in the creation of the bible. You cannot say the same for Wikipedia.

I will bow to the fact that I have not proven my point but that tends to be the case in most religous arguments.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'll admit up front that I'm to a certain extent playing devil's advocate--but it seems to me that you actually haven't demonstrated any way in which the Bible is importantly different from an open-source encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, your claim is just that the Bible is older (i.e. many people have studied it) and has given birth to more institutions. But you have to realize that it IS the case that "any joe schmo" could change the bible if they wanted--that is, any joe schmo who could read and write, or who had the resources to commission someone else to do it.

Actually, any "joe schmo" has been changing the Bible a lot lately. Look at all the different translations coming out. One for every person.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As near as I can tell from that answer, you appear to agree with me that both the bible and Wikpedia have been put together by both expert's and dimwits, an amalgam of opinions subject to a tug of war of opinions.

Digging into that comment though, you can certainly see that the term "dimwit" would be more readily applied to the superstitious and myth believing originators of the Bible than it would to Wikpedia.

Their excuse, I suppose, is they might be considered ignorant 1900 to 1500 year-old savages versus the modern warriors arguing over the content of Wikpedia.

In the case of Wikpedia, my primary quibble comes from the evident politicization tug of war that appears to occur in certain topics . . . . . . irritating to be sure but a far cry from lowering itself to the level of the Bible.

However, entire organizations have not been built on the teachings of Wikipedia as have with the Bible.

That, of course, is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Just because "entire organizations" exist does not mean there is any truth behind them . . . . unless you're going to tell us Tom Cruise is legit.

The argument is pretty basic . . . . . is the bible a compendium of opinions gathered, argued about, alternatively accepted and dismissed through a period of time and is the formulation of Wikpedia a comparable to that process?

The answer is obviously yes.

Cowperson

As far as I know, Scientology does not render use of the Bible.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

As far as I know, Scientology does not render use of the Bible.

I didn't say they did.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Look at all the different translations coming out. One for every person.

Well done.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well I guess the big difference is whether or not you believe there was a higher power involved in the creation of the bible.

When Pope John Paul died and was replaced by what's-his-name, someone on the board said the new guy should be respected because he was the veritable word of God.

And all I could think about was: "Geezus Christ, the guy was ELECTED!!"

You cannot say the same for Wikipedia.

Thank God!!!

Cowperson

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

When Pope John Paul died and was replaced by what's-his-name, someone on the board said the new guy should be respected because he was the veritable word of God.

And all I could think about was: "Geezus Christ, the guy was ELECTED!!"

You cannot say the same for Wikipedia.

Thank God!!!

Cowperson

You know what, agree with you on the whole religion thing and this divine right and communication with GOD. But it is simply a belief that we have. We cannot prove them workng but they cannot prove themselves right. It's the nature of religion.

As for the election of the Pope, the idea is that GOD guides the members to make the right decision. As much as I think that is BS we really can't prove it wrong.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You know what, agree with you on the whole religion thing and this divine right and communication with GOD. But it is simply a belief that we have. We cannot prove them workng but they cannot prove themselves right. It's the nature of religion.

As for the election of the Pope, the idea is that GOD guides the members to make the right decision. As much as I think that is BS we really can't prove it wrong.

I've made that point myself in previous debates.

An atheist can't prove that someone like Jesus NEVER existed 2000 years ago and certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist.

On the other hand, there is no evidence from the contemporary life of Jesus that would prove he ever existed - a completely hearsay argument - and certainly no one can prove that God exists. . . . .

People are free to believe what they want in either case.

Cowperson