The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda Options

[sadolakced acid]

we all know this book. we've at least seen it in hotel rooms. this is the book with tissue-thin pages, the book that was first printed. this is a book that people rally to.

and it is a political agenda.

in the early years of christianity, there were many, many sects that called themselves chistian. one sect decided they were the real christians, and condemned the rest as false sects.

this sect evolved into the church. In order to make all other sects wrong, they edited the bible. they threw out the parts they didn't like, added parts they liked. The bible is a manual for how to live your life- so, why not add in a bit about who you should give money to?

over the years, the bible evolved as it's editors saw fit. It was changed, in the case of the king james bible, to help conquer ireland.

It was rewritten to support values the political leaders wanted supported.

want a reason to allow slavery? put in a bit about cain and able.

want to be able to get precious farmlands in the middle east? put in a bit about that being the holy land.

the bible, it seems, is nothing more than a written propoganda tool; too far edited from it's original text to be considered anything more than a pamplet that's designed, not to ensure truth of history, and that all sides are protrayed, but to get the godless heathens to convert to christianity.


now; you can either flame me and tell me how i couldn't understand, and cite bible quotes and give me something to laugh at,
or you can prove me wrong with a bit of rational debate.

i'd enjoy it emmensly more if you'd pick the first one, although the second is nice.

have a nice day!

[sadolakced acid]

religion is trendy, christianity most of all.

teenagers in this time period like to label themselves 'born again' christians, because it's trendy.

christianity has always thrived because of the group. when you suffer with others, it's more attactive.

if each christian were to be convinced that they were the last christian on earth and no one supported them, few would retain thier faith. the few that would are the only ones who are christian because of faith, not because it is trendy.

christians are, as history shows, the least accepting of other religions. from the inception of the idea of a christian religion, the various sects warred with each other.

christianity historically isn't a faith based religion. to be a christian you did not merely need to have faith in christ. christianity has been a church based religion. you were a christian by going to church and putting your coins in the collection plate. It was the community of christians that drew people to the religion, not the faith.

now; in order to facilitate these actions, the bible was rewritten. Parts of the bible emphasising a personal relationship with god were removed from the bible. because, if a personal relationship with god was all that was needed, then there would be no point to bishops and popes.

when king james sought to remove catholicism from scotland and turn the place anglican, he had the bible re-written.

the king james bible is not a translation. it is a political rewritting, made for the purpose of turning catholics to the anglican church.

once one bible has been corrupted by political ideals and agendas, all subsequent translations of that bible contains those ideals and agendas.