Satenza

there was no FOUND link before. but now al quieda is being sent there so there IS a link now. Therefore it wasn't a reason to enter Iraq because that reason has formed later on.

Sequels usually destroy movies. For example, the Friday The 13th movies. Even though the orginal was nothing special to begin with. There becomes a point where it's obvious that they are riding on the success of their prequel. Such as Terminator 3. That really was a joke of a movie. Unfortunatley $$$$$$ = More than retaining dignity.

Theres no link between Iraq and 9/11 or any terrorism that has involved America.

I don't think he was mistaken in his wording Reb.

Quite suprising, since the orginal had to be subbed for the Italian population on it's release because of the dialect :P

Disagree, Shakesphere wrote for the stage, we know of his intentions in fictionalising his work even if some were based of what he considered real life influence. Still obvious fiction. The Bible on the otherhand is not obvious non fiction, if it was then everyone throughout the would would be following it word for word. You also have yet to show me a peice of this lots of evidence that shows orginal intentions of the Bible to be non-fictional. We're pretending that I'm right, and the intentions of Christianity is ambiguous. So we no longer need to focus on what each tried to show at the begnining. Doesn't matter, it does now. We are not focusing on orginal intention anymore. We're focusing on comparing the two overall. Both offer salvation. Does now. It still offers no real creation story. That doesn't matter, some Buddist texts follow a scientology rationale as to why we are on earth. Now your assuming there is no ambiguity in the orginal intentions of the Bible. That has little relevance. Thats the way scientology is operated, not neccessarily the ideological nature of the religion. Little relevance, I don't know what this point is attempting to prove. Lets spin it, in earlier times didn't Christians murder those who practised against them? Maybe today Christianity will welcome all people to their services (although depending on what Churches) in the past it certainly wasn't all that welcoming to new ideas. I always found the collection plate that went around slightly too forthcoming as well.

My claim rests on your inability to give any objective claims to my claim. Hence, ambiguity.

Scientology has formed around the belief that it is fact, even though it's orginal intention was ficticious. I have explained why it's ambiguous. I have explained that because we don't know the author, we can't know it's orginal intentions and therefore it's purpose is ambiguous. The lack of proof surrounding those first books of the Bible being written in a non-fictional way makes that ambiguous. You nor anyone on this thread has provided any proof as to why you say it is written with the intention of non fiction writings. The lack of proof adds to my proof that it is ambiguous. These examples that you have given arn't trying to prove ambiguity in the orginal purposes. They are just asserting that it is not real. I have already given them, the lack of proof that there is to suggest those first books of the Bible, in which the rest of the Bible is established on are written in a non ficticious way equals ambiguity in that. So it's up to clear up my apparent false thought of the orginal intention being ambiguous by giving me a little proof to show that it is non fiction. Ambiguity is a state, not something that needs to be proved, it can only be proved by the lack of proof on your side of the argument. I can't prove your side of the argument. I present the opinion it is ambiguous. You attempt to show me it is not.

What do you mean, my point is "made up". There is lack of evidence to support the claim it was written with the intention to be non fictional therefore it's point becomes ambiguous. There is lack of evidence to suggest the first books all had the same author, or that any were written by the man they were supposed to be written by. When the author becomes unknown, then the intentions become unknown and therefore ambiguity surrounds it. Show me some evidence pointing towards it being written in a non-ficticious manner. I don't have to prove ambiguity, the ambiguity is a state that occurs when there is no reliable proof that it has a particular motive behind it. That proof falls onto your shoulders to present.

There is no reason so far as I can see to suggest that the orginal intentions are not clouded - seperate from faith. Your claiming that non-fiction authors of the time wrote like that, your offering no authors name or book to see for myself. You maintain no reasons to say that it's orginal intentions were non-fiction, let alone back that up with any sort of evidence. You seem to have knowledge of books or authors from biblical times that show similar writings styles to the first books of the Bible, whereas i don't to my knowledge. So, why not give me a few names?

I never said Hesiod was around during Biblical times. I was giving an example of how you can't say because it doesn't seem possible in this day and age, it makes sense for it to been have written as fiction. Don't try and turn this around and avoid my question. If you can't do it, then your made up point remains made up. It's kind of sad that you have to make up arguments that don't exist to prove a point. You seem not to want to answer your own question. I have not read any non-fiction writings from the time. Point me in the direction of an author from Biblical times who wrote like Moses or whoever the author was and I'll look into it. You're suggestion that all non fiction writings were written like that isn't backed up either. Anyway, i still hold the belief that the Bibles orginal intentions are ambiguous. You have not shown me anything to say otherwise so far.

You have the inherent right to insult everyone on this thread? Lets take a look; So, my justification for the following insult is that you insulted me first. Your such an idiot it's so unbelievable.

Hesiod lived around 500-700 years after the first books of the Bible and was from Greece, I'd hardly call him a fiction author from when the Bible's first books were written. What non-fiction authors from the biblical times of Moses write like that?

