| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2009 09:08:02 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No I'm not asking for the originals any more than anybody else. I just want to know if we have them. If we do, that's impressive. If we don't, then either the argument about the biblical manuscrips applies to those about Caesar or they don't apply to either. I'm just trying to point out you can't have it both ways in textual criticism. |
This is a case of contrasting apples with oranges. You cannot claim that the bible is factually as accurate as the letters of Cicero because they have been transposed over an equivalent period.
|
You are taking the argument to the next step, I think. The original debate was whether the words written in the biblical manuscripts we have are true to the words as originally written (or whether we can deduce the original words as much as possible from textual criticism). I am arguing that the argument that "the bible we possess is a copy of a copy of a copy and is no better than a game of gossip in knowing what it originally said" (literal arguments made above) is fallacious. Whether those words reflect a historical reality is a completely different story and I realize there is much more wiggle room for interpretation.
Message edited by author 2009-04-05 21:08:19. |
|
|
|
04/05/2009 09:24:20 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are taking the argument to the next step, I think. The original debate was whether the words written in the biblical manuscripts we have are true to the words as originally written (or whether we can deduce the original words as much as possible from textual criticism). I am arguing that the argument that "the bible we possess is a copy of a copy of a copy and is no better than a game of gossip in knowing what it originally said" (literal arguments made above) is fallacious. Whether those words reflect a historical reality is a completely different story and I realize there is much more wiggle room for interpretation. |
The problem as I understand it is that there was no actual documentation/written records at the time of Jesus. I understand that all of the accounts were oral for quite some time after his death.
Do you know about when the Bible and its accounting were first written?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2009 10:21:28 PM · #128 |
Back to the original question:
Originally posted by heavyj:
What I can't seem to wrap my head around is how of many denominations truly use fear as a way of getting people to follow their faith...
...I had an encounter with a Catholic gentleman...I asked him what he thought my future in the afterlife would be like so long as I put my faith in Jesus and God...his answer was "The only true Church is the Catholic church. It might be hard to swallow, but that's it." I took that to mean that I wouldn't be going to a nice place when I died. So how does one really know which church to follow? |
As a Catholic, I have to say he is correct. You must also understand, being Catholic doesn't get you a free pass to Heaven. When it comes down to it, there's only one final judgement that allows you in the presents of God.
Remember, not only is life a humbling experience, but it's also a journey home. Your path might be different, but it either leads you away or toward home.
BTW, I've also grown strong in my faith through podcasts. You can check it out yourself. There's a Catholic Radio Show that's podcasted. They have non-Catholic hour which brings up some interesting points. |
|
|
|
04/05/2009 11:55:55 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are taking the argument to the next step, I think. The original debate was whether the words written in the biblical manuscripts we have are true to the words as originally written (or whether we can deduce the original words as much as possible from textual criticism). I am arguing that the argument that "the bible we possess is a copy of a copy of a copy and is no better than a game of gossip in knowing what it originally said" (literal arguments made above) is fallacious. Whether those words reflect a historical reality is a completely different story and I realize there is much more wiggle room for interpretation. |
The problem as I understand it is that there was no actual documentation/written records at the time of Jesus. I understand that all of the accounts were oral for quite some time after his death.
Do you know about when the Bible and its accounting were first written? |
Good question and, of course, answers differ. Paul's letters probably carry the most narrow range for when they were written. If we assume Jesus was killed in 33AD (there's not more than a year or two variance in opinion), Paul's letters were written within 15-25 years. Mark, probably the earliest gospel usually has a consensus of around 80 AD which would be 47 years after Jesus' death. However, there are also serious dating that put it in the mid 50s which would be 20-25 years after. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 01:01:14 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are taking the argument to the next step, I think. The original debate was whether the words written in the biblical manuscripts we have are true to the words as originally written... |
I think that your statement was that you thought that there is vastly more contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus than Caesar. In fact there appears to be essentially no contemporary evidence for Jesus (other than the reported evidence contained in the bible) and rather a lot for Caesar.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The problem as I understand it is that there was no actual documentation/written records at the time of Jesus. I understand that all of the accounts were oral for quite some time after his death. |
That's not correct. Records were widely produced and kept in the region at that time. That's why we know so much about the period - and Cicero's letters are an example. Jesus does not appear to have been significant enough at the time of his life/death to warrant the production of contemporary records of sufficient number or importance to survive the passing of time. The documents that do survive were first written long after his death and after the religion had been established.
