The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() dripping destruction ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 ![]() |
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! |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() ^_^ ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 8,141 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 91,466 ![]() |
Ahh, good morning, Fae? How are you today?
QUOTE(uninspiredfae) ... I don't think we can ever agree on what would be considered a 'valid point'. The 'we' stand in for Atheists and non-Atheists as well. Sadly, you're right. Hopefully we can agree that being a good person is universal for everyone. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Quand j'étais jeune... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 6,826 Joined: Jan 2004 Member No: 1,272 ![]() |
QUOTE(BrandonSaunders @ Jun 19 2005, 9:54 AM) Good morning! I'll be working so I don't know how my day's going to be yet. ![]() QUOTE Sadly, you're right. Hopefully we can agree that being a good person is universal for everyone. Unfortunately, we can't even agree on that. From what Ruth implied, there is a distinction between God's standard of 'good' and our standard of 'good'. So, how do we overcome that? What is God's standard of 'good'? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() ^_^ ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 8,141 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 91,466 ![]() |
QUOTE(uninspiredfae @ Jun 19 2005, 8:59 AM) Unfortunately, we can't even agree on that. From what Ruth implied, there is a distinction between God's standard of 'good' and our standard of 'good'. So, how do we overcome that? What is God's standard of 'good'? Hmm, maybe I should walk around carrying an M60 demanding that people get along peacefully? Or maye I should throw away the idea of a governed set of rules and guidelines and be 'a good person' by example so people of any belief can say, "That kid Brandon is a good guy." I'm feelin' the idea of the M60 but I'll settle for option #2. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |