"We didn't tell you to come to America on holiday."

must i pull out the 'duh' stick or shall you be needing the whole forest?

*KABOOM!*

that's so HAWT!

two words. TEA BAG

Say no, it stings.

Yes, and I still say it - your dictionary entry did not prove me wrong. A belief can be a religious belief - it can even be something held as a "tennant" of the faith by religious people. But the /religious/ is not an anthrpomorphic entity, and holds no beliefs in and of itself.

The Bible hold the Tenets of the Cristian Religion... the Tenets are the beliefs of the Religion, therefore, the Religion itself has beliefs. (you can argue semantics all you like, but since there is not a single person who follows all the Tenets of any religion, the full set of those Tenets cannot be held as the belief of it's followers. It can only be held as the beliefs of the Religion itself)


For instance... it is a Belief/Tenet of the Christian Religion that any and all Apostates must be hunted down and killed. That is part of the Bible and is something that you must believe/follow to be a Christian.
Since there is an extreme lack of people who believe/follow that belief, it's not a belief of the Christians but is a belief of the Religion itself.

You need to understand that the Beliefs are what some people used to believe and they were wrote into the core of the Religion. Even though the Religion is not capable of independent thought, even though it does not have a mind as such, there are still those core beliefs.

The US has the Belief in Freedom of Speech... The US itself cannot believe in anything, so by your argument, the US doesn't have that belief in Freedom of Speech.
The Belief in the Freedom of Speech is written into the Constitution... essentially, the Tenets of the US. By arguing that, since something is not an Anthopomorphic Entity it cannot hold any beliefs, is to argue that the US itself doesn't hold the belief in the Freedom of Speech.


Now, you're going to say that it's the people that believe it... unfortunately, since not all US citizens believe in the Freedom of Speech, it cannot be said that the American People hold that belief. Something else must be holding that Belief... and in this case it is codified into the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

But what about the US Judicial System? It has beliefs... It believes in Innocent until Proven Guilty.
But it's not an Anthropomorphic Entity, so it doesn't believe anything. As such, that belief (which isn't held by all, by the way... just look at all the hysterical media outcries about people, claiming them guilty before the trial..)

Whichever way you try to argue this, beliefs are not the sole property of Anthropomorphic entities, so arguing on the basis that they are, is a flawed argument and very easily refuted.

Actually, no, it's not easily refuted. Your arguement is that since not all people hold a belief, then you can't say that " the people " believe something.

Ok, fine. Let's look at some of these points.



No, it's not a belief - it's a law. Not a legally binding one, but a law in a slightly older sense of the word. Or perhaps use the word "rule". But in any case, it only exists tangibly in the bible. But the bible doesn't believe anything - it's a lump of paper. And "the religion" only matters in the sense of the majority opinion of the followers - discounting wacky sorts, because wacky sorts will be wacky anyways, just in different ways.

To put it in perspective - did you know that in Lee County, Alabama, it is illegal to sell peanuts after sundown on Wednesday? Yup. It's a law. But does anyone care about it? Does anyone obey the rule unless some nutcase cop is going to enforce it? Would you think it's fair to say that Americans (Or even Lee County residents) believe that selling peanuts after sundown on a wensday is wrong? I'm guessing you will think the answer is no.



Except that, as you already pointed out - some people, thousands of years ago, used to believe that. They are not the core beliefs (or any beliefs) of most modern Christians. No, just because they are in the bible and they are "supposed" to believe them doesn't mean they do, sorry.

Funny... that's your argument. Mine is that People =/= The Religion.Can we try looking and understanding?It's a Tenet... you do know what they are, don't you?
"n : a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: dogma]"

Something proclaimed as true without proof is a belief. (stay with me on this...) The Bible proclaims various religious doctrines as true without proof, one of them being the "hunt down and kill all Apostates"
So... the Bible contains beliefs. Is that a problem for your argument? Well, yes... because you keep saying the Bible doesn't believe anything, but it most certainly has beliefs.

Let's give you a damned fine example... A visitor to the US says to you that his country believes that 2 children is the maximum a family should have.
Is he saying that the land, the buildings, the lakes, rivers, streams, roads, etc. believe that? No, he isn't... he's saying about his Culture believing it. But since that Culture isn't Anthropomorphic, you'd reply that he's wrong and that Culture will have no beliefs at all.I would say that it is one of the American Beliefs that selling peanuts after sundown on a Wednesday is wrong...
Would I say that it's an Alaskan Belief? Nope... but then I'm not talking the smaller components. I'm talking the huge monolith that all the others are a part of.