Incidentally, our greatest current hope for monumental expansion of our knowledge of the period is the library at Herculaneum. The scrolls it contains can be painstakingly reconstructed (despite having been burnt in 79AD) - and they will be when funds can be raised to preserve the excavated remains of Herculaneum. Over 800 complete works remain to be unwound and deciphered!
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Do you know about when the Bible and its accounting were first written? |
The earliest biblical manuscripts appear to have been written in the 2nd century, with a few scraps earlier (one or two possibly within 50 years of Jesus' death).
There is an interesting page on wikipedia comparing traditional with modern scholastic thinking on authorship, indicating the scale of mis-association - //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009 03:53:13 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Back to the original question:
Originally posted by heavyj:
What I can't seem to wrap my head around is how of many denominations truly use fear as a way of getting people to follow their faith...
...I had an encounter with a Catholic gentleman...I asked him what he thought my future in the afterlife would be like so long as I put my faith in Jesus and God...his answer was "The only true Church is the Catholic church. It might be hard to swallow, but that's it." I took that to mean that I wouldn't be going to a nice place when I died. So how does one really know which church to follow? |
As a Catholic, I have to say he is correct. You must also understand, being Catholic doesn't get you a free pass to Heaven. When it comes down to it, there's only one final judgement that allows you in the presents of God.
Remember, not only is life a humbling experience, but it's also a journey home. Your path might be different, but it either leads you away or toward home.
BTW, I've also grown strong in my faith through podcasts. You can check it out yourself. There's a Catholic Radio Show that's podcasted. They have non-Catholic hour which brings up some interesting points. |
And how many Catholics are there? And of those, how many do you think are "true" Catholics? How many people is that compared to ALL the people that exist and have ever existed? Why would God create so many people that don't even know about Catholicism, have other options, etc, only for them ALL to go to burn in Hell?
What about all the people that existed before there even WAS Catholicism? Was God just dicking around with them like a cruel boy killing ants with a magnifying glass? Here humans, here is this world for you to live on, but the ONE TRUE religion doesn't even exist yet in your time, so you are doomed to hell.
That sounds downright cruel. But I don't believe that. I don't believe if there is a God it would be that sort. So that just leaves me to believe people of your beliefs are just cruel, or narcissistic, or both. "My religion is right, all the rest of you are doomed unless you join me". No thanks. You don't speak for God. Who gave you that right? The Bible? Who gave the people that wrote it that right? God? How do you know? You weren't there. The fact is you don't KNOW. Those may be your beliefs, and that's fine, whatever. But don't think you have the "Truth". None of us do.
Yes, life is humbling, or at least it should be. But I don't think people like you have learned that lesson yet.
And its presence of God. Not presents.
Message edited by author 2009-04-06 15:54:46. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 04:19:46 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are taking the argument to the next step, I think. The original debate was whether the words written in the biblical manuscripts we have are true to the words as originally written... |
I think that your statement was that you thought that there is vastly more contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus than Caesar. In fact there appears to be essentially no contemporary evidence for Jesus (other than the reported evidence contained in the bible) and rather a lot for Caesar. |
I'll give you the quotes again and you can see that you are incorrect:
The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.
And Moreland adds [More.ScCy, 136]:
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
Originally posted by matthew:
The earliest biblical manuscripts appear to have been written in the 2nd century, with a few scraps earlier (one or two possibly within 50 years of Jesus' death). |
Just to be clear do you mean to say the earliest we have existing or when the original works were actually written? I think Jeb's question was when the original manuscripts were written (which we have now lost). Paul's epistles were unlikely to have been written later than 70AD and that is widely and broadly accepted by scholars.
Quoting wiki on Pauline epistles:
These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates [2] considered genuine by most scholars (see main article Authorship of the Pauline epistles: section The undisputed epistles):
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Message edited by author 2009-04-06 16:22:08. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 05:43:53 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll give you the quotes again and you can see that you are incorrect... |
As I said, I was reacting to your comment that vastly more contemporary evidence exists for Jesus than Caesar. You appeared to have moved beyond the world of textual criticism (which, as BrennanOB pointed out, was the wrong tool for the job of substantiating the bible - and incidentally under-emphasises the nature of textual embellishment in this context and overlooks original embellishment).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by matthew:
The earliest biblical manuscripts appear to have been written in the 2nd century, with a few scraps earlier (one or two possibly within 50 years of Jesus' death). |
Just to be clear do you mean to say the earliest we have existing or when the original works were actually written? I think Jeb's question was when the original manuscripts were written (which we have now lost). Paul's epistles were unlikely to have been written later than 70AD and that is widely and broadly accepted by scholars. |
I thought I was agreeing with you - some small elements, being those of Paul's letters that are actually attributed to him and possibly parts of one of the gospels, appear to have been written within 50 years of Jesus' death.
