The Bible?, historical acocunt or a political agenda Options

[*mipadi*]

Mithras sounds like a different name for christianity.

It's not, though. It was a different cult--just strikingly similar to Christianity (or, rather, Christianity is strikingly similar to Mithraism).

[sadolakced acid]

Christian beliefs are altered by politics, but the bible remains unfazed. The latin vulgate, the origin of the catholic bible, does not support many of the catholic/roman catholic beliefs. The bible remained rightly translated, but the message was still altered so that the people would follow them and call them father without controversy. When people like martin luther started to actually read the bible they saw the blatant disregard for scripture in their endeavor to make political/monatary gain. Christianity has been corrupted by the devil and the wicked hearts of men to decieve the masses. If you wish to show contradiction and try and prove your conspiracy theory you should read the different translations and compare. You'll see which ones were altered to fit the beliefs of the people rather than their prior intention. The king james version is almost word for word with the dead sea scrolls. It's translated as close to perfect as it possibly can be between the languages. The bible is infallable and cannot be proven otherwise. What can be proven is false prophets and their twisted interpretation of said scriptures used for political gain.

ahh, but the people who are generally relied on to interprete the bible (religious figures), are human and thus sin. and because they enevitablly sin, they misinterprete the meaning of the bible (either intentionally or unintentionally).

so, althought the bible contains the true word of god, there is no human who can understand it's true meaning.

Mithras sounds like a different name for christianity. The apostles didnt become christians until they met and the assembly(the jewish congregation) assembled(came together as the greek word for church). This happened quite awhile after Jesus ascended. Some people may have heard bits and pieces of Jesus's story and retold them, much like the telephone game.

mithras was around before jesus christ was born- it was a popular religion with roman soldiers.

[bebopspike14]

ahh, but the people who are generally relied on to interprete the bible (religious figures), are human and thus sin. and because they enevitablly sin, they misinterprete the meaning of the bible (either intentionally or unintentionally).

so, althought the bible contains the true word of god, there is no human who can understand it's true meaning.

Yes, but they are generally known to be true christians, and those that are interpreting are guided by the holy spirit.

The holy spirit is the true interpreter, although what it gives us, it cannot give if you do not listen to it. Because it's in us all, not an external force.

And those that are not true christians, the bible written by them will be detected by those that are true christians becuase of the holy spirit working within them.

[sadolakced acid]

The error returned was:

Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 30 seconds before replying or posting a new topic

ahh... so the catholic priests that f**ked little boys are guided by the holy spirit. and the protestant church in which the high members f**ked little girls and boys, those leaders were guided by the holy spirit.

and those catholic priests who are gay, they're guided by the holy spirit.

and how about the catholic priests that advocate the murder of blacks? they're also guided by the holy spirit?

and oh yea- how about the priest that goes home and beats his wife- is he guided by the holy spirit?

or the priest that's embezzeling money from the church? does the holy spirit guide him?

or how about the priest that's f**king his daughter? him? does the holy spirit guide him?

how about those 'real christians' that sit in death row for killing blacks? they guided by the holy spirit?

[*suddenly she*]

that would be the effect of temptation, and we can all fall away from the holy spirit if we choose to.

if you're desperate, acid, let's go find some devout catholics and ask them.

[*kryogenix*]

ahh... so the catholic priests that f**ked little boys are guided by the holy spirit.  and the protestant church in which the high members f**ked little girls and boys, those leaders were guided by the holy spirit.

and those catholic priests who are gay, they're guided by the holy spirit.

and how about the catholic priests that advocate the murder of blacks?  they're also guided by the holy spirit?

and oh yea- how about the priest that goes home and beats his wife- is he guided by the holy spirit?

or the priest that's embezzeling money from the church?  does the holy spirit guide him? 

or how about the priest that's f**king his daughter?  him?  does the holy spirit guide him?

how about those 'real christians' that sit in death row for killing blacks?  they guided by the holy spirit?

if i go on a tour and have a tour guide show me around a museum, it's possible that i can still go astray.

[sadolakced acid]

if i go on a tour and have a tour guide show me around a museum, it's possible that i can still go astray.

how do you know the priest who's telling you what the passage means wasn't screwing a boy that morning?

these priest scandels went on for years till they got caught- and people trusted them all that time.

so how do you know that the person you're relying on to be guided by the holy spirit isn't secretly corrupted?

anyways; i was under the impression that someone under the guidance of the holy spirit was always right. if, however, they can still go astray, then even devout, true christian's interpretations have a possibility of being wrong, no?