I can see where the problem is... I'm refering to the all-encompassing structure known as Christianity... you're refering to the much smaller parts known as Christians.
Christianity has it's beliefs... codefied in the Bible, the sourse of all Christian beliefs. Christians have their beliefs... based in part on the Bible, but also on myriad other things.

I said it once, and I'll say it again... Christians =/= Christianity.
If all the Christians in the world suddenly stopped believing, Christianity would still exist. It'd be consigned to history, but it would still be in existance.
Then allow me to be the first to start refering to that group of people in the way they should be refered to...
Since they do not hold the beliefs of Christianity, but instead hold beliefs that have "evolved" from them, I will now refer to them as Neo-Christians.

Interestingly, you've managed to prove that only those who DO hold those beliefs are the ones who are Christians... and they are the ones who you labeled as "wacky"


So, just for the record, when I say Christians, I am refering to those who do indeed follow the set of beliefs as laid down in the Bible. I am not, however, refering to those who don't follow those beliefs but still want to use the label "Christian"
Ditto Muslims and Jews...

Face it, if you don't believe in the core beliefs of a Religion, you're not a believer in that Religion.

Wow. My first über-spat.

Again, by definition, no, it doesn't. The bible /states things/ that others are supposed to believe. The bible has no beliefs. Belief cannot exist without, well, believing in something. Believing in something is an action that a chunk of dead tree cannot take.



Actually, no, that's not what I would say. I fully understand what people mean when they say "my faith believes X" or "my culture believes X".



Then you would be mistaken, bluntly, and at this point I think we're basicly done... I don't think you honestly know what the word "belief" means. I honestly believe you are trying to have it be synonymous with "written law", and it's not.

However, I do want to address one other point:



First of all, even in the abstract, I would argue about "hunt down apostates" being a core belief of Christianity. Most of the passages that are cited with reguards to that are in Deuteronomy, which is superceded by the New Covenant.

That aside, no. It might make you a /flawed/ believer in that religion, but it doesn't mean you don't believe in the religion as a whole.

Rational thought isn't one of your skills is it?

Probably didnt let him in on the grounds of being from Manchester

Shit like this happens all the time in every country, its customs. Pity his holiday was buggered though.

Belief, in this context... which, by the way, is the context I've been using all along... just happens to be a "Tenet or series of Tenets"

Since the Bible is little more than a series of Tenets, the Bible contains Beliefs. Since something containing something is said to have something, the statement that the Bible has beliefs is correct.
On the other hand, I'm not saying that the Bible HOLDS those beliefs in the same way that Humans do... no matter how often you try to argue that I am."My Religion believes X" Where are those beliefs? I mean... since not all followers hold those beliefs, how can the Religion itself believe it?

That's right... the Beliefs are the Tenets contain in their Holy Book. The same beliefs that you insist the Religion/Holy Book cannot hold because it's not alive.

And you're right... it cannot HOLD the beliefs. But it most certainly HAS them. (you managed to miss the meaning of my words, which is why you failed to understand me and proceeded to create an accidental strawman argument)


The US Constitution has the belief that everyone has the Freedom of Speech... that's "has" as in "contains" not "holds as a personal belief"
The US Culture has that belief... again not as a "holds as a personal belief" but simply "has" that belief.

You see the difference yet?Funny... I had to point you at the meaning of the word belief... and to be quite honest, in some contexts it can indeed be synonymous with "written law"
613 written laws in the OT just happen to be the Tenets of a certain Faith with just happen to be the Beliefs of a certain Faith...

So... since the meaning I've been using just happens to be the Tenet(s) of a Religion, you can be certain that, in this case, Belief does indeed mean "written law" (in this case, God's Law)You going to use the correct meaning, or just change them so you can argue with me?Ah... the new covenant... the one where Jesus said that you still had to obey EACH AND EVER ONE OF THE LAWS GIVEN BY GOD...?

No? Must have been some new covenant that didn't make it into the Bible then.
Flawed believer? To hell you go then.

Sorry, but that particular Holy Book makes it damned clear that it's all or nothing. Rmember the whole, "not all who cry 'Lord Lord'" bit?


Reading and Comprehension obviously not yours...

Noooo not this thread again!

I'm not going to get into an arguement days-dead with you over this, suffice it to say I reject the way you are using the English language as improper.



There are different interperations of the new covenant. Yours is not the most common one - and there are biblical passages citing both sides of the arguement, which is the fun thing about religious arguements. You're not going to convince anyone, and neither am I.



See above. There is equal support for flawed believers, as long as the belief itself is genuine.

In any event, this thread is days-dead before you brought it back. Let it die politely.

Yeah... you remain using your imprecise, simplistic and error-ridden understanding of the English language, while I use concepts that are pretty obviously way over your head.


