Brasil

[quote name='Zeta']Well it gets kind of boring at times because I do not like being so weak. But I am pushing myself to play so I can get stronger and master some professions so it can get fun, heh.[/quote] *waves his hand in front of you* You don't need to play Star Wars Galaxies, nor pay the monthly fee. It's not the online RPG you're looking for. [i]GuildWars[/i]... [quote]I am not too sure about this. I mean look at children today and with art. They draw what they see. As you progress in life and learn more you are caught up with everything having to be perfect, so you go back and erase constantly and get it or you don't. My art teacher always told us to "draw what we see, not what we know." I think it can be applied to this situation as well. As an adult, Obi-Wan is going to be thinking of ideas left and right. He has the knowledge to know countless possibilities for something happen. He isn't going to think of the most obvious answer, he is going to think of a complex one. It is the same with people nowadays. Lots of time people miss the answers/problems completely, even if it is staring them in the face. A child isn't going to be having a life?s worth of experience in him/her. They are going to see the easiest answer, the one that makes sense straight away to them.[/quote] Yes...Yoda had children solve something that Obi-Wan couldn't...and the children solved it right in front of him in a matter of seconds. I'd say that isn't exactly making Obi-Wan look good, lol. [quote][u][b]What do we know from the movies?[/b][/u] The Jedi have the ability to influence the weak-minded. They can pull levitate objects. They can sometimes catch glimpses of the future. They can feel each other in the Force. They can sense your feelings and thoughts. They can sense the light side. They can sense the dark side. With all these abilities we know, we can make educated guesses as to what they can do. It isn't a far out idea that they can sense deception.[/quote] Zeta, it [i]is[/i] a far out idea that they can sense deception, because it's established in the films that they [i]can't[/i]. 1) They can't sense Darth Sidious, a Sith Lord. Incidentally, having a Sith Lord sitting next to you should do something to the Force. Even Vader is able to sense something as simple as Luke's thoughts in RotJ. The Jedi Council should have been able to detect Sidious. 2) They couldn't detect Palpatine's deception, even when he was sitting right in front of them. 3) They missed entirely the entire Clone Army development until Obi-Wan happened to stumble across it on Kamino. They get played for fools the entire time. We know from the movies that they can't sense deception, because if they could, the films would have turned out differently. You're not making an educated guess here, because the films have clearly established the Jedi Council as wholly incompetent, lol. [quote]Up until what point? ATOC? By the time of the movie there is much greater acceptance as to who he is and what is abilities can be. It obviously happens in his training before ATOC comes along. [/quote] You mean the gopher/bodyguard/escort quests they send him out on? lol "Protect Amidala" "Escort Amidala" "Go for that" Yes, they're really giving him assignments that enable him to shine, that give the impression they really value him as a Jedi, lol. They express their admiration to Obi-Wan, but Obi-Wan is not Anakin. [quote]I agree with you. The Council is at fault. But they are not the only ones at fault. I also believe that if they had trained him differently the chances of him turning to the Dark Side would be less. But the Jedi of old has been following a teaching system that has been going on for thousands of years, without change as far as I am aware. Failings in their teachings. Changes needed to be done. And it became possible with the Old Jedi being practically wiped out, save a few. Any other time the Old Jedi Order collapsed there was the chance of change. But the ones that survived never looked to themselves as possibly being the cause of their own failings. And with Luke having very little training of the Old Order is now able to make those changes. (most of these two paragraphs are in regards to Gavin for our earlier debate) But I still do believe that some of the Councils actions are warranted. Anakin has show throughout the movies, not just the books that he is not ready to become what he truly wants. He is full of anger, as seen with the Tusken Raiders. He is overconfident in his own abilities. Just look at him when he fought Dooku. Had he listened to Obi-Wan the chances of victory would have been greater. He disobeys direct orders to remain on Naboo. There are reasons why the Council acts the way they do. All their actions are not unjustified.[/QUOTE] Even though most of this was directed at Gavin, more or less, I do want to comment on it, if you don't mind. I'm not arguing that the teachings of the Jedi Order aren't detrimental, but the only reason the teachings prove detrimental are because the actual members of the Council are complete tools. lol They refuse to budge any more than an inch for most of the films, so while the teachings are an issue, the personalities of the Council members are really what holds the Council (and the Jedi Order) back. It's an important distinction to understand: the teachings are simply that: teachings. They can be changed with the times, provided those in power understand the need for change...and the members of the Council largely do not understand the need for change. Honestly, Anakin and Palpatine were the best thing to happen to the Jedi Order, because it showed the Order just how "braindead" they were. Yeah, Anakin's gung-ho...but maybe that's what was needed. I don't think many stop to think that Anakin is not the reason why everything falls apart. He actually has a better mentality and approach than the Council themselves. He's open to the idea of emotion in his life; he welcomes love and affection. He's not afraid to take action when action needs to be taken. I think the chase in the opening of AOTC is testament to this. Obi-Wan's freaking out when Anakin's zooming through the city, but what Obi-Wan doesn't realize is that Anakin's got the right idea. Yes, it's dangerous, but so is starfighting, so are lightsaber duels, so is living out in the Dune Sea of Tatooine (and Obi-Wan definitely takes that action, because it's what needs to be done).

[quote name='Zeta']Apologies for not replying sooner. Been caught up with Galaxies too much. ^_^;;[/quote] Galaxies? Star Wars Galaxies? Gag me with a spoon, lol. How's it like these days, anyway? Any better than 1.5 years ago? [quote]Of course. But he isn't going to be using them disrupting his plans as Sidious to his advantage. He isn't going to come out and say "you interfered with my invasion of Naboo", or "You killed my apprentice Darth Maul." He cannot use them disrupting his plans to his advantage and tell the public they are doing so.[/quote] True, he's not going to "come out," but only an idiot would...and Palpatine is far from an idiot, and also far from two different people. He's Darth Sidious through and through. Even when he's posing as a Senator/Chancellor, he still acts fully as Darth Sidious, because Sidious is only concerned with what he wants, and any action taken by Senator/Chancellor Palpatine is focused to that end. I'd go as far as to say there really is no Senator Palpatine at all. In Episode I, when the two Trade Federation officials are speaking with Sidious, that chin is very prominent, and we see Palpatine a few scenes later, and BAM! There's the chin. Appearance-wise, yeah, there are differences (mostly just superficial clothing, though). Character-wise (particularly goal-oriented)...there's only one character there: Darth Sidious. [quote]Could you provide me with a link to the script? :D [/quote] Sure. [url=http://scripts.cgispy.com/newsboard.cgi?action=view&num=2&user=script][u]Episode III[/u][/url] I believe the script is legit. It seems pretty solid in terms of characterization, dialogue, settings, pacing, etc, in that it mirrors the other prequel scripts. [quote]I just saw Yoda there trying to humor the Jedi children. *shrug* Yes he does inform them about the Clone Army. But they do not believe he is wrong or lying in any way. They believe him. And admit it themselves that they are blind as to the creation of it.[/quote] I more see that scene as Yoda mocking Obi-Wan. I mean, just look at what the scene is: Obi-Wan comes to Yoda with a problem. Obi-Wan can't solve the problem. Yoda clearly knows the answer, but instead has the young Jedi-in-training children solve it. What is Yoda saying by doing that? That Obi-Wan just got pwned by children..."Great Jedi, yes, but stumped by a mystery a child could solve." That's not his precise dialogue, but that's the implication of what he says. [quote]I myself think they had reason to limit some privileges granted to him. I mean, look at what he did to the Tusken Raiders in AOTC. Pure anger there. Not something the Jedi want. He disobeys orders to remain on Naboo beforehand. He doubts Obi-Wan's abilities. He is headstrong, arrogant, and angry. Throughout the books we see Anakin portraying the traits that a Jedi is not supposed to, and this is why they held him back. [spoiler]I mean look at the Jedi Council scene in the trailer. Where Mace says you are on this Council, but we do not grant you the rank of Master. I think they were justified with this judgment. Anakin didn't prove/earn his seat on the Council. Palpatine appointed him there. Just because he is on the Council, doesn't mean he is to become a Master. I completely agree with the Council's judgment.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] What books? Not EU, I hope, because they aren't reliable. The Jedi-Deception part we mentioned earlier is testament to that. I think we're agreed that there are some serious flaws in the Jedi Council's approach and methodology. That much is clear from the films themselves, and while the Sandpeople scene from AOTC is certainly indicative of a bit of a rage issue in Anakin, and his attitude is certainly that of an arrogant teenager, I don't think that warrants how the Council treats him. Instead of actually giving him an ear and a family, they turn him out into the cold, essentially. There are fleeting glimpses of compassion, but it's too little, too late. Mace and Yoda support him, okay, but they were too late there. They treated Anakin like **** pretty much all up until that point. Anakin is pissed because the Council hasn't respected his abilities from the start. When he's standing in front of the Council in Episode I, when he's a child, he has enormous potential there and Yoda & CO. don't even express a remote interest in his proposed tutelage. There's no doubt in my mind that if the Jedi Council had actually done something meaningful in Anakin's development, his chances of falling to the Dark Side would have decreased dramatically. He had no family in the Council up until that point of "critical mass" in Episode II. Does that color the Council positively? I think it's far more negative, actually. Instead of utilizing his strengths throughout, they treat him as a last resort--and use him as a last resort. Is that going to make things better? lol The Council makes a mess out of everything...Anakin's training, Darth Sidious, Sith Lords, internal affairs...everything.

[quote name='Zeta']Well this is where we differ. I do consider the EU relevant. *shrug* I hope that since the training that can now take place afresh, the Jedi will be able to sense the deception. It has been seen, in the EU at least, that the Jedi can tell if a person is deceiving them. The fact that it is only a small body rather than a large one such as the Senate will make it easier for the Jedi to detect any sort of deception on the new Council.[/quote] Well, just consider how much of the EU is written after the OT is released, and how much of the current Prequel-focused EU is being written even before Episode III is released. The Star Wars EU is just fanfiction, and yes, they're endorsed by Lucas--though, if that process is anything like Hollywood script submissions...Lucas isn't reading any of the books, just getting synopses/reviews from assistants)--but that doesn't necessarily mean they're reliable. Okay, the EU says that Jedi can sense deception. The films do not (in fact there's very little to suggest the Jedi can sense much of anything). Right there is a pretty good indication that EU isn't reliable. [quote]Trade Federation? Are you talking about when Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan go on their diplomatic mission? That was for Valorum, not Palpatine. They interrupted, if only a little, a plan set in motion by a Dark Lord of the Sith. Getting in the way of the Sith's goals of ruling the galaxy with an iron fist definitely. If that isn't what you meant, then do explain. Darth Maul? A Sith apprentice. Naturally they would fight with him to get him out of the picture. It has been seen throughout the Star Wars universe that the Sith do evil things. Naturally they would once again try to thrawt a Sith's plan. Hell, Palpatine still got away with it. Mace and Yoda were skeptical at first about the return of the Sith. A failure with the Old Jedi Order's way of teaching perhaps? To actually believe that the Sith were completely gone? Again, if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, please explain. At first Mace and Yoda were against the training of Anakin. Then they are for it. Mace practically does a complete 180 by the time of AOTC. Referring to him in high regards concerning the prophecy, etc..and doesn't show any resentment against training him. Palpatine has no control of Anakin's training. It is the Obi-Wan and the Council's choice alone as to how they train him. Sure he can recommend him for missions concerning various things, but he has little control of his training. The only mission (outside of the EU that is) so far that Palpatine even recommends him for is guarding Padme with Obi-Wan. It was the Council's decision to send him to Naboo with her, even though Obi-Wan didn't agree. He has no control over Anakin's training. Though he does have control in putting him in situations where Anakin can and will be tempted by the Dark Side. And as far as I have been able to grasp from the books and movies, Anakin wasn't originally part of his plans anyways. Had his original plot gone through in TPM (with the Queen not escaping, etc...) Anakin would still be on Tatooine. Most of their interfering with his goals are them interfering with the plans of a Sith. They are not interfering with Palpatine's directives, orders, etc...as the Supreme Chancellor. But what they are interfering with are his plans as a Dark Lord of the Sith. We have seen in the movies, the books, comics, games, throughout the whole universe that the Sith don't use their power for good. So naturally they are going to be interfering with the Sith Lord's plans, they just do not know he is Palpatine in disguise. Unless of course you do not believe that the Sith are bad and Jedi good. *shrug* Palpatine's plans are not for the good of the people. They are for him to seize absolute power over the entire galaxy. They look all nice and sweet on top. But each law passed in the senate, directive passed, what have you, it only increases Palpatine's power to rule the galaxy as he sees fit. If I misinterpreted any of your ways of them undermining Palpatine's, the Supreme Chancellor, orders, please explain. I see them interfering with the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, not Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. And as things start to become clearer to them, they begin to question his true motives. *shrug*[/quote] And Palpatine is Darth Sidious, so whether they're orders from Darth Sidious or Senator/Chancellor Palpatine is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it's the same person giving the orders, and thereby any action taken to disrupt those orders, whether they be "Sithy" or "Senatorial" are in fact in conflict with one man and his objectives. He may present a different side of himself to different characters, yes, but like we've seen throughout the Saga, appearances can be deceiving--hell, they are deceiving, lol. It's not so much as the Jedi being good and Sith being evil, or Sith being good and Jedi being evil, either. I've said it before and I'll say it again...the Saga is all about point of view. I read the script to Episode III last night, and while the scene's writing for that idea isn't as solid as Obi-Wan in RotJ, "point of view" is definitely one of the major themes in the Saga, so it's unfair (to the films themselves and to Lucas) to categorize Sith=evil and Jedi=good, because it's not black and white. The films aren't that simple. Palpatine's goal is to command an Empire, yes, an Empire that can do anything...that isn't burdened by squabbling Senators. Palpatine is going to rule the Empire, but he's going to be able to get things done, like snapping a galaxy into shape, establishing a standard currency (really, everything that Count Dooku was saying). [quote]That doesn't say anything about the Clones. One Jedi refusing to believe that the system exists doesn't speak for the whole. The Clones were not even in any of the Jedi's minds at that moment, they had no inkling. It shows that this one Jedi doesn't believe that the system is in existant because she believes the Archives to be complete. It doesn't show that the Jedi failed to believe Obi-Wan about a Clone army being built. When he informs Yoda, Mace, etc.. about the existance of the Clone Army, they do not deny it. They accept it. And admit their failing in seeing the creation of it.[/quote] Does Yoda believe Obi-Wan, though? He brings him the report of Kamino, and the location, but is perplexed why he can't find it. Yoda actually mocks him for it ("Lost a planet, Obi-Wan has"), then turns to the children for an answer to Obi-Wan's question. I don't think Yoda exactly welcomes him with open arms. It's more condescending and mocking than anything else. I'd have to watch Episode II again, but I seem to recall Obi-Wan informing Mace and Yoda about the Clone Army through a hologram when he's on Kamino. [quote]They obviously don't disregard what he says. The fact that the are keeping an eye on the Senate shows action on their part. Not a lot of action, but action nonetheless. They didn't act on it fully because they had no clue how Sidious could have control of the Senate. He could be the Supreme Chancellor. He could be a background guy who just has people in the Senate under his control. It all goes back to the fact that they were not able to see any of the events unfolding. They weren't able to see the Clones being created. They weren't able to tell that Palpatine was a Sith, even with him right across from them. Imagine the conflicts that would arise had they informed anyone that their powers have diminished? Chaos I am sure. The powerful Jedi. Not even able to see a Dark Lord of the Sith right across the table from them. A failing in their teachings in my book. *shrug*[/QUOTE] I think it's more than just a failing of their teachings, though...I think it's a serious flaw in their fundamental approach. They base their decision on one fact and one alone: that Dooku has joined the Dark Side, and therefore is unreliable. They're basing their decision on a superficial quality...on an appearance, basically. Because Dooku was "evil," he must not be telling the truth...that's ********, lol, because he was telling the truth, and had the Jedi acted with a bit more enthusiasm rather than "let's keep it in mind but just see how things go," the outcome might not have been what it was. Since we're talking about the Jedi Council's supposed "effectiveness," I think it's worth mentioning that one of the major reasons Anakin falls is because the Council doesn't respect him enough to treat him like an ally (this is explained more fully in Episode III). He is given consideration, yes, but he wants more than just being second-string. He has the power to lead, to lead the Jedi to victory, and the Council shuns him. They squander an incredible opportunity by minimizing Anakin's potential.

[quote name='Zeta']Again, this was all personal opinion.[/quote] Yeah, but you're saying that the Jedi could effectively "feel out" deception and corruption in their ranks, and that's been proven false by the films themselves. Opinion, yeah, but it's an opinion that largely ignores the characterization of the Jedi Council. [quote][b]I do believe that the Jedi would have enough sense to realise if someone/a few in a small council has less than honest motives. [/b] I also believe that the Jedi played a part with the fall of the Republic. I believe that their teachings hindered their ability to effectivly keep an eye out for things, things that could have been prevented or not. It is obvious there is a failing of their teachings if a Dark Lord of the Sith can be running the Republic. Even with them across the table from each other.[/quote] Zeta, I've bolded the statement here. And that's the thing, because the Jedi [i]don't[/i] have that kind of sense, and never display it throughout the films (incidentally, I don't really regard much of the EU as entirely relevant to begin with, and I've explained why in the past--actually, in this thread, lol). [quote]What are they destroying? Where? They are doing exactly as Palpatine is ordering them. In the Cestus Deception Obi-Wan realizes that his mission he was sent on had a motive he didn't agree with. Yet he still continued with his mission. Where exactly are they fighting it? The books I have read they are doing what is asked of them, even if they do not personally agree with it. Jedi are not warriors. They said this to Palpatine himself. Yet they lead his armies. You still haven't answered my question of where they are trying to disobey his orders and undermine his policies?[/quote] Zeta, honestly, the EU is just fanfiction that the authors happen to get paid for, and as such, I don't treat EU as having real relevance to Star Wars. They're neat sidestories, yeah, but ultimately, they're nothing more than that: neat sidestories. Their actual relevance to the films diminishes when you start looking at the films critically (objectively). Now, you ask where we see the Jedi "picking a fight" with Palpatine, getting in the way of his goals, undermining his policies? How about throughout the films? Trade Federation, Darth Maul, Anakin's training (particularly Anakin's training), etc. [quote]I myself thought that the Council accepted Obi-Wan's transmission of the Clone Army. Where do they deny it and shrug it off? Yoda admits it himself that they failed to see the creation. Why would they see Obi-Wan as lieing?[/QUOTE] [quote=Episode II]JOCASTA NU: It ought to be, unless it was very recent. (shakes her head) I hate to say it, but it looks like the system you're searching for doesn't exist. OBI-WAN: That's impossible... perhaps the archives are incomplete. JOCASTA NU: The archives are comprehensive and totally secure, my young Jedi. One thing you may be absolutely sure of - if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist![/quote]That's what I was referring to. It's not a matter of thinking Obi-Wan was lying; it's more a matter of Jedi being arrogant to the point of blindness. And it's interesting that you mentioned Yoda's line there, because it definitely portrays the Council as incompetent: [quote=Episode II]YODA: Blind we are, if creation of this clone army we could not see. MACE WINDU: I think it is time to inform the Senate that our ability to use the Force has diminished. YODA: Only the Dark Lords of the Sith know of our weakness. If informed the Senate is, multiply our adversaries will.[/quote]What's even more interesting, however, is the fact that Count Dooku is telling Obi-Wan the truth about the Senate and Darth Sidious in Episode II, and yet we see the following from Yoda and Mace Windu: [quote=Episode II]OBI-WAN: Do you believe what Count Dooku said about Sidious controlling the Senate? It doesn't feel right. YODA: Becoming unreliable, Dooku has. Joined the dark side. Lies, deceit, creating mistrust are his ways now. MACE WINDU: Never the less, I feel we should keep a closer eye on the Senate. YODA: I agree.[/quote]Again, they don't act on it, simply because Dooku has joined the Dark Side. They more or less ignore that particular problem (someone is controlling the Senate) and then it's going to swim up and bite them in the ***, to borrow a quote from Jaws.

[quote name='Zeta']The rest of that section explains the reasoning behind that sentence. In a small council you can be as corrupt as you like. If the Jedi and others don?t agree with what he/she is saying, they obviously won't do anything about it. It would be able to be controlled on a small council.[/quote] Okay, so the justification for allowing corrupt Senators on the...Jedi Council...is because the Jedi could...defend themselves? You're supposing that the Jedi would have enough common sense to be able to effectively distinguish appropriate courses of action in the light of "questionable" Senatorial suggestion? You do realize that the Jedi are largely responsible for the fall of the Old Republic? They sat by and did nothing, despite Obi-Wan and Mace Windu's adamant calls to action. I think you hold the Jedi in much too much regard, Zeta, because they barely can do anything on their own (particularly decision-making), let alone acting as a fail-safe for corrupt Senators. A smaller pond, as it were, means nothing when the character of the Jedi remains the same, the character being about as sluggish and slow as the Republic Senate itself, lol. Having corrupt Senators on a Council of no more than 15 is not going to help anything, nor is it going to provide some type of buffer. If anything, it's just going to increase the danger of Council corruption. Your "solution" is not a solution. [quote]What directives were the Jedi undermining of Palpatines? I know there are instances where the Jedi would go on missions without informing him. They also had good reason to. They were beginning to suspect that Palpatine had some less than honest motives going. They were beginning to question some of his motives yes, but from what I have been reading they are still doing what he asks of them. What things do they undermine/disobey?[/QUOTE] Consider the fact that Palpatine is revitalizing the Old Republic, bringing it back from the brink of a self-destruction, re-building its military might, transforming a weak and ailing governing body into a force to be reckoned with, and only able to do this by playing both sides. Palpatine's a smart guy. He knew that the only way to get anything done was to utilize some tactics that others wouldn't. The Jedi wouldn't because many of them were simply too blinded by their own arrogance and inflated sense of self-worth to understand the importance of change. Most of the Council ignores and shrugs off Obi-Wan's report of the cloning, as well, remember. The Council is really a smaller version of the Senate: conceited and pretentious, and they don't realize that until Palpatine shows them. When Mace Windu and Obi-Wan start getting hints that there's something deeper in Palpatine's plan, what do they do? Instead of working with the system that Palpatine is developing, they fight it...they want to destroy it. Considering that under Palpatine, the Republic is finally experiencing order and structure (and things are finally getting done), Windu and Obi-Wan are threatening the very foundation of a stable social and political order. As much as some may not like Palpatine, the Republic would be lost without him. He is its [i]savior[/i]...and the Jedi apparently didn't like that he could singlehandedly do what they and the Senate could never do: lead effectively. Yes, Palpatine does work behind the scenes to poke at the Republic (his influence in the Trade Federation, for example), but sometimes to get things done, you have to engage in activites that others may label "immoral." In this case, though, I think the ends justify the means. To make the omelet, Palpatine had to break a few eggs.