[bebopspike14]

ahh... so the catholic priests that f**ked little boys are guided by the holy spirit. and the protestant church in which the high members f**ked little girls and boys, those leaders were guided by the holy spirit.

and those catholic priests who are gay, they're guided by the holy spirit.

and how about the catholic priests that advocate the murder of blacks? they're also guided by the holy spirit?

and oh yea- how about the priest that goes home and beats his wife- is he guided by the holy spirit?

or the priest that's embezzeling money from the church? does the holy spirit guide him?

or how about the priest that's f**king his daughter? him? does the holy spirit guide him?

how about those 'real christians' that sit in death row for killing blacks? they guided by the holy spirit?

To give you my own, personal, non-god- influenced and spiritually unguided opinion... (not to mention blatantly racist)

The catholics are the corrupt form of a fallen church with an unfounded leader.


There are a few who have an actual relationship with god, but as far as I am concerned, they are just following traditions so that the priests can tell them, Oh, ok, you're free of sin.

No, it is god who tells us that. Not a guy in a white gown.

Since they are corrupt, and all of the incidents above involve corrupt catholic priests, it shows you how wrong an unfounded faith can go.

[*suddenly she*]

if, however, they can still go astray, then even devout, true christian's interpretations have a possibility of being wrong, no?

yes. there are many different interpretations of many ideals even in one church. like my own.

[*kryogenix*]

To give you my own, personal, non-god- influenced and spiritually unguided opinion... (not to mention blatantly racist)

The catholics are the corrupt form of a fallen church with an unfounded leader.
There are a few who have an actual relationship with god, but as far as I am concerned, they are just following traditions so that the priests can tell them, Oh, ok, you're free of sin.

No, it is god who tells us that. Not a guy in a white gown.

Since they are corrupt, and all of the incidents above involve corrupt catholic priests, it shows you how wrong an unfounded faith can go.

Gee, thanks. What makes you think that Catholics are corrupt? They've had some dark times in the past, but I cannot see how you can call the Pope corrupt. Calling the Pope corrupt is calling Saint Peter corrupt.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Wow, I'm only mildly offended by the Catholic jabs [I'm agnostic].

I grew up in a Catholic setting, though, and the religion is not corrupt.

[bebopspike14]

Alright, Then, let's get it straight. The greek texts refer to the foundation of the church as Petros, a greek masculine word describing a huge boulder. The texts refer to peter as Petra, a greek feminine word describing a small rock.

The facts from which I formulated such an offensive opinion.

It is NOT just Greek wordplay. Petra is the normal word for solid rock, while Petros is a rarer word for stone, and is not found often in greek literature. It was intentional.

The pope is an unfounded concept, especially because all of the apostles had equal power. No human being is infallible, except for jesus christ, and he remains head of the church.

Although the vatican council proclaimed this to be the belief of the Catholic church, many of the church fathers believed the rock jesus refers to is Peter's confession of faith. The interpretation was never unanimous among the Catholics.

Whenever the New testament refers to the foundation of the church, it clearly identifies it as Jesus Christ.

1st Corinthians 3:11 " For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 2:20 "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"

1st peter 1: 4-8
"4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.""

[*kryogenix*]

Alright, Then, let's get it straight. The greek texts refer to the foundation of the church as Petros, a greek masculine word describing a huge boulder. The texts refer to peter as Petra, a greek feminine word describing a small rock.

The facts from which I formulated such an offensive opinion.

It is NOT just Greek wordplay. Petra is the normal word for solid rock, while Petros is a rarer word for stone, and is not found often in greek literature. It was intentional.

The pope is an unfounded concept, especially because all of the apostles had equal power. No human being is infallible, except for jesus christ, and he remains head of the church.

Although the vatican council proclaimed this to be the belief of the Catholic church, many of the church fathers believed the rock jesus refers to is Peter's confession of faith. The interpretation was never unanimous among the Catholics.

Whenever the New testament refers to the foundation of the church, it clearly identifies it as Jesus Christ.

1st Corinthians 3:11 " For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 2:20  "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,"

1st peter 1: 4-8
"4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
  "See, I lay a stone in Zion,
      a chosen and precious cornerstone,
  and the one who trusts in him
      will never be put to shame." 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
  "The stone the builders rejected
      has become the capstone," 8and,
  "A stone that causes men to stumble
      and a rock that makes them fall.""

Matthew 16:15-19

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

[*Blow_Don't_SUCK*]

Just for the sake of debate and out of sheer boredom, I'm going to pick a fight and use religion as a tool to wreak havoc in the debate forum.

'What is it with you aetheists? I don't understand how you can be so narrowminded and ignorant as to believe that everything about Christianity is wrong, or that the absence of religion in your life allows you to be superior over the pious. How can you tell me, a Christian, what the bible is and what it isn't when you aren't a Christian yourself? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but driving religion into the ground because you don't agree with it is just as bad as me trying to impose my beliefs on you. I swear, you goddamned aetheists make me sick. I find it ironic how you have a God complex and pretending to be masters of theological studies when, in fact, you don't know much about what you talk about at all. The bible is a historical account that has been slightly altered through the course of history. I dare you to go to Jerusalem and tell the people of Israel that the bible is a piece of fiction and what is known as holy land is simply a piece of rock.'

