Posted By: JibbSmart
14 deadly sins
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/11/08 15:28
While they're at it, they might as well change the Bible,
Cheers
Cheers
Posted By: Nems
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 00:11
Ahhhh! bring on GE, I feel so sinfully confessional 
Posted By: Michael_Schwarz
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 00:33
Why isnt atheism one of the new deadly sins? 
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 06:55
Quote:they haven't changed it before, to my knowledge. i think their higher powers (particularly the infallible Pope) can change their rules/rituals/etc to be far from the Bible, but it's a sin to add-to or take-from the Scriptures.
While they're at it, they might as well change the Bible,
Cheers
i can't be sure, though. i'm not Catholic.
julz
Posted By: sPlKe
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 07:15
so i guess this means a fullmetal alchemist sequel 
and a sequel to SE7EN aswell^^
and a sequel to SE7EN aswell^^
Posted By: Captain_Kiyaku
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 07:26
I don't believe in god but i really liked the seven deadly sins topic, especially in movies.
The new seven sins are stupid o_O
They should increase it to 15 deadly sins and add playing violent video games
The new seven sins are stupid o_O
They should increase it to 15 deadly sins and add playing violent video games
Posted By: sPlKe
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 09:49
Quote:
I don't believe in god...
but you know me. we met. how can you not belive in me????
Posted By: Captain_Kiyaku
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 09:57
the day i met you stoped me to believe in god
Posted By: JetpackMonkey
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 13:02
They forgot wearing Crocs
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 17:29
Quote:Quote:they haven't changed it before, to my knowledge. i think their higher powers (particularly the infallible Pope) can change their rules/rituals/etc to be far from the Bible, but it's a sin to add-to or take-from the Scriptures.
While they're at it, they might as well change the Bible,
Cheers
i can't be sure, though. i'm not Catholic.
julz
If that's truly a sin, then they've sinned a lot through time. Read all about it in the libraries of older churches in Europe, especially France, Germany, Netherlands and so on. If you think it's something local think again because the difference between all Bibles are quite minimal,
Cheers
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/12/08 22:35
yeah but there wasn't always a Bible. it had to be compiled to begin with by some people. when whatever powers-that-be at the time had determined which scriptures and letters were kept, they left it at that (mostly, anyway).
the main thing, i think, is that they can't add their own scriptures. all the books in the New Testament were written really early AD. imagine looking through a new edition of the Bible that had a book written last year.
julz
the main thing, i think, is that they can't add their own scriptures. all the books in the New Testament were written really early AD. imagine looking through a new edition of the Bible that had a book written last year.
julz
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/13/08 18:08
They don't add books you say? Well, perhaps not this century and perhaps not last century (at least to my limited knowledge it has not occurred very recently), but it happened quite a few times throughout history.
Even in this century there have been discussions about books that might 'belong' in the bible (after all) and others that are 'outdated' and need to be rewritten to fit the modern contexts. Especially the latter happened on great scale.
Really, they change and have changed more than you would think, but you won't find out about it just by looking at the titles of the chapters or even books that are in there.
Well, probably no one would notice or care, because a.) the original content only exists in form of copies that are already altered anyways and b.) extreme alterations hardly ever occur all at once, but gradually.
There are some examples that come to mind. For example the "virgin" Mary and certain properties of Jesus. It's a fact that at some point women became too powerful because of what was written in the bible about Mary and it's the one reason why 'Jesus' became 'the son of God'. They've kept a vote about this. It's one of many alterations through time and although big ones like this may seem like rare at first sight, it's the gradual overall change of the whole document through time that really matters here.