I'm done trying to dumb-down to your level in an attempt to explain things you don't want to understand.

so you are admitting defeat?

Dur. I is major. I is on road for da doctorate. I not know fancy-talk!

Someone deliberately uses ambiguous termonology when arguing a point for the sole reason of, after pages upon pages of posts, announcing victoriously that the opposition is an idiot because they cannot understand simple english?

If you are such an expert in the language Tiger, then you must certainly be aware that many of the words and phrases you used during your arguement had more common intrepretations than the ones you were using? In intelligent debate, where both sides seek to be understood, would you not at some point reword your arguement to make is more accessable? If not, then what was the point of your role in this exercise?

Was it simply to prove, by way of smoke and mirror linguistics, that you are intellectually superior to all? If so, well, isn't that a little sad?

Someone who was trully interested in the exchange of ideas would have, when the opposition said, it can't have beliefs, because it isn't alive it's just a lump of dead wood, gone 'Hmmm, I've been misunderstood, maybe I should explain my point this way.' And tried a different approach. You did not.

Now, feel free to pick apart my spelling, punctuation and grammar if you wish, however, be dignified about it and refute my arguement in a way that I might understand while demonstrating your superior grasp of all things English.

Spicoli

Yes, I was fully aware that there were more common interpretations, which is why I clarified on many occasions just which meaning I was using in my statements...

I can see how that is so ambiguous. Nope... it was an attempt to exchange ideas that failed when one side kept on insisting that the other was saying something that they weren't...Unfortunately for you, I did... I tried many times to explain it different ways, each time having the opposition insist that the meanings I was using were not the meanings I was using.

See if you can understand the difference...

1: To hold something, as in to contain something.
2: To hold something, as in to believe in something.

I used #1, the opposition used #2.
I explained several times that I was using #1, the opposition insisted that I must have been using #2.
Pretty simple, isn't it?

On the other hand, when I said that I wasn't using the meaning they thought I was using, maybe they should have thought "Hmm, am I misunderstanding this? Perhaps I should start again using the meaning they are using"


They never did...
Note to all... if you ever point out that someone is using the wrong meaning of a word, be prepared to be attacked for having a "superior grasp of all things English."

Oh, and I refuse to rise to your troll-bait there... try fishing elsewhere.

Only in attempting to get a very simple difference in meaning across...

If all else fails, fall back on childish insults.

Screw it... if you won't/can't understand a very simple difference, I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it to you.


Now, I'm just going to go see what other beliefs are held in this forum...

Funny, I wasn't insulting anyone but myself there...

If you aren't going to waste time trying to explain it to me (again), why did you dig this thread up after it had been dead for days?

But she/he said the bible didn't believe...stay with me here, because the difference between a verb and a noun is important, and to believe in something, is far different from an object containing beliefs. You support this arguement in your post quoted below, however, here you insist that she/he is wrong. Which is it?

For reference,

believe  –verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

Your argument supporting the bible's ability to believe is directly contradicted by




But you did say exactly that by disagreeing with her/his assertion that the bible did not believe.

The bible is an inanimate object and therefore cannot actively believe in anything, contain a record of beliefs yes, believe on its own? No.

You have argued both ways and claimed to be right. I don't get that.

Once more...

1: To hold something, as in to contain something.
2: To hold something, as in to believe in something.

I used #1, the opposition used #2.
I explained several times that I was using #1, the opposition insisted that I must have been using #2.
Pretty simple, isn't it?




Guess what? I never once said that the Bible ACTIVELY believes in something. That's something that a certain person has been claiming I've been saying from the start.

I'll put it real simple for you all... I'M NOT SAYING THE BIBLE HOLDS AN ACTIVE BELIEF IN SOMETHING, JUST THAT IT HOLDS THE BELIEFS OF A RELIGION!


Go on! Keep on claiming that I insist the Bible can hold an active belief in something... all you're doing is claiming a LIE!
No sodding wonder! I never argued one of those, so it's no surprise you don't get it.


Hey... I'll try again... (I have hope... just not hope eternal)

The Bible has beliefs... that's has, as in holds, as in CONTAINS... not has, as in hold, as in ACTIVELY BELIEVES.
"Aren't" happens to be a future tense... (see what I meant about your error-ridden usage?)

It was brought up because I'd just got back from a short holiday, because it was just possibly you might have understood the difference between the meaning I was using and the meaning you were using and because I felt that you deserved one last chance to correct your mistake...


I forgot the unspoken rule here... "no good deed goes unpunished"


:edit: By the way Rae... the word you should have referenced was "belief"

Noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


Innaccuracy kills arguments... as that one kills yours.

I'm aware what tense it is, thank you.