Nine people convicted in honour killing

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I didn't say they did.

Cowperson

You said this...

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.

From what I understand, you're refering to "entire organizations" being started by one thing, the Bible. Then you go on to say that it "does not mean there is any truth behind it" as in some people believe there is no truth behind the Bible, and that its simply a book.

Then you say, "unless you're going to tell us Tom Cruise is legit" as if to say that if the Bible is legit, Tom Cruise is too.

But I guess I misunderstood you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well done.

You're not being sarcastic, are you?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

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

Which is why religion, for the most part, rests on the basis of faith.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I can't believe I'm weightin on this, but come on, some of you actually believe that teh Bible is akin to Wikipedia?

Certainly they've both been changed and adapted over the years, but I think the main difference (and it's a big one) is accesability.

Any Joe Schmoe can sign on and write whatever they want on Wikipedia. Hell, not too long ago peole on this very site were having a pretty good time changing things around and having a good laugh.

The Bible on the other hand has also assuredly been changed many times since it's inception, but does that mean that I can go ahead and write my own version? Sure it does, but it wont have any legitimacy. Over the years there has been a group of people that preside over the content of the bible, and whatever there reasons may be, they have restricted who can change what in the bible. (Yes Monks doing hand copies could have changed it, but changing one book at a time is not nearly the same thing as information on the internet.

As I said, regardless of thier reasons, the fact that there is a body that determines what can and can't go into the bible is what makes it different from an online encyclopedia.

I could write my own version of the Encyclopedia Britanica, and it would be a completely ilegitmate copy. Why? Because it holds none of the authority granted by whoever it is that controlls what goes into Britanica. But the same is true of the Bible, (whether you believe what is in it is irrelevant), but by your bible arguement I could say that the BBS version of the Encyclopedia Britanica means that the real thing is no better than Wikipedia.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

The Bible on the other hand has also assuredly been changed many times since it's inception, but does that mean that I can go ahead and write my own version? Sure it does, but it wont have any legitimacy.

King James I did it. Not even Henry VIII was so bold. And I don't know if you've heard, but that version has taken on some "legitimacy."

Over the years there has been a group of people that preside over the content of the bible, and whatever there reasons may be, they have restricted who can change what in the bible. (Yes Monks doing hand copies could have changed it, but changing one book at a time is not nearly the same thing as information on the internet.

As I said, regardless of thier reasons, the fact that there is a body that determines what can and can't go into the bible is what makes it different from an online encyclopedia.

Maybe I'm understanding you wrong--but what you're basically saying is that the Bible is refereed, whereas Wikipedia is not. In fact, this is not true in a historical sense. Sure, churches now agree upon fundamental texts, but do you think a Bible in 14th century Northern France bore any resemblance to a Bible in 12th century southern Italy? Those "Monks doing hand copies were frequently the ONLY people who could read and write--meaning that even though they didn't have the pervasiveness of the internet, they had total control over all of the available media. Do you think they always acted honestly? It's also not just a question of doing hand copies--which would have been an infrequent practice given the scarcity of book materials. The monks for the most part wrote "glosses" in the margins of the Bibles that they shared--some of which became both theologically and politically important. These were powerful guys--and for our purposes, they were every bit as invisible and authoritative as the "joe schmoes" behind Wikipedia.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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.

God actually guides me when I write my posts. Might be BS, but you can't really prove me wrong.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

King James I did it. Not even Henry VIII was so bold. And I don't know if you've heard, but that version has taken on some "legitimacy."




Maybe I'm understanding you wrong--but what you're basically saying is that the Bible is refereed, whereas Wikipedia is not. In fact, this is not true in a historical sense. Sure, churches now agree upon fundamental texts, but do you think a Bible in 14th century Northern France bore any resemblance to a Bible in 12th century southern Italy? Those "Monks doing hand copies were frequently the ONLY people who could read and write--meaning that even though they didn't have the pervasiveness of the internet, they had total control over all of the available media. Do you think they always acted honestly? It's also not just a question of doing hand copies--which would have been an infrequent practice given the scarcity of book materials. The monks for the most part wrote "glosses" in the margins of the Bibles that they shared--some of which became both theologically and politically important. These were powerful guys--and for our purposes, they were every bit as invisible and authoritative as the "joe schmoes" behind Wikipedia.

Yeah King James did it, but he was given recognition and his version was accepted as legitimate by the powers that be.

That is the point that I'm making, is that at some point, someone in authority has taken the different versions of hte bible and said "Yep, looks good to me, that is what we'll accept as the correct version".

Wikipedia has no such mechanism. Anyone can put whatever they want up there, and it can be changed by anyone at any time.

The content of the two is irrelevent, the fact of the matter is that one has a body that declares what can and cannot go into it and the other is a complete free for all

As I said before Wikipedia can include anything, and no one can really do much to stop that, but if I want to re-write the bible, I'm certainly free to do so, but no one will preach it, and no one will include it in the books that get printed after the fact, just the same as if I decided to write my own version of the Encyclopedia Britanica. It's been edited over the years, so does that put it on the same level as Wikipedia?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

God actually guides me when I write my posts. Might be BS, but you can't really prove me wrong.

I think that is what I said, isn't it?

[Vulcan]

I don't like to defend the Bible as I think there are some teachings that are wrong and to pass it off as infallible is pretty far out there. The thing about the Bible for me is that it can be inspiring for those lucky enough to appreciate it.

Wikepedia is a popular source for me and others on this site but I've yet to find it inspiring.

[MatsNaslund]

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.

Those problems exist amongst a minority of people in India and for the majority they are a non-issue as India has itself made it illegal to collect dowry or practice the caste system since the 1980s. Of course when talking about a minority in a country of a billion people or even 1% that's millions of people.

Every country has its problems with its poor people. Canada is no better with how its treating its Natives on reserves or the people that sleep under the 4th avenue fly over. Crack-cul-de-sac is an eyesore. Pick any c-train station in the downtown core any time of day and you can find aggressive beggers there. Welfare is a reality for many citizens of Calgary and other urban centres in Canada. Trailer Parks can be found in all quadrants of the city. How are the people that live in the slums of Forest Lawn (home of pawnshops,liqorstores,prostitution,junkies,pimps,p overty and run down homes) any better than poor people in other countries?

For all the poor people that these western organizations show or all the problems they show in developing countries they never once mention the number of educated and rich people in these countries nor do they ever mention how Poor people are treated in Canada & US, Blacks are treated in the US living in the projects.

[MatsNaslund]

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 was just trying to point out that Wiki is being held on the internet by its believers to be some kind of undeniable bank of truth when anyone with 5 minutes of spare time can edit any article there to say anything. The bible never once even crossed my mind.

I apologize if I have offended you and your GOD but that was not my purpose. I used 'Word of God' as a figure of speech. 'Word of God' does not apply to Christians or the Bible alone. I never once mentioned the bible in my entire post. 'Word of God' is a concept that other religions such as Judaism, Islam , Sikhism and others also believe in and really in that context it has nothing to do with the bible.

If you wanna talk verses out of the bible then at least tell me which version? I've heard of 2 versions. One of them talks about Jesus in Salt Lake City(Morman).

[Vulcan]

"Word of God' to me is a sound that comes out of the silence, not something that is written or spoken. Much like the idea that the sacred name of god shouldn't be said, for me it can't be said only heard.