Zeta, also you need to keep in mind that Palpatine labeled Jedi as enemies of the Republic because they were enemies of the Republic. They were fighting Palpatine's directives at almost every opportunity, and were one of the only opponents to the reformation. They weren't just enemies because Palpatine said they were; they were enemies because they were. If left to the Jedi and Senate, the Old Republic would have crumbled; that is clear to anyone who's studied the Saga on any level. Palpatine steps in and saves the Old Republic, and because his methods are a bit too brutal for the Jedi tastes (but, really, desperate times call for desperate measures), the Jedi revolt, essentially. But when you consider what they're rebelling against...they're rebelling against what needed to be done. The Old Republic was in shambles; the Senate was sluggish; it was a veritable and undeniable shithole, lol. I don't think the Jedi reasons are all that legitimate, honestly...Palpatine was doing what needed to be done, because nobody else had the balls to do it. [quote name='Zeta']Hell, the Senators themselves can still be placed on the council, even if they are/become corrupt.[/quote] That is particularly asinine, because corrupt Senators are what butchered much of the Old Republic in the first place.

[quote name='Inuyasha7271']Another bad movie that needed no sequel was Terminator I mean 1 and 2 were amazing, but 3 made me mad I was steaming why why did they do that.[/quote] Don't let the bigger budget fool you, because T3 adheres to every single principle and philosophy of the first two films. It's just much more direct with the delivery (i.e., "Judgment Day is inevitable"). I was debating whether to include this article I wrote, but it will help you to understand what I mean. [quote]?No Fate or Human Misconception?? It?s an interpretation that is so widely held that most find it difficult to consider anything to the contrary. And what reason do they have to believe anything to the contrary? After all, if you were to ask anybody who has seen and discussed Terminator 2 on any level, it?s very likely you would hear the same thing: Judgment Day was prevented. And because this interpretation has been repeated so often, many consider it to be official. After all, when something is so widely accepted, it must be true. But interestingly enough, this is a fallacy, because this ?official? interpretation is [i]not[/i] true. What is accepted as official is actually a severe misinterpretation, which brings me to the objective of this piece. Through an analysis of the action, characterization and dialogue of Terminator 1 and 2 exclusively, I intend to show that Judgment Day has always been inevitable throughout the Terminator films, and consequently, that No Fate (and its audience ?following?) is actually purely human misconception. It seems tragically obvious to many, and to some, a point not even worth consideration, but the pure, physical, action-oriented dominance of the various Terminator models throughout T1 and T2 functions on two levels. The first level is purely superficial: the Terminators are nigh-indestructible, fully armored, killer cyborgs that feel no pain, pity, or remorse. They?re called ?Terminators? for a reason, after all. But the second level goes far deeper than that. Because the Terminators are so destructive and powerful, and thus propel the action forward much more than any human character, it can be said that the Terminators are in control of the films, in control of ?destiny.? In effect, they are Fate, an unstoppable, unwavering force that is headed in our direction. Evidence of this Terminator control is the premise of the first film: Skynet, a computer defense network, sends a Terminator back through time to assassinate the leader of the human resistance. It is a machine that initiates the conflict; it is a machine that propels the action forward. This occurs in every single scene, as well. Whether it is the Terminator?s first appearance in T1, where it brutally slaughters a few thugs (putting its fist through one?s chest, which requires enough force to puncture the breastbone and rib cage), the cold-blooded murder of the gun shop owner, taking a buckshot round in the face and then performing surgery on itself, getting run over by an 18-wheeler (and getting blown up in said 18-wheeler then rising out of the fire like the Phoenix), the Terminator cannot be stopped. Each and every time it gets knocked down, it gets right back up and resumes the chase, even after getting blown in half by Kyle?s plastique in the robotics lab at the end of T1. The Terminator is only finally stopped by a hydraulic press that completely crushes what?s left of its endoskeleton. T2 only further cements this theme, because the new Terminator antagonist cannot be destroyed, only mildly injured?a flesh wound, if you will. The T-1000 is caught in a tanker truck explosion in the waterway chase sequence, only to casually walk out of the flames in perfect condition. Similar to the T-800 in what is surely an intentional parallel, it takes buckshot rounds to the face and body, but unlike the T-800, it requires no surgery to repair the damage. The bullet holes merely vanish as the liquid metal coalesces. Apart from the liquid nitrogen and the molten steel (both at extreme opposite ends of the damage spectrum), the T-1000 is indestructible. Aside from those extreme situations (the hydraulic press, the liquid nitrogen and the molten steel), there is no stopping the Terminators. If thirty police officers couldn?t kill one T-800 (or even defend themselves with a minimal level of efficiency), how could three humans possibly save the entire world from a global thermonuclear holocaust? Simply, there is no way, because throughout the films, the Terminators are dumptrucks, and the humans are little Micro Machines that get in the way. This analogy is actually rather appropriate, as well, because during the casting process for the role of the Terminator in T1, James Cameron and his crew mention how they were looking for an actor who had the ?face of a dumptruck.? The question then becomes if this impossibility is so obvious, why don?t we see any evidence that the human characters, namely Sarah Connor, have thought about it? After all, it seems reasonable that if trained police officers (and SWAT teams in T2) couldn?t put up a fight, three people blowing up Cyberdyne isn?t going to have any dramatic effect on the apocalyptic future. The answer lies in something many fans have not considered: one, that Sarah Connor is not a Prophet; two, that she is basing her actions and outlook on a twisted misinterpretation of John?s message?a high jacking, in a sense?; and three, her hyperemotional reactions directly contradict the manner of approach demonstrated by the successful characters in the films. Firstly, I?d like to strongly emphasize that Sarah is not a Prophet, even though many have (erroneously) elevated her to such a status. When discussing the course of the future in the Terminator films, many quote her narration at the end of T2, claiming it to be proof that she and John prevented Judgment Day, because she looks to the future with a sense of hope. The key point they?re missing here is that she doesn?t know they prevented Judgment Day, because her sense of hope is just that: hope. It?s not fact. It?s not reality. It?s a human emotion. She?s not making any type of prediction in that final speech. She?s expressing what she wants, and what she wants is a future without Judgment Day. Keep in mind that she only knows of Judgment Day because she was told about it, and not because she had a major revelation or a premonition similar to Abraham, Moses or Muhammad, so she has no idea what the future holds. Secondly, many attribute the ?No Fate? message to Sarah Connor, and with good reason. She is the mouthpiece for it in [i]T2[/i]. But again, there are key subtleties that people are missing. For example, the idea of No Fate was introduced in [i]T1[/i], when Kyle recites John?s message for her. The religious imagery here is fairly obvious. John is the God figure, Kyle is the Prophet (a Christ figure), and Sarah becomes a Disciple. But the message that Kyle delivers (?No Fate?) does not relate to Judgment Day at all. When Kyle speaks of No Fate, he is merely reciting an [i]inspirational[/i] speech, a battle cry to rally the troops. John is not telling Sarah that there is no Fate entirely, but only that she must survive the impending assault from the T-800. If the message had been a ?downer,? Sarah would have given up, and John would not exist. He is merely telling her exactly what she needs to hear at this point in her life, given the current situation. The sole purpose of ?No Fate? is [i]not[/i] to tell Sarah to fight and prevent Judgment Day. The purpose of ?No Fate? is to inspire her to survive in the face of a very real and concrete (and lethal) adversity. Unfortunately, that message is not the same in T2, because Sarah has largely discarded the original meaning behind the philosophy and twisted the idea around to better serve her own goals (preventing Judgment Day). Whereas John?s message of No Fate was adaptation through determination and perseverance, Sarah?s is an all-out war fueled by passion and intense psychological anguish. In this sense, Sarah is similar to Al Qaeda, in that both twist a specific doctrine to support their own respective Idealistic crusades. Thirdly, Sarah?s behavior and approach are inconsistent with the attitude and emotional detachment that are necessary to realize a successful campaign against Skynet and its Terminators. Only through assuming the cold, efficient qualities of the Terminators themselves are humans able to achieve victory, and the humans? failure to do so is a foreshadowing of the inevitability of Judgment Day, because in order to kill a Terminator, one must be a Terminator. This concept is manifested most clearly in the characterization of John Connor, the leader of the human resistance and savior of mankind. While his resolve, determination, and cunning battle strategy enable the resistance to rise up against the machines and ?smash those metal mother-fuckers into junk,? his mannerisms, movements, and facial expressions mimic those of a Terminator, and not those of a human. We first see John behind a pair of binoculars, which give an initial impression of a mechanical soldier. As he lowers the binoculars with arms locked in a rigid 90-degree angle, however, it becomes clear that the binoculars are not the only thing inhuman. John's head turns on a fixed, rigid axis, and only after his eyes have moved first along the same fixed, rigid axis, a physical trait of the Terminator in T1, and a trait we will see in the two Terminators later in this film. John's eyes are cold and distant; there is no life to them. His face is locked in an impassive gaze. John is not a human surveying the battlefield; he is a Terminator [i]scanning[/i] the battlefield. The humans win because they are being led by a Terminator. If John is the symbol of success, then it could be said that any human seeking a victory in the films would need to emulate John?s mannerisms and behaviors precisely. Sarah Connor does not. She rarely demonstrates the necessary coldness seen in John, and her inability to control her most primal emotions surfaces multiple times throughout T2, the first during the Pescadero state mental hospital episode. When Dr. Silverman, Sarah?s psychologist, informs her that he is not going to recommend that she be transferred to a minimum security wing, she attacks him like an animal. This lashing out is not going to help her, however, because heated passion is not conducive to Sarah?s ultimate goal of preventing Judgment Day, as we see from John?s demeanor in the Prologue, and in the mannerisms of the Terminator units themselves. Sarah?s escape later, however, is going smoothly?as smoothly as an escape from a maximum security wing can go, of course?because Sarah has planned the entire escape beforehand and is executing it with cold precision. In order to take Dr. Silverman hostage, she throws a ring of keys at the orderly reviewing medication schedules with him, and then quickly incapacitates the orderly in the brief second of distraction. Silverman begins dialing the front desk, but is quickly stopped as the nightstick comes cracking down on his forearm. Sarah?s movements are fast, clean, and coldly efficient. Later, however, as she is running to an open elevator, fear takes over as she sees the T-800 stepping out. Sarah runs back down the hall, screaming ?He?ll kill us all! He?ll kill us all!? and not even the burly orderlies are going to stop her. She begins clawing her way across the floor, a wounded animal trying to escape a predator. She loses complete control over herself and lets her emotions overtake her. Her emotions again prove overly dominant when she decides to assassinate Miles Dyson, the man ?most directly responsible? for Skynet?s development. ?Most directly responsible? is a key phrase here, because while Dyson was the primary researcher for the project, ?most directly responsible? would indicate there were others also working on it, and would certainly have data of their own, quite possibly in their homes, if Dyson is any indication of common work habits of Cyberdyne employees. Given the very likely existence of other research and data of other members of the team, it?s hard to believe that blowing up Dyson?s home and the Cyberdyne office is going to stop anything. If anything, it would only delay Judgment Day. Sarah believes that by killing the creator, she kills the off-spring. The parallels being drawn between Sarah and Skynet are fairly clear here, and further re-enforced by the dialogue between young John and the T-800 as they race to Dyson?s house to stop her, ?Killing Dyson might actually prevent the war,? as the T-800 says. Sarah is thinking like a Terminator, but unlike a Terminator, she is hindered by emotion, and is unable to detach herself enough to become the Terminator we see in adult John. She is unable to finish the job as she stands over Dyson, pistol drawn, and again, like Pescadero, her inability to act without emotion foreshadows her ultimate failure in preventing Judgment Day. In a pivotal moment in T2, when Sarah is confronting the T-1000 in the steel mill, she is unable to send it into the molten steel because she is short by one shotgun shell. Had she not fumbled moments before in the first encounter with the T-1000 on that same walkway, she would have had the shell she needed, and would have been able to kill the Terminator. However, in a moment of human fear and panic, she dropped the shell. Again, her inability to act with the cold efficiency of both the Terminators and adult John hindered her effectiveness in destroying Terminators, and later, in preventing Judgment Day. Sarah?s characterization in T2 is a stark contrast to her ?You?re terminated, ******? during the hydraulic press in T1. She has abandoned compassion, love, fear, etc., at this point, and is now focused on one goal and one alone: killing. She has been transformed into a killing machine, a Terminator, and had adopted the emotional detachment of John Connor, the human Terminator, and thus was able to terminate the machine. It was an example of Terminators killing Terminators. However, throughout Terminator 2, this powerful, cold, emotionless efficiency disappears, and Sarah becomes who she was at the beginning of T1: an emotional, sensitive, caring, and weak human. It is the complete antithesis of what the victorious human is, as illustrated by the older John Connor in the Prologue of Terminator 2. As Sarah only rarely demonstrates this cold efficiency in the film, often acting out of pure emotion and never out of pure logic, her efforts to prevent Judgment Day become exercises in futility, because emotion is not the weapon of success, as shown by John?s Terminator-like movements in the Prologue. Most audiences enjoy happy endings. That much is clear. There?s a certain satisfaction in knowing everything is going to work out in the end; the hero will ride off into the sunset with his love interest; that world-wide chaos will be averted. For the most part, happy endings are good things. But sometimes a happy ending just doesn?t ?fit? within the context of a film. Ridley Scott?s Blade Runner is a perfect example. The entire film is dark, grungy and rainy, but then in the theatrical release?s ending, Deckard and Rachel are driving off into a picturesque forest on a bright and sunny afternoon. There?s no precedent at all for that happy ending, and similarly, the ?happy ending? interpretation of Terminator 2, the ending in which they prevent Judgment Day, also has no precedent at all. The humans in the films are secondary characters, merely along for the ride when Terminators are on-screen. The characterizations throughout the two films clearly identify what approach works (Terminators) and what doesn?t (Sarah Connor) in the context of the struggle, and it?s this context of the films that indicate a very clear conclusion (Judgment Day being inevitable and ?No Fate? being a human misconception), despite the mildly ambiguous ending of T2. The ending of T2 is also significant because the theatrical release?s ending was not the original conclusion to the film. The alternate version featured an older Sarah Connor, sitting on a park bench, watching John and his son play on the playground, as she talked about the future without Judgment Day. James Cameron canned this ending because he felt that if the future was in fact changeable, then it couldn?t be changed with one action. That ?one action? was blowing up Cyberdyne.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]Lol, you're so spiteful. How many people have you "decimated"? Must feel good looking back at those old threads, and patting yourself on the back. I still however, agree that members shouldn't delete their own threads, unless there is an actual error in them, like China mentioned. But keeping these threads shouldn't be for the purpose of making people who replied in a degrading manner feel good about themselves.[/color][/QUOTE] T'warn't just me, Chabi. The thread starter was fishing for sympathy for a problem that was her fault entirely, and nobody gave her sympathy. Nice try. (OMG! ~_^)