Large parts of the rest appear to be written by second hand, third hand or more distant accounts based on limited earlier writings, oral communication or mystical insight (but their accuracy is presumably guided by God as no human means would ordinarily translate events to text reliably).
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009 06:02:21 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I thought I was agreeing with you - some small elements, being those of Paul's letters that are actually attributed to him and possibly parts of one of the gospels, appear to have been written within 50 years of Jesus' death. |
I guess it depends on what you consider "some small elements". Those 7 letters of Paul make up 18% of the New Testament by word count. If you add Matthew and Mark, which the majority of scholars place circa 70-85 AD, then you are up to 40%. I guess I don't see that as small. |
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:02:43 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I thought I was agreeing with you - some small elements, being those of Paul's letters that are actually attributed to him and possibly parts of one of the gospels, appear to have been written within 50 years of Jesus' death. |
I guess it depends on what you consider "some small elements". Those 7 letters of Paul make up 18% of the New Testament by word count. If you add Matthew and Mark, which the majority of scholars place circa 70-85 AD, then you are up to 40%. I guess I don't see that as small. |
Fair enough - by volume, this is more than a scrap.
However, Paul only knew Jesus by divine revelation, not in person, and his writing doesn't really shed insight on what Jesus said/did so much as Paul's view of how the early church should operate. The gospel of Matthew is widely believed scholastically to be second-hand, based on Mark and written by a Jewish sympathiser in 70-110 AD.
So as contemporary evidence for the life and actions of Jesus, Matthew and Paul can fairly be considered less significant than their volume might otherwise suggest.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2009 07:17:57 PM · #136 |
| I can dig where you are coming from. :) |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 09:29:34 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can dig where you are coming from. :) |
Out of interest, how do you reconcile the differences between scholastic and religion-led analyses of the bible?
There are a number of people in these threads who will assert vigorously that the bible is the infallible word of god, its gospels being a perfect record of events and history. However, the historical and scholastic evidence is that the bible was written by a significant number of anonymous authors well after the religion was established, without the pressure to be factually accurate, and each with their own agenda and purpose in writing.
To my mind, this analysis should shake the belief system to its core.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 11:18:22 AM · #138 |
| Sometimes scholastic evidence is wrong. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 11:20:42 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can dig where you are coming from. :) |
Out of interest, how do you reconcile the differences between scholastic and religion-led analyses of the bible?
There are a number of people in these threads who will assert vigorously that the bible is the infallible word of god, its gospels being a perfect record of events and history. However, the historical and scholastic evidence is that the bible was written by a significant number of anonymous authors well after the religion was established, without the pressure to be factually accurate, and each with their own agenda and purpose in writing.
To my mind, this analysis should shake the belief system to its core. |
Quite obviously, some people's belief systems are unshakable, no matter what. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 11:34:26 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Quite obviously, some people's belief systems are unshakable, no matter what. |
This is probably the best answer for Matthew.
I took a Bible as Literature class in undergrad which caused a fair amount of angst at the time. But now I just synthesize it into my current knowledge. Certainly a takehome is that scholarly analysis is far from unanimous so one can easily discard some of the more outlandish stuff as being someone's pet graduate school project. A large amount of scholarly analysis simply supports the traditional view. Other analysis helps flesh out scripture by placing it in context to its contemporary events.
It's probably caused me to take on the view that the Bible isn't the word-for-word inerrant word of God. Errors have and do creep in, largely due to the difficulties of translating an author's intent into another language but also for other reasons. However, they are small and just keep us from overanalysing passages (which is probably a good thing). The good news of the Bible is preserved in spades and the central themes are so reinforced and buttressed that they remain unshakably sound. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 12:58:38 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can dig where you are coming from. :) |
Out of interest, how do you reconcile the differences between scholastic and religion-led analyses of the bible?
There are a number of people in these threads who will assert vigorously that the bible is the infallible word of god, its gospels being a perfect record of events and history. However, the historical and scholastic evidence is that the bible was written by a significant number of anonymous authors well after the religion was established, without the pressure to be factually accurate, and each with their own agenda and purpose in writing.
To my mind, this analysis should shake the belief system to its core. |
Quite obviously, some people's belief systems are unshakable, no matter what. |
That's why it's called "Blind Faith".
When facts, logic, and reason are summarily dismissed, it's really hard to have an intelligent conversation.
It simply isn't possible.
