God is great, or God is foul. (Page 3 of 4)

Allah eats science for breakfast.

all religions will whop science so hard it wouldnt be fair! (Scientists versus Zealots, Fanatics, dont think they have much hope.)

Simpsons makes fact funny. Like Science and Religion contradict each other, so they'll never get a long,  restraining order aint such a bad idea.

Not all Christians and Jews agree on who exactly God is, however, all of them beleive in the same divine being as depicted in the Bible.

Listen- you can pick apart the illogic of religion all damn day, because that's what it boils right down to- Illogic. I'm telling you how it "is", and that is that both Jews and Christians believe in the same God, they just debate details over him. Every single factor in evey single religion is debated by almost every single believer- within religious circles. Why do you think there are so many different "Christian" churches? Because no one agrees on squat. However, walking around and claiming that "Each Christian church believes in a different God" would be silly. That's all there is to it. Take it all or nothing. Either you accept the fact the through scripture and The Bible, both Judeism and Christianity share the belief in a common divine power, or you can proclaim the every man believes in a different God. Either is fine with me, and the latter is a rooted in a little more sense in my opinion, anyway.

The point is, thanks to theological standards and accepted belief, you are essentially dealing with the same entity. Therefore, to bring this back to where it ALL started, when you say "Well my gods have nothing to do with the chrisitian God", responding with "Jew" is ridiculous, immature, foolish and a bold slap in the face of education. Well done.

What the hell are you even rambling on about?

A.) I never said "proistantism and chatholisism" were the same, nor did I imply, or say anything that could have been roughly interpretted that way.

B.) "Some sectarian groups of christians hate jews for killing jesus therefore in there opinion they worship different god" is a load of horseshit, and has nothing to do with God.

Me too, it's a shame they don't feel that way anymore. Also- this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, just "theological fact"- what an amusing term.

Dude. Don't go there.

I tried it once.

theological and fact are to seperate thing IMO so it is a paradox quite like the term "military inteligance"

- God does not exist. 

this should be interesting.

THE WORD

What is a word?

1. First approach - A word is a meaningful part of speech.

It must be meaningful. Without a meaning, we couldn't convey anything when speaking.

Let's put the case. You say: "He flew over the Arpantic". What does Arpantic mean? Nothing. I mean, this word is pure sound without meaning. What if you mean an ocean? You can't, because no ocean called like that is existing and known. How can we say Arpantic doesn't mean anything? Because this word is nowhere, it is not listed in dictionaries and nobody knows what that sound means.

What do we need (to have a meaningful part of speech)? That word must be previously and socially accepted, before being pronounced. Can we coin words? We're free to do it, but those new words cannot be thought to exist before the acceptance within the community of speakers (e.g., England for English, China for Mandarin, and so on). Therefore, what happens after saying: "flying over the Arpantic"? The other will ask me about that word, because he can't understand what I meant by that. He'll say: "What is Arpantic?" or "What do you mean by Arpantic?". If you haven't got any explanation, your sentence remains deprived of meaning.

A word is an element of speech, which necessarily conveys a meaning. This meaning must be corresponding to the pattern described here below.

2. Second approach - A word is a sound or a group of sounds that communicates a meaning and can be graphically represented.

We learned that it is a sound. This means that every word must have a possible emission by speakers. This emission spits out a sound that we learned at a certain point of our life. There are elementary sounds, such as home, mother, ball, air, sky, and composite ones, such as reminiscence, hectic, girdle. The first ones are likely to be acquired early in the life. The second ones after years of primary and high school, while watching the TV or reading a book.

Can they be graphically represented ? Yes, because our ancestors invented a set of letters for every geographical or linguistic area, that was called 'alphabet'.

I made this introduction because we needed a clear idea of what we call 'word'. We've just learned that every word was a sound, at first. Even 'advice', when the first man used it in English many centuries ago, was a sound already existing. It went on to become a word only after some practice. There were other people repeating that sound, meaning a specific concept, though this couldn't necessarily be a quick procedure. After a number of years, another group fixed that sound with concept (=word) in a book, called 'dictionary'. It was written there that 'advice' means 'wise opinion'. Why so? Because a lot of English-speaking people used to repeat that sound having for them the meaning of 'wise opinion'. This means that sound was being finally accepted as a word, not only as a sound. Not all sounds are 'words'. OK? 'Internet' was existent as a sound five centuries ago, but it wasn't a word yet. Today it is also a word.

If somebody says: "I'd like to thank Elton John for coming' it means that nine words (not nine sounds) were pronounced to convey a meaning (=somebody is grateful for Elton John's presence) that can be understood by the whole community of national speakers. If somebody says: "I'd like to thank Elton John for the music I've enjoyed', it means that Elton John has played or produced music. Everybody can verify the concept by checking his presence or just by listening to his music somewhere. We cannot say: "We'd like to thank John Hurst for his music' if his music is nowhere to be found. Here's the point. If I said that I'd like to thank one that doesn't exist I couldn't do it, of course, because this person is not real (=there's none of us able to find this person). So, either I'd be speaking of reality (Elton John) or I'd be speaking of unreal things (a would-be singer, named John Hurst).

When I speak of unreal things (Cinderella, but also Arpantic) it doesn't matter what you think about that. It doesn't matter how many believe in the existence of somebody or something non-existent, because the existence of any object is a condition not depending on the people's thought. I may be the greatest believer in the world. If the thing you're talking about doesn't exist, your belief leads to nowhere. To connect every sound with something real we need a path going from the word to a slice of reality (=to what we are able to show, when asked about that). "What is Arpantic?". If I said it is an ocean I'd need a map or a dictionary having that ocean written or designed somewhere. "What is Atlantic?" Here you'll see people with their fingers on maps or dictionaries.

After remaining with a concept or an idea (for instance, God) that cannot be verified what can we do? We can only go back to the roots. Why did they say 'God' at first? What did they really mean by that word?
-
-
ok if or if you did not read all that it was about The word "god" i beleive in god and he does exist. if any of you would read the whole bible. you would understand most of the post in this thread.