[quote name='Chabichou']I find it quite irritating how people (not you in particular Harry) can be so arrogant as to assume they know everything.[/quote] Chabi, [quote name='Chabi later in her post']Even if her wishes were that she be taken off life support, I see this as suicide. Suicide is still illegal people, no matter how crappy you think your life is.[/quote] With that type of "logic" you use in your post here, I hardly think you have room to criticize Harry, or anyone for that matter, on the basis of quantity of knowledge. [quote]You don't know for sure how Terri was feeling, and you don't know for sure that she isn't aware of her surroundings.[/quote] Someone lifts her head up, replaces her pillow, sets her head back down, brushes her hair, and she stares blankly into space, not even acknowledging what is going on. When people are in the room, she's not looking at them; she's staring through them. I'd say she's not aware of her surroundings. [quote]So, when she first fell into her [b]coma[/b], she stopped breathing for [b]5[/b] minutes, and then, we can safely assume that there is not hope for her? [b]How do you even know how much of her brain is damaged?[/b] How do you know for sure how wether she feels pain or not? I find it quite appalling that people would choose to starve her to death. That's quite monstrous I must say. There have been many times where people in this type of vegetative state wake up from their comas. You don't know for sure if [b]Terri would have woken up or not[/b].[/quote] Chabi, read the news reports. [i]Terri isn't/wasn't in a coma[/i]. And from what I've read, it was actually 10 minutes. When the extent of the brain damage is so severe that we see a physical change like that after only two years...I can't imagine how we could say the brain damage is so severe. [quote]This type of scenario happens all the time, therefore, we have no right to take people's lives as we please.[/quote] You made a few critical errors in your point here. Firstly, the scenario you described (toddler in lake for 15 minutes with no injury whatsoever) sounds fabricated and/or exaggerated. I'm not saying you made it up, but I am suggesting that your source doesn't sound like they're reporting it accurately. Secondly, you're basing your conclusion on a supposition: "this type of scenario happens all the time." That is not a valid premise. Thirdly, "we have no right to take people's lives as we please" is missing the point entirely. The issue here is not about walking up to someone in broad daylight and murdering them with a bowie knife, simply because we can. That's what the focus of your conclusion is: Nietzsche's Superman in society. That's not what the focus of the Terri Schiavo case is. Nobody is "taking" anyone's life simply because they can (and anyone who colors it like that is crying wolf). To claim that's what's going on is asinine. What is happening, however--rather, was happening--is a husband fighting to take his wife off of life support because he says it was her wish, and her parents fighting against that because they don't believe the husband has honest motives. That's what's going on...not someone who just wants to kill another human being simply because they can. [quote]If someone was about to get hit by a car, and had the channce to save them and I didn't, it still counts as murder. If they did get hit by the car, then not taking to the hospital would be murder, unless their body was blown to smitherines.[/quote] I don't see how being unable to save someone from getting hit by a car is going to be murder. Unless you just stood there deliberately and let the 18-wheeler smash into that baby carriage, or let the small child drown because you wanted to be a hateful, spiteful bastard, I can't see how you could be found guilty of anything. And even then, if someone is getting swept out by a riptide (a strong, sudden current that swiftly moves away from a beach, often dragging swimmers out to sea), it's foolish to try to save them yourself, because you may very well end up being another person the lifeguards have to save. Being a bystander in an emergency where there may be a casualty is not murder, Chabi. I don't see how you're able to argue that if someone is too scared to do something, that makes them a murderer...because that's faulty logic. [quote]In Terri's case, the feeding tube kept her alive. She was alive, and anyone who believes in God would agree that her body still had her soul. But even if you were athiest, you would agree that she was alive.[/quote] Alive in the physical sense, in that she couldn't breathe on her own, couldn't eat on her own, couldn't even move on her own, then yes, she was alive physically. Mentally, however? There was nothing there. [quote]But she still would have died eventually, even if she had stayed on the feeding tube.[/quote] Then what's the problem with lessening what she's going through? [quote]Even if her wishes were that she be taken off life support, I see this as suicide. Suicide is still illegal people, no matter how crappy you think your life is.[/quote] [b][i]WHAT?!?[/i][/b] We shouldn't honor someone's living will because not wanting to be kept alive as a vegetable is the same thing as slashing your own wrists, loading up on vodka/pills, or blowing the back of your head out with a pistol? Please. A living will/right to die is not suicide, Chabi.

Taken from [url]http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/03/31/95376.html[/url] [quote]Schiavo's feeding tube was briefly removed in 2001. It was reinserted after two days when a court intervened. In October 2003, the tube was removed again, but Gov. Jeb Bush rushed Terri's Law through the Legislature, allowing the state to have the feeding tube reinserted after six days. The Florida Supreme Court later struck down the law as unconstitutional interference in the judicial system by the executive branch. Nearly two weeks ago, the tube was removed for a third and final time.[/quote] Dark Humor of the Day: Looks like third time [i]is[/i] the charm.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]Wooh! Finally someone who knows what I'm talking about. Thank you Adahn![/color][/QUOTE] What if it's not Adahn? What if the replies are actually jokes?