And before Dr. Semantics jumps down my throat and conjures up another "So you're REALLY saying....." incredible twist, I am referring in general to the legions of people whom I refer to as "Convinced" that because of what they believe to be true completely shut down to any further introduction of accurate information.
I noticed it most prevalently in the car industry, particularly in the collector car industry where some enthusiast acquires ONE car, reads every book he can lay his hands on, and then becomes a self-proclaimed expert on every variety of car known to man.
And unfortunately, in the ego-and testosterone-rife world of cars, the zealotry is just about as bad as it seems to be with respect to religion.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 01:22:45 PM · #142 |
So what your really saying is...
Just Kidding. Anyway, I would at least contend that "blind faith" should not be confused with "set in your ways". We ALL tend to be set in our ways and we ALL tend to discount information that does not fit within our worldview. That isn't exclusive to the religious sphere and isn't even a bad thing. It's good to be set in your ways if your ways are correct (which, of course, is where all the debate lies). I share everybody's frustration with people unwilling to incorporate any new information into their worldview. I find, however, that they come from all walks of life and experience. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 02:24:07 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So what your really saying is...
Just Kidding. Anyway, I would at least contend that "blind faith" should not be confused with "set in your ways". We ALL tend to be set in our ways and we ALL tend to discount information that does not fit within our worldview. That isn't exclusive to the religious sphere and isn't even a bad thing. It's good to be set in your ways if your ways are correct (which, of course, is where all the debate lies). I share everybody's frustration with people unwilling to incorporate any new information into their worldview. I find, however, that they come from all walks of life and experience. |
I wouldn't say all. Maybe you meant most? Personally, I wouldn't even go that far since I have no way of knowing that. Lucky for me my worldview doesn't force me to discount that fact. :)
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 02:40:57 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't say all. Maybe you meant most? Personally, I wouldn't even go that far since I have no way of knowing that. Lucky for me my worldview doesn't force me to discount that fact. :) |
No, I think you can safely say "all" at least to some extent. Psychology studies have backed this up many times. I'd have to try to dig them up. It's our human nature as we process information to tend to discard data that doesn't fit with our view on things. It doesn't mean we always discard it, but it's the natural bias. Certainly it can tend to be a good thing as we would otherwise be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." as one author put it.
I couldn't find links to the original papers yet, but here's a wiki portion on Background research of schema.
Here's a quote from the article (no sources unfortunately):
New information that falls within an individual's schema is easily remembered and incorporated into their worldview. However, when new information is perceived that does not fit a schema, many things can happen. The most common reaction is to simply ignore or quickly forget the new information. This can happen on a deep level—frequently an individual does not become conscious of or even perceive the new information. However, when the new information cannot be ignored, existing schemata must be changed.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 14:51:32. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 02:43:41 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't say all. Maybe you meant most? Personally, I wouldn't even go that far since I have no way of knowing that. Lucky for me my worldview doesn't force me to discount that fact. :) |
No, I think you can safely say "all" at least to some extent. Psychology studies have backed this up many times. I'd have to try to dig them up. It's our human nature as we process information to tend to discard data that doesn't fit with our view on things. It doesn't mean we always discard it, but it's the natural bias. Certainly it can tend to be a good thing as we would otherwise be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." as one author put it. |
That certainly sounds like religion ;D
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 02:49:52 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't say all. Maybe you meant most? Personally, I wouldn't even go that far since I have no way of knowing that. Lucky for me my worldview doesn't force me to discount that fact. :) |
No, I think you can safely say "all" at least to some extent. Psychology studies have backed this up many times. I'd have to try to dig them up. It's our human nature as we process information to tend to discard data that doesn't fit with our view on things. It doesn't mean we always discard it, but it's the natural bias. Certainly it can tend to be a good thing as we would otherwise be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." as one author put it. |
That certainly sounds like religion ;D |
Right now it sounds like Wall Street to me... :P |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 03:34:32 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
And how many Catholics are there? And of those, how many do you think are "true" Catholics? How many people is that compared to ALL the people that exist and have ever existed? Why would God create so many people that don't even know about Catholicism, have other options, etc, only for them ALL to go to burn in Hell?
What about all the people that existed before there even WAS Catholicism? Was God just dicking around with them like a cruel boy killing ants with a magnifying glass? Here humans, here is this world for you to live on, but the ONE TRUE religion doesn't even exist yet in your time, so you are doomed to hell.
That sounds downright cruel. But I don't believe that. I don't believe if there is a God it would be that sort. So that just leaves me to believe people of your beliefs are just cruel, or narcissistic, or both. "My religion is right, all the rest of you are doomed unless you join me". No thanks. You don't speak for God. Who gave you that right? The Bible? Who gave the people that wrote it that right? God? How do you know? You weren't there. The fact is you don't KNOW. Those may be your beliefs, and that's fine, whatever. But don't think you have the "Truth". None of us do.