The books have no characteristics of written fiction at the time and have all the characteristics of non-fiction such as the thorough tracing of genealogy throughout the entire Old Testament. If you found lists of fiction written during the same time of the Old Testament you would realize this, but since your entire point is made up, you're not going to. But the books of Moses such as Genesis are fiction in the sense without faith they are so supernatural that they are impossible to take as non fiction. I can't understand your question of whether it's writing style relates to other fiction books of the time. Firstly because i have not read any fiction books from biblical times to my knowledge. It's language is ambiguous and symbolic, it's stories are so far from reality it's untrue, it has many historical inaccuracys. If it's intention was to be non fiction then it would read like a history book and take deep consideration to the dates and rulers and clarity, but it doesn't. It features a God which becomes nothing more than a paradoxical mess. It features supernatural monsters and beasts. If you take the creation stories to be symbolic (like many Christians now do) then it shows that it's based on fiction. I find the author of the first books of the Bible, which are supposed to be attributed to Moses to be very critical in seeing orginal purpose. If we can't pinpoint an orginal author, we don't know the purpose it was written for, if we don't know what purpose it was written for it becomes clouded by ambiguity. The scriptures themselves point towards a number of authors in the books attributed to Moses, and so the orginal author of the first Biblical books falls under question, and so does it's purpose. Political perhaps, fiction perhaps, non fiction perhaps. But don't even pretend you can be sure.

Im not changing any subject, the stories in the first books such as Adam and Eve point towards fiction, because they are so seperate from reality. Nothing points towards them being non-fiction other than if you have faith in them being non fiction. If the first stories are fiction, the Bible is based upon fiction (AKA God creating the world in seven "days", Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark).

This is just going to come down to a matter of faith, again. However the unproven stories (e.g Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark), metaphysical happenings and seperation from reality. All point towards fiction. I feel it doesn't, as if we can say Moses didn't write the first books of the Bible we can put the orgins of it into even more doubt about whether it's purpose was fiction.

That one! Except from P*U*L*S*E, so live. Live rocks.

Then clear up what you really mean't by this; That's completely false, actually. Maybe not the miracles and such in the Bible, but at least all of the people were real people. Red - Implys he Bible and Qu'ran have more proof. Blue - Implys the reason for the previous statement is that the Bible and Qu'ran have more proof because of historical accuracy. If I have it wrong. Otherwise I have nothing wrong. Stop saying "He has it wrong" but offer no explanation as to what you meant by that you said. I know what you said, and you know what you said. I just used the word imply and now you are using it as a scapegoat for your worthless argument. Edit: If there is no ambiguity, then give me proof that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses. If you can't even do that then it's orgins become unknown. Lets face it aswell, Moses writing down these books in the incredibly hot desert and foretelling his own death points quite strongly towards him not really being the author of them.

How can I make up the ambiguity regarding the orginal purposes of the Bible? It is ambiguous in the sense that you dont really know what purpose it was started as. My case rests on an ambiguity that does exist, and will always exist. I do not doubt people believed in Jesus an died for him independantly of Biblical writings. However that doesn't prove the orginal purposes of the Bible were non-fiction. Moses' writings could have been political or fiction or something else.

It documented the lives of other people, whose genealogy traces up through the bloodline that eventually becomes Jesus. The point you are making is ridiculous. You are basically saying, "You can't know anything for sure about Christianity, so in conclusion, I know for sure that Christianity and Scientology were established with the same purpose." And your assuming they were created in a different purpose because of historical records of Jesus who lived over one thousand years after the orgins of Christianity and the writings of the first books of the Bible. I never said I knew for sure that Christianity and Scientology were created in the same vein, but the ambiguity surrounding Christianity's orginal purpose means that both are the same in respect to the fact they both offer the exact same thing, salvation. They both in some way capitalise money wise from their followers. They are both to some degree cults. The only thing that differs is the details inbetween to someone who can look at both objectionally.

The Bible doesn't base itself unfortunatley on the somewhat tamer life of Jesus. Christianity may, but that doesn't mean it excludes the Old Testament or stories that have no historical record. Jesus is one part of the Bible whose views rely on the previously established views of the Old Testament. The Bible's orginal purpose was not to document the life of Jesus.

Because it's a stupid boring peice of playground stigma.

I don't know how much you know about either religion, but they were established with completely different original purposes, and are therefore not in the same line. Maybe you just don't know enough about the origins of either of the two religions? You don't know what the orginal purpose of the Bible was. It may have been published to be non-fiction, that doesn't make it any more different than scientology in the sense that both set out to achive the same thing. Scientology's orgins may be leaning towards fiction but the same could be said for the Bible. Both are cults by definition and both promise salvation. They are one in the same thing, it is only the details that differ.

Who wouldn't be inspired by just looking at Ingrid Bergman to make such a beautiful film? :) However i do prefer Paisa to any other of Rossellini works. Have you seen this one? I'd love to see Paisan, since I've seen that footage from Il mio viaggio in Italia, I'm very curious. But I can't find it on DVD. I'm looking for Germany Year Zero (found that one though) and Stromboli as well. I've got way too less Rosselini. Which ones do you reocommend? I've only got Roma, Citta Aperta and Francesco. Well, i like Pasia the best, it's just the epicness of it without being an epic. The stories across Italy are all pretty incredible. I mean Fellini wrote one of the stories, and Amidei wrote one. He was also the writer of Rome, Open City. However some feel it doesn't quite live up to standards i think it is incredibly heavy and moving at times. Then at other times funny and haertwarming (like the story about Pasquale an orphan child meeting a black GI in Rome). My other favourite Rosselini is Rome, Open City which you have seen and Germany Year Zero. GYZ is a film so ahead of it's time it's a masterpeice just because of that. But Rossellini was also ahead of his time in the majority of his Neo-Realist movies. You can catch Paisa on Film 4 if you have that, very rarley. Same with Germany Year Zero. I recorded them directly from that, as I couldn't find a copy. If you can't wat there is a version fo Paisa avaliable on DVD, however through an Italian site which costs quite a bit. Here

No you did say that, I infered it from your post. Howver, if you wish to show me what you actually meant (if I have infered wrong, which i don't think I have) then by all means go ahead. Edit: And I don't want an apology.