[QUOTE=Adahn]You are right, Hume was not a linguist. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that his philosophy is still relevant to the discussion. I?m assuming you have little knowledge of why I was referencing Hume. Obviously, this comes from a misunderstanding that you can only blame yourself for. I don?t want you to get too worked up about it so instead of lecturing you, I?ll just give you a similar advice you try to give Chabi: Go read some Hume. Go take a Linguistics course.Now, two plus two is...? Good luck Siren.[/QUOTE] And which of his Philosophical foci are you talking about here? [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Empiricism][u]Empiricism?[/u][/url] [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Association][u]Association?[/u][/url] Maybe [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CausationN][u]Causation?[/u][/url] Or perhaps [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Moral][u]Ethics?[/u][/url] Or maybe [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Politics][u]a theologic focus?[/u][/url] [quote name='Empiricism'] Believing that "the chief obstacle...to our improvement in the moral or metaphysical sciences is the obscurity of the ideas, and ambiguity of the terms" (EHU, 61), Hume argued that conventional definitions -- defining terms in terms of other terms -- replicate philosophical confusions by substituting synonyms for the original and thus never break out of a narrow "definitional circle." Determining the cognitive content of an idea or term requires something else.[/quote] Is that what you're referring to? You feel that I've been pulling a definitional circle in this thread? Consider that Chabi has been trying to portray the Quran as totally immutable throughout all of eternity. She has been denying and/or ignoring the very real presence of Linguistics, and its effects on global literary canon, apparently acting like the Quran bypasses literary fact, saying that if we were just to use common sense, we would see that it's something entirely different from the Bible, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc...but it really isn't, because it does suffer from the same problems that every other text in the history of the world is subject to. Throughout the course of the thread (and in Chabi's replies), that becomes clear. The fact that they had to change the text because the meaning was changing is pretty clear it's not immune to change. If the Quran was so beyond the "simple" rules of language, there would have never been any reason at all to change it in any way...and changes were made, because the need was there. I keep bringing up Linguistics for a reason: because it does directly apply to what she's been arguing. [quote name='a Theologic focus][i]The Natural History of Religion[/i] is also a [i]history[/i'] in a sense, though it has been described as "philosophical" or "conjectural" history. It is an account of the origins and development of religious beliefs, with the thinly-disguised agenda of making clear not only the nonrational origins of religion, but also of exposing and describing the pathology of its current forms. Religion began in the postulation, by primitive peoples, of "invisible intelligences" to account for frightening, uncontrollable natural phenomena, such as disease and earthquakes. In its original forms, it was polytheistic, which Hume regards as relatively harmless because of its tolerance of diversity. But polytheism eventually gives way to monotheism, when the followers of one deity hold sway over the others. Monotheism is dogmatic and intolerant; worse, it gives rise to theological systems which spread absurdity and intolerance, but which use reason to corrupt philosophical thought. But since religion is not universal in the way that our nonrational beliefs in causation or physical objects are, perhaps it can eventually be dislodged from human thinking altogether.[/quote] While sometimes Hume is a bit too harsh, he raises worthwhile points, because religion's foundation--the reason it initially existed--is precisely based on "postulation, by primitive peoples, of 'invisible intelligences' to account for frightening, uncontrollable natural phenomena, such as disease and earthquakes." People don't like hearing it, and some here apparently didn't appreciate my "God is a creation of Man" statement, but it is accurate. The higher power of any belief structure is a rationalization for the environment and world around a people. It was happening in ancient times (Flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia, anyone? The Greeks? Romans?), and it's still happening today (Tsunami). People are quick to write-off religions and belief structures of particular African tribes, because their creation myths seem too outrageous and fantastic to be worthwhile pursuits, but it's not as if the creation stories of the "major" world religions are all that reliable, either, especially given what evaluation criteria people are using to discount tribal beliefs. I realize that people would like to hang me for saying so, but the major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc) are no different than the beliefs of a tribe secluded deep within the jungle in the heart of Africa. Does this make the major religions wrong? Not necessarily. But I think it is important to keep things in perspective.

[QUOTE=Adahn]Ever read David Hume? This merely epitomizes the fact that you have little idea of what you so adamantly propose. Your idea of the morpheme is misconstrued in the evidence that you so adamantly propose. My advice: take a Linguistics course.[/QUOTE] David Hume wasn't a Linguist. Philosopher, yes. Theologian, a bit. But Linguist? No. Your post is meant to be a mockery of what I've been saying, but it (like your attempt at wit) fails miserably because you haven't actually referenced any Linguist.

[quote name='DeathBug']Well, yeah, but that's not a valid argument. Is it a fault of Piccard that he wasn't alive in time to stop Khan?[/quote] I was merely mentioning Kirk's skills in the films, because you were mentioning Picard's in the films, and without Kirk, there would have been no Federation to protect. Here's why. I view Picard as many would view him: a professor (very formal, reserved, almost an intellectual manner). Kirk is more of a gambler. While he may not seem as...stoic as Picard, he's got a better poker face, because he plays the missions like a card game, especially in Star Trek II. In Star Trek II, he takes a gamble on those access codes being unchanged. He doesn't beat Kahn intellectually. Kahn doesn't operate on an intellectual level. He beats Kahn on an emotional level. Kirk knows how Kahn operates, because they're essentially mirror images of each other. Kahn loses because Kirk plays with him, outplaying him because he knows how Kahn will react. I don't see Picard doing that. He isn't willing to cheat to win. I think he'd be too concerned with staying proper than getting down into the nitty-gritty with Kahn. Kahn wouldn't care how reserved and pleasant Picard may be trying to be. He would view it (etiquette) as weakness (in Kahn's debut episode, Space Seed, this is made perfectly clear). If Picard were facing off against Kahn, things would have turned out much worse, I'd think. There are very specific stimuli that Kahn responds to. Kirk has them. Picard doesn't. Kahn is a warrior and such, needs a warrior. Picard is too much of a diplomat. You asked me if it's Picard's fault he wasn't alive to deal with Kahn. If he were dealing with him, Kahn would have wrecked him. It's like this: Kirk = Dubya Picard = Kerry

Don't forget that if Kirk had lost to Kahn, there would be no Borg (actually, nothing to challenge Picard--hell, Picard wouldn't even be around, lol). The galaxy, the universe, etc., would be something entirely different. The power of the Genesis Device could create a planet from a nebula. Think about what it could do to biomechanics (and really, everything).

[QUOTE=Chabichou]I was stressing how the words have not changed. Did you honestly think that "exactly the same" meant how the Qur'an looked as well? I apologize for the somewhat incorrect statement I have made. Therefore, I will correct the statement above. Here goes: Although copies of the Qur'an may differ visually, such as size of text, the font, the color of the cover (you can get in hardcover or paperback too), the number of pages due to text size, the actual size of the book, and the designs drawn of the covers, the text within the book is exactly the same. When comparing today's copies to the first copies made, the text slightly differs because vowel markings have been added to make it easier to read and to get the final vowel markings of nouns correct. This does not however, change what the words say, simply remind you how to read them. Anyone in disagreement?[/quote] Better, but still not solid. [quote]Oh, I see now what you're getting at, and you do raise a good point. There are words in the Qur'an, specifically verbs and nouns, that people are not sure of their meaning. If you get a Qur'an with a commentary, It'll simply suggest different scholar's veiws on what things mean, but not stating that there is an exact answer. However, these words that we might not understand were probably not understood back then either. Although some verbs and nouns from the past aren't used today, we still know what they mean, you can still find them in an Arabic dictionary. Scholars who study the Qur'an know the vocabularay used back then. The vocabulary used in the past has not been lost. Furthermore, [b]Arabic grammar has not changed either[/b]. As I said in my first post, Arabic was at it's peak when it comes to grammmar and vocabulary in the prophet's time. Concerning the vowel markings: [b]You still seem to have this notion that they changed something, but they simply didn't.[/b] So I thought I might mention this: Even without the vowel markings, no two words from the same part of speech (noun, verb, adjective) are alike. [b]Therefore, this idea that we can use different combinations of vowel markings on the same word to make new words is wrong[/b], even if we do have additional vocabulary today. Of all the nouns, "A" "S" "D" can only be read as "asad", and there are no new nouns that use these letters either. They might be read differently for a verb, but the order of words just tells you wether the word is a noun or verb anyway.[/quote] [quote][color=#004a6f]For instance the word for lion is "asad" but we could say "asad[b]a[/b]" or "asad[b]u[/b]" or "asad[b]i[/b]". [b]It still means lion, but it could change the meaning of a sentence[/b]. Is the lion eating the deer or the lion being eaten himself? Even if the word order says "the lion is eating the deer", [b]the change in the vowel sound could make the lion the direct object rather than the subject[/b]. But [b]this advanced grammar arabs barely worry about anymore[/b].[/color][/quote] You add a new letter to the word, or even a new sound, it's creating a new word. When you write it out, that becomes very clear. Asad is the morpheme. Asada is a word based on an addition to that morpheme. When you add a new letter to the word, or even a new sound, you're changing the concept of the word--changing what it means. Asadi has an entirely different implication, different concept, different meaning, than asadu. Visually, they're new words. Conceptually, they're new words. Linguistics, Chabi, Linguistics. [quote]I know you can taste the water on the shore, but how does that tell you that there is a barrier between the two seas? You would have to go very far out into the sea to find the surface tension barrier between the sea and the ocean. And [b]even if Muhammad has been to the sea, or talked with people who have, none of them would have known it[/b]. The key word I've been pointing out is barrier, no one back then would have known there is a force stopping the seas' waters from mixing with eachother. Notice the word "let loose" for those of you who think the barrier is land. The seas are let loose, they coverge, they touch, yet there is barrier they don't break through, a barrier other than land. How can "any idiot" know this back then? Sigh... okay I'm gonna stop arguing with you Siren, but I still don't agree with you.[/quote] Firstly, you don't have to go swimming out in the middle of the ocean. By the way, the Atlantic Ocean stretches from the East Coast to Britain, Spain, etc, so you're not having to swim out to the middle, because quite frankly, there is no middle like that, so your counter for that is weak at best. I find it odd that simply because a religious text doesn't outright deny it (Look at the language used in that passage of the Quran. There's no explicit denial of what I'm saying), you're completely writing off the idea that traveling merchants, sailors, fishermen, tradesmen, etc., could have told Muhammad about all of that. And the fact of the matter is, it's highly more likely (and more realistic) that he learned of sea movements and such from those who have actually sailed around the world. History is against you here, Chabi. [quote]This thread is getting pretty tiresome, and I'm tired of arguing, especially over things that just take common sense to realize....[/quote] Common sense to realize like the Quran isn't talking about black holes, isn't giving accurate scientific analyses of embryology, isn't so unchanging over the years, isn't immune to the rules of language? I'm done with this thread, too, but Chabi, you need to take a Linguistics course. After you do, you'll realize that a lot of what you've been saying (specifically, the lingual material) is incredibly faulted. Also, every single Premise you had at the beginning to support your claim that the Quran is the word of God has been proven to be faulty, whether it was "scientific" statements, unchanged text (which has been changed in a variety of ways, which many of us have shown here), etc. [quote]See you on the day of judgement. May God be with you 'till then.[/QUOTE] God? God is a creation of Man.

Ah, but DeathBug, don't forget Kirk's strategy in Wrath of Kahn. He singlehandedly saved the galaxy (with a bit of Spock's help, of course, but the transmissions were Kirk's idea), because if Kahn had acquired the Genesis Device, they were looking at a galaxy-wide re-synthesis. Without Kirk and his brilliant battle strategy, there would be no Federation...Kahn would have decimated them using the Genesis Device, and Picard would never have gotten a chance to grace the deck of the USS Enterprise.

