Page 4 of 5

Posted: 13 Mar 2009 20:53
by DuneFishUK
SwordMaster wrote:
DuneFishUK wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
SwordMaster wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
SwordMaster wrote:what is the difference between faith and myth? :P


One is a verb. :lol:


RIM SHOT!


That was actually me laughing at your question, not with it. :wink: Sorry, it just doesn't quite make any sense!


:lol:

... but I think the answer to what you're getting at is: Faith actually happened.


So no myth has ever taken place?


If I'm reading you right (re: verb confusion)

They're both the same. They might or might not have a basis in actual historical fact. But to a believer his myth ("faith" - as in the myth his cult is based around) is fact.

Religion that no-one believes anymore is just silly stories. There may be one true god, but there are lots of other true gods. Which one you believe in is merely a matter of time and place. Gah too late to think tonight :P

Posted: 13 Mar 2009 21:16
by Eyes High
To some people faith is the action of believing in something.

A myth is just a story.

Now what one person might have faith in could be nothing but a myth to someone else.

I have faith in True Love. But to many, that possibility is nothing but a myth.

Have fun tonight. 8)

Posted: 13 Mar 2009 22:01
by SandChigger
Fun doing what? Looking for True Love (in all the wrong places...), faith or myth? :P

"I wash my faith
In dirty water...."
;)

Posted: 13 Mar 2009 22:09
by Schu
SandChigger wrote:Fun doing what? Looking for True Love (in all the wrong places...), faith or myth? :P

"I wash my faith
In dirty water...."
;)


And his name was Frank

Posted: 13 Mar 2009 23:48
by moreh_yeladim
Purge wrote:
SandChigger wrote:And what's the Jewish excuse for slaughtering Arabs? Refresh my memory on that one again? :roll:


:roll:

Self defense. Something that was unavailable to Jews for the first 1,300 or so years of the Jewish/Muslim "relationship".

I agree with you, but I'm still going to laugh my ass of at that. The Muslims, in all their oppressions, still managed to be better to us than everyone else!

Posted: 14 Mar 2009 00:15
by A Thing of Eternity
DuneFishUK wrote:
SwordMaster wrote:
DuneFishUK wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
SwordMaster wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
SwordMaster wrote:what is the difference between faith and myth? :P


One is a verb. :lol:


RIM SHOT!


That was actually me laughing at your question, not with it. :wink: Sorry, it just doesn't quite make any sense!


:lol:

... but I think the answer to what you're getting at is: Faith actually happened.


So no myth has ever taken place?


If I'm reading you right (re: verb confusion)

They're both the same. They might or might not have a basis in actual historical fact. But to a believer his myth ("faith" - as in the myth his cult is based around) is fact.

Religion that no-one believes anymore is just silly stories. There may be one true god, but there are lots of other true gods. Which one you believe in is merely a matter of time and place. Gah too late to think tonight :P


A myth is a religious story with a theme or moral point to it. It may be considered true or false by the religious, doesn't matter, it's still a myth:

a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

Calling something a myth isn't the same as calling it untrue.

Faith is a verb damnit, you can't really compare the two words, apples and oranges. It's like saying: what's the difference between race car and anger? There could be faith in a myth, or faith in a theory, or whatever you want.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Posted: 14 Mar 2009 03:29
by SandChigger
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Faith is a verb damnit

Unless you mean that in the old sense of the original Latin verbum (to wit, "word"), I'm going to have to ask you

WHAT THE HELL YOU BEEN SMOKIN', THANG?! :lol:

Neither faith nor myth is a verb in my English. They's nouns. ;)

Posted: 15 Mar 2009 12:11
by GamePlayer
Person, place or thing? I heard no one likes using that definition of noun anymore :)

SandRider wrote:I'll bite.

Gameplayer, what's wrong with Tarantino ?


Oh, don't even get me started on him :)

SwordMaster wrote:Think it was a joke that QT is a big theme in film clubs, for the younger generation.

I would bet GP likes QT films.


Nope. I'm one film geek that hates Tarantino films.

Schu wrote:I don't think I've seen any Tarantino while I've been there. But I haven't been there much. A few Kubricks, Run Lola Run, some other odd films that I thought would be fun to watch etc.


That's good. Kubrick is always a good choice and the more Franka Potente in your film, the better :)

Posted: 15 Mar 2009 15:50
by Seraphan
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Faith is a verb damnit

I faith
You faith
He/She faiths
:?

Posted: 15 Mar 2009 16:14
by SandChigger
GamePlayer wrote:Person, place or thing? I heard no one likes using that definition of noun anymore :)

Are they teaching grammar again? Or is it just the idiots among the young who are online?

Linguists don't generally like it because it uses semantic criteria to define a syntactic category. ;)

We now likes us a battery of morphological ("has a plural form") or real syntactic ("can be preceded by 'the'", "can be modified by an adjective", or "can serve as the subject of a clause or sentence") tests for defining nouns and the other lot. :)

Posted: 15 Mar 2009 17:30
by orald
After discussing the matter thoroughly with one of the regular idiots, err, clients, in the gas station, I've come to this defenition of faith:
Faith-honey*.

And I bloody hate sticky, all-too-sweet honey. :x



*Don't ask.