In short, we wouldn't notice if certain books now are a page longer or shorter than say 100 years ago. Don't forget that because of the way the Bible is written, there are a lot of things that are quite multi-interpretable, let alone the choices translators face anyway in deciding how to translate all that. Really all they have to do is do a reprint. We have had a reprint of the Dutch Bible just a year ago and it's very different. The whole ancient language thing has been converted to something 'modern'. There are countless nuances to be found that could have been translated differently from the older (also Dutch) Bibles we have/had,
Cheers
Even in this century there have been discussions about books that might 'belong' in the bible (after all) and others that are 'outdated' and need to be rewritten to fit the modern contexts. Especially the latter happened on great scale.
Really, they change and have changed more than you would think, but you won't find out about it just by looking at the titles of the chapters or even books that are in there.
Quote:
all the books in the New Testament were written really early AD. imagine looking through a new edition of the Bible that had a book written last year.
Well, probably no one would notice or care, because a.) the original content only exists in form of copies that are already altered anyways and b.) extreme alterations hardly ever occur all at once, but gradually.
There are some examples that come to mind. For example the "virgin" Mary and certain properties of Jesus. It's a fact that at some point women became too powerful because of what was written in the bible about Mary and it's the one reason why 'Jesus' became 'the son of God'. They've kept a vote about this. It's one of many alterations through time and although big ones like this may seem like rare at first sight, it's the gradual overall change of the whole document through time that really matters here.
In short, we wouldn't notice if certain books now are a page longer or shorter than say 100 years ago. Don't forget that because of the way the Bible is written, there are a lot of things that are quite multi-interpretable, let alone the choices translators face anyway in deciding how to translate all that. Really all they have to do is do a reprint. We have had a reprint of the Dutch Bible just a year ago and it's very different. The whole ancient language thing has been converted to something 'modern'. There are countless nuances to be found that could have been translated differently from the older (also Dutch) Bibles we have/had,
Cheers
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/13/08 23:02
Quote:that's not a fact. that's something you've heard.
There are some examples that come to mind. For example the "virgin" Mary and certain properties of Jesus. It's a fact that at some point women became too powerful because of what was written in the bible about Mary and it's the one reason why 'Jesus' became 'the son of God'.
Quote:who cares? there are so many different translations. there are quite a few that have no numbered verses because they change the structure of it too much so it could be written in more modern language.
We have had a reprint of the Dutch Bible just a year ago and it's very different. The whole ancient language thing has been converted to something 'modern'.
a few times experts wondering how damaging these different translations are have compared popular modern translations with the oldest scriptures available and only really had disputes over 1 in every 10 000 words.
anyway, this isn't a hilbert's hotel thread. it's not a general religious argument thread. it's a thread discussing thoughts on the 7 new deadly sins.
julz
Posted By: A.Russell
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/14/08 03:17
A couple more:
Not carrying enough cash to bribe a policeman/ govt. official
Telling your girlfriend/ wife the truth
Not carrying enough cash to bribe a policeman/ govt. official
Telling your girlfriend/ wife the truth
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/14/08 06:09
i guess for you they would be deadly, wouldn't they?
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/14/08 16:12
Quote:Quote:that's not a fact. that's something you've heard.
There are some examples that come to mind. For example the "virgin" Mary and certain properties of Jesus. It's a fact that at some point women became too powerful because of what was written in the bible about Mary and it's the one reason why 'Jesus' became 'the son of God'.
No, it's a fact, there are documents that describe exactly this... written by mostly the Church's own "historians".
Cheers
Posted By: testDummy
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/14/08 16:30
No, it is a fact. Shockingly some leave the kitchen, ditch offspring caring responsibilities, drive around, and earn their own money. I've heard they can even vote. That's right, instead of merely casting spells, they cast votes, and probably spells on votes to be cast. They all float on missing stakes, my friend. However, I think a short and long breed canine takeover is more likely.
This is not a point.