[QUOTE=Chabichou]Siren, let me ask you something: Where did Muhammad live? In Saudi Arabia. The farthest place Muhammad has ever travelled was to Syria, when he was earning a living in [b]trade and commerce[/b]. When he learned that he had become a prophet, the only cities Muhammad ever stayed in were Madina and Makkah. Actually, just from these historical facts, we can conclude that Muhammad has never even been to a sea or ocean at all! Earlier, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that Muhammad might have crossed a sea in his lifetime, but then I took the time to actually read his biography, and he has never been to a sea! Therefore, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to perform your "experiments". Furthermore, there is no fresh water in Middle east, except in spring and wells, which are all underground. Therefore, taking a fish out of the Mediterranean sea and dropping it into the atlantic won't do anything either. And I told you, no one is stupid enough to swim in the middle of an ocean and sea. The water is just too deep. Your experience in the delaware river must have been very interesting, and I'd love to try it myself, I really would. You've called me narccistic and stubborn and self absorbed, becuase I'm not "getting my way". But so far I've addmited it when I was wrong. You on the other hand have refused to ever admit that you might be mistaken, you even completely deny the possibility:[/quote] Muhammad went to places where he could learn of trade and commerce? Trade and commerce...I wonder if there would have been any merchants there, and if there were, I wonder where they might have come from...after all, traveling merchants weren't all that rare back then...and for that matter, merchant ships weren't unheard of, either... Gee...if Muhammad is talking with traveling merchants and sailors, and they're talking about what they've seen and so forth (because, when you're interested in learning a trade, you're going to be asking the merchant about his or her life), and they've explored the world and had seen things that Muhammad might not have seen or experienced...what makes you think that [i]they[/i] didn't mention that saltwater/freshwater oddity? Chabi, you've been trying to say that Divine Revelation was the only way for Muhammad to "know" stuff like that, and I'm saying that there are far more likely (and far more realistic) ways. [quote]And I told you, no one is stupid enough to swim in the middle of an ocean and sea. The water is just too deep. All I'm saying is that you can't do the same thing in a very deep ocean. The water is can be almost a mile deep, and the waves are very strong. You'd have to be a fool to do such a thing.[/quote] Where did I ever imply that you needed to swim out into the middle of an ocean to taste saltwater? Nowhere. You haven't been to the beach much, have you, Chabi? You know, the water at the beach is roughly the same as the water in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? Did you know that? [quote]I bet you would be so shallow as to assume that a font change means the Qur'an has changed.[/quote] I wanted to address this one sentence before I moved on to the larger portion of the next part, because I'd like to refer you to a statement you had made previously in this thread: [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f]Because almost every copy in the world is [b]exactly the same[/b], every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is [b]exactly the same[/b]. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are [b]exactly the same[/b'].[/color][/quote] If it's "shallow" of me to point to literal, visual text differences and say the Quran has been changed, then it's equally shallow of you to point to literal, visual text qualities and claim the Quran is unchanged, because, clearly, from a literal, visual text standpoint, the Quran has been changed, and it makes your previous statement incorrect. [quote]You are really arguing a point which has no relevance to this thread.[/quote] Also, I'd like address this sentence before moving on to the main chunk of your reply, and I'm actually going to again refer you to statements you had made earlier in the thread: [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']But as I said, the Torah and Bible were altered, so God sent his final revelation down, which he has taken upon himself to preserve in it's entirety till the end of the world.[/color][/quote] [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']It is true that the Quran has remained completely unchanged for over 1400 years, since the time of it's revelation. Not a single word, nor a single letter has been changed.[/color][/quote] There are virtually hundreds of statements like those throughout your posts, so it'd be a waste of time if I were to go through and isolate each one. Now, you've said that I'm arguing a point that has no relevance to the thread, but the point I'm arguing is that the Quran has been changed (in a variety of ways, which I'll hit upon later in this reply), which directly relates to your argument that it hasn't been changed, and that directly relates to your point of this thread, that the Quran is the word of God. So, I'd say my point actually has some direct relevance to what you've been saying, Chabi, and directly relevant to the thread. [quote]Right, you go on thinking that that way. I know what I meant, and you are thinking of something completely different, hence, we have a misunderstanding. You stated that we changed the Qur'an to say everything in slang, and I never even said that. I said we speak in slang, and hence, not everyone is strong with Arabic grammar, and that's why they added vowel markings. Adding vowel markings does not change what the Qur'an is saying, or how it sounds. It tells you how it should sound. Here is the picture I said I was going to make to explain what I mean: [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v149/Chabichou/arabic.bmp[/img] Notice how the two sentences look exactly the same exept for the vowel markings. They should be read exactly the same according to grammar. Now, an adult can read the sentence without the markings, they can fill in the correct vowels, but they might fill in the wrong final vowel sound, because these change according to grammar, and not all Arabs today are strong in grammar. "they might fill in the wrong final vowel sound, because these change according to grammar, and not all Arabs today are strong in grammar."* *Hold on a sec, maybe this statement is what is confusing you. Vowel sounds don't change within a sentence. A sentence has a specific vowel for each letter. This sentence would be grammatically incorrect if the vowels are changed. If a sentence says "asada", and that is grammatically correct, I cannot change "asada" to "asadu". Hence, I leave the sentecne alone. I either write in the correct vowel marking and read it according to that, or I don't write in the vowel marking, but still have to read it the same way the sentence with the vowel markings would be read. Now, the earlier Qurans didn't have vowel markings, anyone who knows grammar will pronounce everything properly. When we invented vowel markings, they decided to put these in the Quran to make sure people will read it properly. Okay, I won't omit it. They added vowel markings to every single letter and every single word in the Qur'an. Adding vowel markings did not change the way words are pronounced, they tell the person reading the words how to pronounce things, and for most people , it's just a reminder. You cannot however, change the vowel markings, you cannot replace one vowel marking with another in a word. You either have them or you don't. Either way, the words are same. I am not good at reading without vowel markings, and I can't read Arabic newspapers well because they don't have them. If the newspaper had them, I would be able to read. People want to make it easier to read the Qur'an, so they add vowel markings to the letters, which don't change the words, just remind you how to read them. So therefore, the only thing that has changed is what you see on the page, not what it says, what it means, or how it is read. The markings have only stressed the importance of saying the words properly. After vowel markings were added, no one has changed them since, because it would be grammatically incorrect to do so. The possibility for typos exists, but I told you several times we are very careful to keep everything exactly the same, and we have succeeded. Just take two, three, four, or even more copies of the Qur'an, from different publishers that is, and you will see they are exactly the same. So now, tell me Siren, how does adding vowel markings, just to specify the readings, tell you that the Qur'an has actually changed, that the message and the meanings are different? The only thing that has changed is what you see. I bet you would be so shallow as to assume that a font change means the Qur'an has changed. You know what we mean by "change". In this debate, "change" meant the actual words are different, that sentences are different, that the strories are different. That's what we mean by "change". And when we say "God wrote the Qur'an" or "God wrote the Torah", we don't mean to say that he actually wrote it on paper. They are his words, that's the point. You should be smart enough to know what we mean. The Quran wasn't the word of the the scribes, they simply wrote it down. And all you say is "right, so the scribes wrote the Qur'an". You've been making these stupid sorts of arguments throughout this whole thread. Stop being so shallow. Another thing is you keep asking me is: "how is this supposed to be a rebuttal, how is this supposed to counter what I said". You know I'm just explaining things. You are really arguing a point which has no relevance to this thread. Anyway....[/quote] Now, you've asked me how changing the text changes the meaning, so I'll explain. I should mention that I don't view any text at all as having a single version and nothing more. Texts change in a variety of ways with each passing generation. This will be explained more fully at the end. Now, the "original" version of the Quran had a specific meaning. I'm not arguing with that, because every text has a specific meaning in its original version (sans some stuff from the 1890s). However, as time went on, the meaning in the Quran was changing, because a variety of new meanings were being introduced. The "set" meaning of the original version was disappearing, being replaced by the new interpretations/meanings. It was a different Quran from an interpretive standpoint, from an aesthetic standpoint, from a "meaning" standpoint. It wasn't the same Quran as the original, despite having a literal, visual similarity. Because of this, the diacritical marks were added to restore the original meaning of the Quran and act as a guide of sorts to avoid confusion (like you've said in your previous posts). The only reason they would have for altering the text would be if the "original" meaning was in danger of being replaced by the new meanings/interpretations, which it was. Hence, by adding in the marks, they did change the meaning of the current Quran, because a text doesn't remain the same from generation to generation. It changes with the times, whether it's alterations, new interpretations/meanings, etc. Nothing is a static text, because it's not going to have the same meaning/impact/interpretation as each generation comes and goes. This is what I mean when I say I view every text as having different generations, because the audience is constantly changing. Understand it now? With each generation, it's going to be a new text. I know the material below was directed at HC, but I just had a few questions/comments. [quote]Well, I've been told, according to history alone that is, that the Quran was all written down during the life of the prophet. From the actual history I've heard, the companions of the prophet made sure to write down everthing and check with the prophet. However, the history I've heard might be wrong, or yours might be wrong, so let's just agree to disagree shall we?[/quote] Well, I researched the Quran and Islam. Why are you so quick to "agree to disagree" and not even take the time to research the history beyond "what you've been told/what you've heard"? I realize that HC isn't keen on getting drawn into a debate of that nature, but still, why don't you do some research? [quote]I'd like to point out that I never said that we have complete proof from anything. I never said that I have actual proof that the Qur'an is the word of God. I said I wanted to "convince" you. People can be convinved of things just from common sense and evidence. But I can't absolutely prove it, I simply can't.[/quote] [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']However, the point of my thread is only to try to convince you that the Quran is the word of God, but not neccesarily that Islam is the "right religion".[/color][/quote] Versus: [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f'] I'd say that there's enough evidence here that show the Quran is indeed the word of God.[/color][/quote] The last sentence in your first post is a conclusion based on a syllogism/proof. Your first post boiled down to: [quote]Premise 1: Premise 2: Premise 3: Premise 4: Therefore, X.[/quote] That's the structure of your first post, and it's the exact structure of any proof you'd find in any Logic course. [quote]I am convinced that matter is made of atoms, but no one has actual "proof" that they exist. No one has ever seen an atom, but from using common sense and evidence, we have come to the conclusion that they exist.[/quote] But we do have actual proof that they exist. There have been experiments to explore the atomic structure of the elements of the Periodic Table; there are countless models based on those results, and you can test electron transfer (you know, that flow of electrons) by rubbing a balloon on your head, or rubbing your feet along a carpet then zapping the person next to you.

Why am I getting into this... I hear talk about Terri being responsive when her family is in the room, and how she seems like she's reacting to her dad and such, but my point somewhat relates to what HC has said. When I see video footage of her, when she's apparently reacting to her parents' presence in the room, a few things come to mind: 1) When they're stroking her hair on the left side of her face--when they're sitting on her left--she will occasionally face to the right. 2) When she does look at them, I don't see her looking [i]at [/i]them. It seems more like she's looking [i]through[/i] them. 3) When she does smile when they're there, what are they often doing? Holding her hand, stroking her hair, etc., actions that, for all we know, could elicit that type of reaction no matter who is doing it. 4) I'm not entirely certain that the smiling is voluntary, either, because the more and more I see video footage of her, the more and more I'm thinking there has been some cognitive process damage. During the accident back in 1990, no Oxygen was getting to her brain for a whole five minutes. We all know what it's like to get held under the water in a pool for 30 seconds, and that's dangerous. Think about what 5 minutes would do. The brain cannot function without Oxygen, and no Oxygen for a whole five minutes...I don't think motor skills were the only thing damaged. What Terri suffered from back 15 years ago was, for all intents and purposes, very similar to an aneurysm: a massive surge of pressure intracranially that caused permanent damage to at least her motor functions. I think it had a much larger, much more severe impact, honestly. Within two years (you can find pictures on CNN.com), there's massive physical change, [i]particularly[/i] in her face. Within two years, her face is drooping, her eyes aren't facing straight, her chin is dropped...I don't think that's purely a motor function injury. I think a lot worse actually happened. You can check out later pictures over the following years and her condition has only gotten worse and worse. If you compare the latest picture of her to the one taken before the accident, they're like two entirely different people. You can tell it's her from the eyebrows, because they've remained pretty consistent, but everything else...it's like night and day. This brings me to the main point of my reply: If she were going to get better, I think 15 years would have shown something. In that span of 15 years, however, she's gotten considerably worse, and I don't think keeping her on the tubes is going to help her recover. I'm not a doctor (duh, lol), but in 15 years, that's what has happened to her? In another 2 (which apparently is the amount of time certain legal action prep time would take), what is her condition going to deteriorate to? What about 5? 10? Another 15? I don't think there's any hope of recovery for her, honestly, and even though I tend to shy away from these types of issues (though, if my Dad ever becomes...mentally absent, I will honor his wishes and put him out of his misery), I can't help but think letting her pass on is the most humane thing to do here, because there's nothing to suggest she'll ever recover in the slightest amount, and the evidence we have points more toward a massive deterioration in the future.