Posted: 16 Mar 2009 15:51
by A Thing of Eternity
SandChigger wrote:
A Thing of Eternity wrote:Faith is a verb damnit

Unless you mean that in the old sense of the original Latin verbum (to wit, "word"), I'm going to have to ask you

WHAT THE HELL YOU BEEN SMOKIN', THANG?! :lol:

Neither faith nor myth is a verb in my English. They's nouns. ;)


Alright, I stand corrected/humiliated for my grammatical failure. :oops:

I was thinking of faith as a synonym of belief, which can be a verb, as in: I believe etc. I didn't stop to think that faith didn't have a similar version, one can only say I have faith etc, which is a noun. I didn’t think that through… my bad. :lol:

That said, I'm not sure what the terminology is, but I don't think myth and faith are not the same kind of nouns. You cannot have myth in something, catch my meaning? Wish I knew the lingo so I could communicate this better.

Chig, care to help educate me? :D

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 04:55
by Schu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement

James White has divided the King James Only movement into 5 main types:[9]

* "I Like the KJV Best" Though White lists this group as a division of the King James Only group,[citation needed] this division does not believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version. Individuals in this category simply prefer the KJV over other translations because their church uses it, because they have always used it, or because they like its style.[10]

(sounds ok to me)

* "The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.[11] The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division; though "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language",[12], "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."[13]

(I don't know what the textual history of the King James Bible is, but at least this argument isn't inherently retarded)

* "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good. Donald Waite would fall into this category.[citation needed]

(So wait. Supernaturally preserved. Does that mean that translators are incapable of mis-translating anything from the hebrew and greek texts somehow? Sounds a little screwy to me...

* "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They see the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

(OK, no. That's retarded)

* "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

(Yeah... upon what do you base that? The translators were prophets? This goes beyond retarded.)

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 10:42
by SwordMaster
did you guys know that its illigal to not tip at a resturant in New York. But they will allow you to not pay the fine if you are Jewish. :Adolf:

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 10:44
by Freakzilla
SwordMaster wrote:did you guys know that its illigal to not tip at a resturant in New York. But they will allow you to not pay the fine if you are Jewish. :Adolf:


You know what the difference is between a Jew and a Canoe?

















The canoe will eventually tip. :P

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 10:57
by SwordMaster
RIMSHOT!

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 11:03
by Freakzilla
One more and I'll stop...


A priest and a rabbi are walking down the road and see a little boy.

The priest says, "Hey, let's go screw that boy."

The rabbi says, "Out of what?"

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 11:15
by GamePlayer
I'm bad man :lol: :P :laughing: :laughing:

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 11:19
by Freakzilla
I've got a blonde-catholic one, but I'll hold back unless y'all ask for it.

It's worse that those two and I'll surely go to hell for it.

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 11:53
by Schu
DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! I'm all for jokes in terrible taste!

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 12:01
by Freakzilla
Why did the blonde go to church?











Because she heard Jesus was hung, like this! (Holds out arms as if cruxified)

Not is good without the visual, try it with your friends! :lol:

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 12:22
by Eyes High
Schu wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement

James White has divided the King James Only movement into 5 main types:[9]

* "I Like the KJV Best" Though White lists this group as a division of the King James Only group,[citation needed] this division does not believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version. Individuals in this category simply prefer the KJV over other translations because their church uses it, because they have always used it, or because they like its style.[10]

(sounds ok to me)

* "The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.[11] The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division; though "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language",[12], "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."[13]

(I don't know what the textual history of the King James Bible is, but at least this argument isn't inherently retarded)

* "Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good. Donald Waite would fall into this category.[citation needed]

(So wait. Supernaturally preserved. Does that mean that translators are incapable of mis-translating anything from the hebrew and greek texts somehow? Sounds a little screwy to me...

* "The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They see the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.

(OK, no. That's retarded)

* "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

(Yeah... upon what do you base that? The translators were prophets? This goes beyond retarded.)

Yeah, and one time it was illegal to have the scriptures in any other language besides Latin. I disagree that the KJV is the only "legit" version of the Bible. I think as long as the version is true to the orginal messages then the version does not matter that much. It is better to be able to understand the messages than to be able to say 'I have the such & such version of the message."

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 12:36
by Freakzilla
I use the Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 13:06
by Schu
Freakzilla wrote:Why did the blonde go to church?











Because she heard Jesus was hung, like this! (Holds out arms as if cruxified)

Not is good without the visual, try it with your friends! :lol:


noice :D I likes it.

Eyes High wrote:It is better to be able to understand the messages than to be able to say 'I have the such & such version of the message."


Yeah, that would lead to pointless elitism. Everyone wants to be more holy and to have the "holiest bible"... (and by everybody, I mean nobody here).

Re: Religion! (or atheism/agnosticism/non-religion/whatever)

Posted: 07 May 2009 13:39
by SwordMaster
Baraka Bryan wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:Why did the blonde go to church?











Because she heard Jesus was hung, like this! (Holds out arms as if cruxified)

Not is good without the visual, try it with your friends! :lol:



lol.. horrible.

So an Irishman, a Dutchman, and another racist walk into a bar....















that's the joke... if you didn't get it. you're probably some kinda foreigner ;)


good joke, but i hate the dutch lol