Yes, life is humbling, or at least it should be. But I don't think people like you have learned that lesson yet.
|
Wow, am I on the correct thread? I thought this was how catholics and christians related. It's not a justification for one religion or another.
First off, hell is not fire and brimstone, it's the absence of God.
What will happen to people who don't know God, I have no clue. I'm sure he has something in is plan.
But if you do know about God and you reject God, you'll end up in his absence. Your choice.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 04:13:37 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I wouldn't say all. Maybe you meant most? Personally, I wouldn't even go that far since I have no way of knowing that. Lucky for me my worldview doesn't force me to discount that fact. :) |
No, I think you can safely say "all" at least to some extent. Psychology studies have backed this up many times. I'd have to try to dig them up. It's our human nature as we process information to tend to discard data that doesn't fit with our view on things. It doesn't mean we always discard it, but it's the natural bias. Certainly it can tend to be a good thing as we would otherwise be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." as one author put it.
I couldn't find links to the original papers yet, but here's a wiki portion on Background research of schema.
Here's a quote from the article (no sources unfortunately):
New information that falls within an individual's schema is easily remembered and incorporated into their worldview. However, when new information is perceived that does not fit a schema, many things can happen. The most common reaction is to simply ignore or quickly forget the new information. This can happen on a deep level—frequently an individual does not become conscious of or even perceive the new information. However, when the new information cannot be ignored, existing schemata must be changed. |
I think there is a difference between discarding information that hasn't been proven vs discarding information that has. The latter is what I think we are talking about here and in my experience the latter tends to happen when you are so heavily invested in your world views that you can't afford to change even if you wanted because you rely on it to survive personally, socially or financially. Not everyone is like this however. If you were able to prove god's existence today I would accept it because in my world view I am open to anything. The author you quote calls that a bad thing but I beg to differ. Change wouldn't happen unless people challenged their beliefs, conventional wisdom, societal norms.
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 16:15:56.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2009 05:07:02 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I think there is a difference between discarding information that hasn't been proven vs discarding information that has. The latter is what I think we are talking about here and in my experience the latter tends to happen when you are so heavily invested in your world views that you can't afford to change even if you wanted because you rely on it to survive personally, socially or financially. Not everyone is like this however. If you were able to prove god's existence today I would accept it because in my world view I am open to anything. The author you quote calls that a bad thing but I beg to differ. Change wouldn't happen unless people challenged their beliefs, conventional wisdom, societal norms. |
Well, perhaps I think you are deluding youself a bit with whether or not you discount new information that doesn't fit in your worldview. I think it's quite normal. Also, the information doesn't need to be "unproven". Proven data can be just as easily discarded. We see can see common everyday examples in fields such as politics (obviously) and science. Doctors, for example, have their way of thinking about specific disease states and may consciously or subconsciously hold on to that framework at the cost of ignoring possibly paradigm shifting information. I think the older we get the harder it is for a doctor to integrate new ways of thinking about diseases. For example, we used to think stomach ulcers were caused by stress or "Type A" personalities or too much coffee and caffeine. That has since been pretty well discarded in favor of an organism called h. pylori causing an infection. But the shift in thinking was MUCH slower than the rate at which the new evidence became available and I would wager there are still a number of docs in their 70s who have heard of h. pylori but don't buy all the hype.
I would wager that you are the same (as we all are, so I'm not pointing you out). Some people are more open to changing their schema than others, but we all are resistant on some level. The example of "if you were able to prove god's existence today I would accept" is always interesting. If I could, how exactly would I do that? Although it's obviously hypothetical, I bet God could really stand in front of a number of people and they would never believe, chalking their experience up to hallucination or something else that fits their schema.
Your differentiation between "proven" and "unproven" also is as simple as "proven to me" and "unproven to me". Many things in life can never be proven to a 100% level. We all have to weigh the evidence and decide when it is enough to accept. Most people don't discard "proven" evidence because this means "proven to me". If you do discard it, it is almost by definition "not proven to me". (That's not to say some people don't resist to the end with their fingers in their ears, but again, I don't think these people solely reside in the religious world. See: Global Warming)
Message edited by author 2009-04-08 17:10:59. |
|
|
|
04/08/2009 05:24:37 PM · #150 |
| Hey, Richard, you know I have you under my thumb right? :) If you say you disagree, then I just say, "See? I told you so." :P |
|