I noticed someone mentioned Picard is better because of the crew, and I don't think any of the NG crew can hold a candle to the original crew. I mean we've got Spock, Bones, Scotty, Mr. Sulu...the original crew so utterly pwnzzorzs the NG crew. Picard, to my knowledge, never had any really bad-*** enemies--and by "enemies," I mean mortal enemies. Kirk had a mortal enemy. His name was Kahn. Kahn was a genetically-engineered superhuman and played by Ricardo Montalban. Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn obliterates the entire NG series. Wicked sweet villain, wicked good battle strategy from Kirk, wicked cool themes and imagery, and a wicked awesome finale. Kirk >>>>>> Picard

[QUOTE=Chabichou]And some arguments that arose just don't make sense, the "two seas" debate going on was really getting me ticked off: "This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them. It is interesting that, during a period when there was little knowledge of physics, and of surface tension, or oceanography, this truth was revealed in the Qur'an." I honestly don't see how a difference in taste tells you that there is a barrier between waters. No one swims in the between an ocean and sea (which is also extremely deep), performing experiments, or tasting water to tell how salty it is, and even if they did, how would they conclude that th bodies of water never mix at all? If there was no surface tesnion, salt will only fade into the other body of water, not complete mix up. You can still tell the difference then. But somehow, people have enough "common sense" to actually find where the barrier between oceans and seas is? We're not talking about small bodies of water, you can't just throw yourself into the sea and swim around to taste water, you can't throw a fish in without the huge waves carrying it off, so you won't even get a chance to see if it dies. This idea is so far-fetched, who can possibly accomplish it? Muhammad's only traveled within Arabia, and the only sea he ever crossed on a boat was seperated from other's by land. He's never even been to the Medditranean! Do any of you see any sort of "common sense" in this? Sigh......[/quote] It's not far-fetched, Chabi, lol. Anyone can do it (I've done it). Come to Jersey and I'll prove it to you. Take a dip in the water down the shore, get a nice mouthful of that crisp, cool saltwater, then head back here to the Delaware River, and see what pollution tastes like. Then head up north to the Delaware River Watergap and taste how clean that water is. Then we'll head down to the Delaware Bay and you can experience for yourself that separation and see just how you can check that without any God telling you what's going on. Who can ever accomplish it, you say? I know I can. I know my family can. I know any able-bodied individual can. It's not as if it requires some great strength that people in ancient times never possessed. All it takes is some good ole fashioned observation, that's all, but you seem to believe that the "scientific" statements of the Quran couldn't be explained through simple worldly observation, so that's not indicative of a problem with what I'm saying. [quote]Exept with the case of long vowels, the final vowel sound in a word can be changed, or ommited. Asadi, Asada and Asadu all come from Asad. They all mean "lion". When written without the vowel markings, they all look exactly the same, meaning the word remains the same.[/quote] How is this different from anything I said in my previous post? When you strip away that vowel marking, they all become the same word. Yes, because that word is the morpheme on which each of those words is based. They don't all mean "lion," because you've said it yourself that depending on whether there's an 'a,' 'u,' or 'i,' the meaning of the word changes. You remember, "the lion is eating the deer" versus "the lion is getting eaten by the deer." Remember when you explained how each letter gives the word a different usage? Object vs agent? (

I'll hit the other points later today/tonight, but... [QUOTE=Chabichou]But I told you, when I said it won't be changed, I didn't mean that every copy of the world will be unchanged, just that there will always be people who know the original message, and so far, most of the books in the world are exactly the same, and in turn thet are indentical to those in the past. People have made up their own Chapters and distributed these to muslims and others trying to learn about islam. They claim that they are chapters from the Qur'an. That's not trying to mislead people? Sometimes Arabs have a hard time understanding the Qur'an too, but Muhammad explained some of the meanings. You can also get a Qur'an that has a commentary for the verses, you don't need to change them to understand them. Some verses simply say two letters of the alphabet, and chapter/surah is even named after them. There is a surah called "Ya-seen", the equivilants to the letters y and s. The first verse simply says ya-seen. Hmm, honestly what could it mean? Well, God makes many oaths in the Qur'an. He swears by time, the sun, the moon, day and night, by mountains and by the sky. Some people think ya-seen means God is swearing by these letters. Others think he might be challenging the Arabs, because they are quite proud of their language. Some think that it means God is addressing Muhammad. "Ya" on it's own kind of means "Oh". I could say: "Ya Siren" meaning "Oh Siren", it's a word you add to tell someone. you're addressing them. Some people think it might be an acronym for something, who knows. The point is, things that are difficult to understand like above example, aren't just left there for people to ponder about. Like I said, if you don't understand something, you can get a Qur'an that has a commentary as well. You don't need to change the actual words. But the sound has not changed. Written Arabic has evolved to accomodate the sounds. The revelation was spoken to Muhammad. The told it to the scribes word for word, and each sound has been kept the same. The original revelation is the actual words and sounds is it not? If written Arabic has evolved to accomodate sounds, it in turn preserves the Qur'an. If it changes the text, does that automatically change the words? Does it automatically change their sounds? True Arabic has evolved, the concept of accent markings developed later, but it's because Arabs are beginning to forget our proper language. The way we speak is in complete slang. Remeber how I explained how the word "Asad" could change because of of it's ending vowel sound? Asadu and Asadi and Asada all mean "lion", but could change if it's a direct object, indirect object or subject. Now back then the scribes didn't have vowel markings, they would write down the words with just the letters. But they knew exactly how these words sound like, and if you gave them something without vowel markings, they can automatically fill in the correct sounds. Why? They know their language. Modern Arabs, need a little help. So, since the time the accent markings have been added to make sure we get the sounds right, these accent marking have not changed. And they wouldn't have and shouldn't have changed because it would be grammatically incorrect to do so. I could say :"al asadu akala alaghazala". Okay, "the lion is eating the deer". The u marks him as the subject. Unless I change the word order, it would be grammatically incorrect to mark him as the direct object with a. Hence, "alasada akala al-ghazalu, would be grammatically incorrect. [/QUOTE] Doesn't all of what you just wrote here contradict your theme that the Quran has been preserved and in fact confirm that it has been changed/altered with the times? If the text is being changed to accomodate a change in the lingual stylings of the people, then the Quran is being changed with the times, ergo, it is being changed. The original text (the first "version") is not identical to the revised text (the diacritical additions). That's a change. And adding a letter to a word [i]does[/i] change the word [i]and[/i] the meaning (again, morphology and Linguistics coming back in here). Asad is [i]not[/i] the same word as Asadi (it's the [i]morpheme[/i] for Asadi, but it's not the same word), nor does it have the same meaning, like you just said (the "Lion eating deer" example). Adding one letter changes everything. This is particularly emphasized in Linguistics courses. In fact, "Asadi," "Asadu," and "Asada" aren't the same word. They don't even mean the same thing, nor are they spelled the same way. You've said that the original scribes didn't have the "slang" of modern Arabs, and I'm getting from your post that they didn't have the "Asadi" "Asadu" "Asada," just "Asad." By adjusting the Quran to include those new "slang" terms to help modern Arabs understand it...aren't you (and by "you" I mean Muslims) actually diluting the original language? You're in fact not keeping it pure--you're actually making it all "slangy."