This is not a point.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/14/08 16:44
Hahahaha, you crack me up testDummy! Still, you are very right, as usual I might say... But considering how much value religious people put into 'written documents that are very old', it's definitely a 'fact' by comparison,
Cheers
Still, you are very right, as usual I might say... But considering how much value religious people put into 'written documents that are very old', it's definitely a 'fact' by comparison,Cheers
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/15/08 13:11
just saying the same thing without supporting it with any evidence is really just spam. can you just leave this thread be? if you really want to start a discussion about it, go to hilbert's so it can join the many other pointless threads where atheism and theism compete.
julz
julz
Posted By: testDummy
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/15/08 18:17
Where's the fun in damning an already pointless thread? Oh wait...
@ 1. thread spawn entity (assumed to be JulzMighty <- respected entity) or 2. other party (<-undef):
Do you have a strong a opinion pertaining to _
What do you think about _
What's your take on _
Why the choice of reference to _
What particular of _ really steams your vegetables
_ is orgas-ma-tastic for the following reasons
_ = thread.topic.14_deadly_sins
bad sample:
"I merely check to reassure myself.
No, fortunately, masturabation is still NOT classified as a deadly sin.
I thought others might want assurance also.
This service is a time shortcut.
Else entertainment purposes only.
Don't spoil the security 'oneness' vibe using Hilbert complexity infections like history, religion, archaic XX power thwarting conspiracies, pointless dusty book mutable persistence, mesmerism vs. word crusades for stereotypes & the faithfully ignorant, dummy wordful moronic eyesore injections, non-point defense via thread location by post type declarations..."
spam re-qualifier
@ 1. thread spawn entity (assumed to be JulzMighty <- respected entity) or 2. other party (<-undef):
Do you have a strong a opinion pertaining to _
What do you think about _
What's your take on _
Why the choice of reference to _
What particular of _ really steams your vegetables
_ is orgas-ma-tastic for the following reasons
_ = thread.topic.14_deadly_sins
bad sample:
"I merely check to reassure myself.
No, fortunately, masturabation is still NOT classified as a deadly sin.
I thought others might want assurance also.
This service is a time shortcut.
Else entertainment purposes only.
Don't spoil the security 'oneness' vibe using Hilbert complexity infections like history, religion, archaic XX power thwarting conspiracies, pointless dusty book mutable persistence, mesmerism vs. word crusades for stereotypes & the faithfully ignorant, dummy wordful moronic eyesore injections, non-point defense via thread location by post type declarations..."
spam re-qualifier
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/15/08 22:50
bugger you're funny testDummy.
i don't really have a strong opinion pertaining to the new deadly sins. i really just wanted to be the first to let people know here
my girlfriend's Catholic (though not a very active one), and i find it really interesting how little she knows of Protestantism. she was surprised we have the same Bible, and as we do Bible-studies and go to church sermons taken straight out of the Bible she's starting to see that the biggest differences are the Catholic rituals that she doesn't do anyway.
as funny as it is, it's interesting that masturbation isn't a deadly sin. maybe they don't want most of their people getting their priests excited about masturbation during confession?
that's probably stretching it a bit.
julz
i don't really have a strong opinion pertaining to the new deadly sins. i really just wanted to be the first to let people know here
my girlfriend's Catholic (though not a very active one), and i find it really interesting how little she knows of Protestantism. she was surprised we have the same Bible, and as we do Bible-studies and go to church sermons taken straight out of the Bible she's starting to see that the biggest differences are the Catholic rituals that she doesn't do anyway.
as funny as it is, it's interesting that masturbation isn't a deadly sin. maybe they don't want most of their people getting their priests excited about masturbation during confession?
that's probably stretching it a bit.
julz
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: 14 deadly sins - 03/15/08 23:03
Quote:
just saying the same thing without supporting it with any evidence is really just spam. can you just leave this thread be? if you really want to start a discussion about it, go to hilbert's so it can join the many other pointless threads where atheism and theism compete.
Whatever, as if this thread isn't pointless enough already... Besides you said 'it was something I've heard' without backing thát up, so really you are just biased towards any possible evidence I might have (and which I have). It seems to me you were offended too, I truly appologize for that.
Cheers