[QUOTE=Chabichou]The problem is, you have not shown the Quran to be changed. You claim that you explained your so called vast knowledge of linguistics, and you honestly have not proven anything. I told you, the Quran remains today in it's original language. No sentences are reworded when copies are made of it, people make sure to get every thing exactly the same. Unless someone purposely makes a change, it will remain the same. It's meanings might change when it's translated. Honestly, what the hell are you trying to argue? You are making no sense. And although you think you proved something, you honeslty have not. "Take a linguistics course". Is that the only argument, you have? It doesn't prove anything. I know several languages, Arabic French, Spanish, English and Japanese. I understand the meanings of things can change when they are translated, you don't need to "take a linguistics course" to realize that. And as much as i'd like to take a linguisitcs course, I don't have ther time right now. My major is science, and I'm already taking Japanese as my extra ^_^. You keep arguing that the Quran has been changed due to translation. I told you, we have the original Arabic version, which we keep exactly the same when we make more copies. The Arabic version of the Quran has not changed, and that is something you still have failed to disprove. You keep repeating the same pointless arguments again... and again...and again....and again. You still haven't proven that it's been changed. Why? Because almost every copy in the world is exactly the same, every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is exactly the same. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are exactly the same. Hence, I have come to the conclusion that the Qur'an indeed has not been changed. The original message is still known to day, exactly the way it was when it was revealed. You have proven nothing. "Take a linguistics course. You don't know what you're talking about." How about taking an Arabic course? Maybe you'll finally understand what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] You look at only [i]two[/i] versions in a span of [i]2000[/i] years and you're able to say it's remained unchanged for all eternity? Where is the logic in that, Chabi? You're telling me that I'm not making any sense? You're the one who's basing an observation of 2000 years of history on a span roughly equivalent to that of a decade. I'm basing an observation of 2000 years of history on a span of 2000 years of history. Now, Lore has echoed my comments and she's a Linguistics major, and since you doubt my knowledge of the subject, then surely you don't doubt hers. [quote]The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims.[/quote] So you're claiming there's a [i]conspiracy[/i]? That the world is out to get all you Muslims? That any mistake made is so clearly not the fault of any Muslim in the entire world, and is really the plot of some other group of people engaged in a maniacal scheme to destroy the entire faith of Islam? Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, everyone who's translating the Quran is doing so honestly, but some just aren't perfect at it? Just think about the idea of screaming "CONSPIRACY! THERE'S SOMEONE OUT TO GET ME!" It's lunacy...not to mention [i]playing the victim[/i]. [quote][color=#004a6f]These are the copies that [b]everyone believes[/b] are indeed that old. There are copies form Muhammad's time, made by his companions who led the islamic communities right after his death, but some people don't believe they are from that time. Why? I really don't know.[/color][/quote] So they're [i]second-hand[/i] works scribed [i]after[/i] his death...in a time when you weren't born...so you can't really state that it was a perfect translation...because you weren't there, and for all you know, the versions you read right now could have been altered just like when those second-hand copies were written. Like Lore has said, nothing is immune to translation error (or for that matter, immune to textual change), especially theologic writings, so that [b][i]FACT[/i][/b], coupled with a 2000-year span of history...I'd say that's pretty good evidence that there have been revisions/alterations, Chabi. Your argument here seems to stem from you reading a "modern" translation and comparing it to the "original" text. You're not actually accounting for the 1990 years between the two versions, just supposing that because the two versions are identical as per your own translation (and, what makes you so sure you've translated everything perfectly? Hell, you have blatantly misinterpreted passages in the Quran in this very thread, and missed easily understood points), any version in the 1990 years in between also must be identical. You're basing your argument on a loose and slippery supposition based on a religious dogma. I'm basing my argument on established literary fact. Common sense would dictate that the established literary fact is much more reliable than the loose supposition. Or don't you feel that common sense should be utilized here? OtakuSennen (12:46:02 AM): "These are the copies that everyone believes are indeed that old." Everyone believed that Earth was flat, too. Nick raises a good point here. Just because everyone believes something, does that make it true? EDIT: And Chabi, you're not even arguing your original thesis anymore. EDIT 2: I did some snooping and came across this website. [url=http://www.uga.edu/islam/quran.html][u]Quran Analyses[/u][/url] Now, it presents articles for both sides of the issue, and I've read various ones for both sides, and each side makes compelling arguments, but...a few things on there strike me as very peculiar, apart from the rampant vitriol seen on both sides, but moreso on the part of the "defenders." I think I even see elements of the "defenders" accusing the critics of being anti-Muslim and basing their historical criticisms on some Ideological remnant of the Crusades. As far as I can tell from the articles, they're simply researching and reporting what they find. It seems that the "defenders" take great offense to that...and I don't see a reason why they should. But anyway, enough of my yakkin. Let's boogie. [quote]In other words, while scholars of the Bible in the West have largely succeeded in convincing the community of scholars that the Bible we have today was not the very same "Word of God" that was revealed through the prophets and which was spoken by Jesus, scholars of Islam have generally not come to similar conclusions about the Qur'an.[/quote] Fair enough, however, the following statement is iffy. [quote]This is not to say that the text of the Qur'an is written just as it was written during the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it is a historical fact, accepted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the [u]writing of the text[/u] ([b]but not the text itself[/b]) of the Qur'an has substantially evolved. One such major evolutionary difference is that originally the text was written without diacritical points--which distinguish some letters from others-- but early in the history of the writing of Qur'an, diacritical points were added.[/quote] Now, when diacritical points were added to the documents themselves, apparently because dialects and vocabularies were changing throughout the regions, that is the text itself changing. How it's written is changing, yes, but the text is also changing. The marks are being added onto the page; they're being written in. That is the text changing--even in the original Arabic; that is the text being altered. It's a subtlety that I see many of the "Pro-Quran" articles omitting. If I were to add an accent mark to a French character's soliloque in Shakespeare's Henry V, that's changing the text...and there's no difference between that and what was done to the Quran. The text has changed--on a basic morphological (I believe that's the term for the study of the building blocks of words) level, which is one of the foci of Linguistic study. The Quran has been altered and that alteration directly relates to the subject matter of Linguistics. [quote][color=#004a6f]You still haven't proven that it's been changed. Why? Because almost every copy in the world is [b]exactly the same[/b], every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is [b]exactly the same[/b]. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are [b]exactly the same[/b].[/color][/quote] It looks like it [i]has[/i] been changed, Chabi. And I don't think your "to misguide Muslims" statement is all that accurate, because the changes made were to [i]help[/i] others understand and recite the text, not misguide them--unless, of course, you feel that those changes (the diacritical marks and such) are what is misguiding Muslims. [quote]The upshot of this is the vast majority of Muslims rest assured that they are reading the exact words of revelation received by Muhammad (even though the manner of writing those words has indeed changed over time).[/quote] And I get the sense that this isn't a real assurance...because while the meaning stays the same, the text does change, and technically, they're not reading the exact words of Revelation; they're reading a variation of them. [quote]Translations--however inspired they may be--are only shadows of the original. They should always be read with a healthy dose of skepticism concerning the degree to which they reflect the original. The gulf between the original and the translation is an important reason why Muslims must recite the Qur'an only in Arabic for the required daily prayers. A translation of the Qur'an is not the Qur'an; it is simply one person's interpretation of the Qur'an. To a limited extent, however, translations can shed light on the meaning of the Qur'an.[/quote] This was pretty darn interesting, too, because it's saying that translations are not indicative of anything...which makes Chabi's usage of quotations to support her original thesis pretty...invalid. I don't wish to be lumped in with any supposed "Crusaders," but I think there are some pretty questionable things going on in the Quran's development. It seems as though the entire "defense" there is minimizing the fact that when you add something, whether it be a mark, slash, dot, apostrophe, colon, underscore, morphological marks, etc., that is altering the text...that is changing the text. I don't think there's any denying that if I were to glide the tip of a pen across a sentence in a research paper of mine, that would entail a change in how the paper is receieved--and in a sense, change its meaning.

[quote name='Chabichou']It's not that the Quran is right just because it hasn't been changed, it's because it claims that it will not be changed, and that promise has indeed been kept, as far as all the evidence shows. Siren argued that it's impossible for any scripture to be immune from change right? Well, if it's impossible, why has the Quran showed itself to do the impossible, to remain unchanged, to keep it's promises? That's what I think gives it it's validity. Do you see what I'm getting at?[/quote] Chabi, listen to me, okay? Listen to me. [u][b]You need to take a Linguistics course here[/b][/u], because you don't know what you're talking about. You could talk to [i]any[/i] Linguistics student (Lore, for example) or professor and they would tell you the same thing I'm saying here: That no matter what anyone else [i]says[/i], no matter what any [i]text says[/i], no matter how a [i]text may look[/i], over the 2000 years it's been around, the chances of it being unchanged are about as good as me sprouting wings and a tail and flying around the world...meaning, [i]not bloody likely[/i]. You're arguing a point that is not based--and is outright ignoring--the reality of global literary dynamics. The only way for your point to hold any merit at all is if we ignore history itself, which is exactly what you've been doing in this thread. [quote]And then, if the Quran hasn't been changed, the Original message from god has not been altered, meaning anything the Quran says would be true. Now all we need to do is show other attributes of the Quran that show hoe miraculous it actually is. To show that it is indeed the word of God.[/quote] Your attempt at a logic-based syllogism here is faulty: "Because the Quran seems to be unchanged, it must be true." What would be true? Incorrect "scientific" statements? Bloody obvious and cliched metaphors about knowledge? [i]If[/i]--and this is a BIG "IF"--the Quran hasn't been changed over the years, I don't see how it proves anything. It doesn't prove there's a God. It doesn't prove it's correct. All it proves is that someone was anal-retentive to the degree of defying every single rule of Linguistics. [quote]We could for instance look at verses claimed to be scientifically correct, and we can analyze them from different views, both scientific and metaphorical, keeping in mind there is a limit to how much we can interpret them. Anyone in disagreement about that?[/QUOTE] They're [i]not[/i] scientifically correct, though. That's what we've been saying the entire time. To say that the Quran's statement about creation is accurate because muscle surrounds the bone is grossly, [i]grossly[/i] oversimplifying the human body, because the human body's muscle and skeleton structure is not like simply dipping a pretzel rod into chocolate. There's muscle, yes, but there's also a complex network of more than just muscle. There are tendons, cartilage, fat, fluid, veins, arteries, etc. The Quran's statement is horridly inaccurate. Now, I want to make sure that you're also applying the "interpretive limit" to your own posts, as well, because it applies to you much more than it applies to anyone else here, given the past 8 pages or so and that "black hole" interpretation of yours.

Lore, point taken. Will take it under advisement. [quote name='Chabichou']Just because you weren't convinced that the were scientific statements, that doesn't prove that the Quran is not the word of God. The statments are still correct.[/quote]The thing is, they [i]weren't[/i] scientific statements. They were just conclusions based on simple observations that anyone could make in an ancient time. [quote]Now take for example the embyotic development. I honestly read that the bones form first, so I really didn't know the muscles formed first. But wouldn't you assume then, that it isn't a scientific statement, and just a metaphorical statement? Leaving out the fact that the ovum is involved in fertilization doesn't make the Quran incorrect. We were created from a sperm. That is true. We were also created from an ovum, I know that isn't mentioned, but still, we were created from a sperm. There is no lie here. And even if the muscles and bones are formed at the same time, muscles take more time to actually become complete, to fully clothe the bones. However, this statement in the Quran may not have been for scientific purposes at all, so it becomes metaphorical.[/quote] Okay, and I can point to other ancient/religious texts that deal with the male seed. What's your point? lol And since you're now saying that the statement in the Quran may not be as scientific as you were preaching earlier in the thread, it's not really helping your original thesis, is it? [quote]Sorry, what "tantrum" are you talking about? When you call me clumsy and stupid that's insulting me, and I don't like it. Did I lash out in anger? No, I simply asked you to stop insulting me. Why do you use my defence of my feelings (which you are hurting by the way), to disprove my argument?[/quote] Do you mean when I called your [i]point[/i] clumsy and stupid? Remember that distinction, Chabi. You have a habit of making criticisms personal when they're solely focused on your points and how you're making them. [quote]The point that I was trying to prove, which I've stated before, is : There is a limit to how you can interpret a verse, because it must fit in with the verses that come before and after it. This wasn't a pointless quotation.[/quote] Okay, now apply your point to your own posts, Chabi. [quote]You know, all Xander said was that if he would leave Chrisitanity, he would not consider following Islam. I still don't understand why, he tried to explain, and that's when you came in. I was asking Xander questions about why he wouldn't scratch out Islam if he left Christianity. You used this specific post to argue that I haven't proven anything. But all I was doing is asking Xander a question, we had went off topic.[/quote] Xander's point was that he wouldn't go to Islam because its religious dogma is just as questionable as other major world religions. How is that so hard to understand? [quote]I think all of us accepted the fact that mountains being pegs isn't much of a scientific revelation. I told you that I agreed with you, so why do you keep bringing this up?[/quote] Because you had still referred to it as "scientific revelation" when you referenced it in your previous reply. [quote]I still think my idea is right, but I know I haven't argued it well. My weakness in expressing my self is a obstacle, but that doesn't automatically make my argument false. I'm sure there are other people who could present it in a better way. You seem to agree with Cow Tipper somewhat, and he believes the Quran is the word of God. Why do you think that is?[/quote] I agree with CowTipper on the basis that he also agrees that the Quran is certainly subject to international Linguistics SNAFUs. That's all. There was never any confusion on that point. [quote]There you go again, you simply made an accusation, that I'm playing dumb. I don't understand what you mean by "the Quran is not immune to the rules of linguistics". [b]You have simply stated this again and again without explaining yourself[/b]. The rules of lingusitics say that no text can ever be preserved? I can't even write a poem without it being changed, even if it gets passed on in the same language?[/quote] I don't have the time to re-quote myself, but I HAVE explained myself on that point, Chabi. I've explained myself [i]numerous times[/i]. I've gone into that concept much, much more than should have been necessary, [i]and you still say you don't get it[/i]. I have explained it sufficiently, and everyone else here gets what I'm saying (hell, Lore confirmed what I was saying, and she studies Linguistics--it's one of her majors, if I'm not mistaken). Because you don't understand it means I haven't explained it properly? [i]Please[/i]. Understanding what I say in my posts isn't difficult. All it takes is basic comprehension. [quote]You doubt that "flesh" means "muscle"? Carnivors eat other animal's flesh. The skin on it's own isn't enough! Flesh means muscles. That's what meat is, flesh. Sigh........ here we go again.[/QUOTE] But what is clothing? A surface covering. The hide of an animal. The skin of a human being. I think that's everything. Class now.