Those were "my words" but they weren't "my words." I'm just pulling something out of my ass so you have something to argue. Personally, I find this topic to be mundane and boring, so, enjoy the debate with the little leprechaun that tells me to burn things.

Not all aetheists are like that. I'm not gonna use myself as an example because I sure as hell am not. But my friend is an aetheist and yet she believes in the whole "let them have faith in whatever it is they have faith in it. Not my business, not my problem" thing. My parents raised me to be a roman catholic and they still are but I find it hard to believe every single detail in the bible.

[NoSex]

People talk about atheists as if they were an alien race or something. Very odd. Kinda sad.

Also, please learn to spell the word. It's "Atheist," not "Aetheist," not "Athiest," or any other odd combination of those letters (hopefully just those letters).

[yo pusha]

without religeon the world would be a much better place

[*kryogenix*]

without religeon the world would be a much better place

Back it up.

[yo pusha]

well im saying

if the idea of religeon was never even presented, and everybody grew up without ever knowing about the idea of religeon, then alot of unnecesary wars would be avioded, alot of conflict would be avoided, and alot of time will not be wasted.. just like if everybody was born with the same skin color and grew up speaking the same language, then alot of trouble would be avioded too

but wouldnt that be boring?

no. because nobody would know that there was a possiblity of there being other races. if you dont know something existed, then you wouldnt be concerned about it. for example: if somebody was plotting to kill you but you had no idea about, you wouldnt be concerned about someone trying to kill you right? i hope i am making sense..

[*kryogenix*]

well im saying

if the idea of religeon was never even presented, and everybody grew up without ever knowing about the idea of religeon, then alot of unnecesary wars would be avioded, alot of conflict would be avoided, and alot of time will not be wasted.. just like if everybody was born with the same skin color and grew up speaking the same language, then alot of trouble would be avioded too

Yeah, especially since ALL wars were fought over religion..

but wouldnt that be boring?

no. because nobody would know that there was a possiblity of there being other races. if you dont know something existed, then you wouldnt be concerned about it. for example: if somebody was plotting to kill you but you had no idea about, you wouldnt be concerned about someone trying to kill you right? i hope i am making sense.. 

Losing heterogenuity is a bad thing. If everyone was the same, we'd all have the same good characteristics- and the same bad ones.

[yo pusha]

Losing heterogenuity is a bad thing. If everyone was the same, we'd all have the same good characteristics- and the same bad ones.

but nobody would know that there were such things.. it is an unknown unknown.. things you unconsciously dont know.. if you didnt know that heterogenuity existed, you wouldnt be concerned about it

of course not all wars were fought over religeon but some were, and we are eliminating the ones that were..

[AngryBaby]

without religeon the world would be a much better place

well iono about that....i see religion as like, "special reward" for being good in life.
because ultimately most religions belive there going to a happy place after they die, but they have to be good little boys and girls to get there. but if you told everyone "theres no f**king point bitches!, we all gon' rot!" all hell would probably break lose. and we'd live only to survive, and do whatever it takes to live. like killing people for food.caveman style. damn right.

[*kryogenix*]

but nobody would know that there were such things.. it is an unknown unknown.. things you unconsciously dont know..

of course not all wars were fought over religeon but some were, and we are eliminating the ones that were..

You're missing the point. I'm not saying it's bad that we're never going to be able to experience diversity. It's bad because we need diverse thinking to survive. If we all thought the same, we'd all agree with bad decisions, and we'd all die.

Religion is NOT a bad thing. Fundamentalism is what is bad.

[yo pusha]

You're missing the point. I'm not saying it's bad that we're never going to be able to experience diversity. It's bad because we need diverse thinking to survive. If we all thought the same, we'd all agree with bad decisions, and we'd all die.

Religion is NOT a bad thing. Fundamentalism is what is bad.

well, maybe us all being the same race might be dangerous, but i still think that the idea of " if there was no such thing as religeon " is beneficial

well iono about that....i see religion as like, "special reward" for being good in life.because ultimately most religions belive there going to a happy place after they die, but they have to be good little boys and girls to get there. but if you told everyone "theres no f**king point bitches!, we all gon' rot!" all hell would probably break lose. and we'd live only to survive, and do whatever it takes to live. like killing people for food.caveman style. damn right.

lol.. i dont believe im going to a happy place or a unhapppy place when i die.. but im not going crazy.. once again what your saying is just fiction.. im saying, if nobody ever invented the concept of religeon, and people all thought that they would just rot when they die.. not if somebody one day told everybody that religeon was false.. and they automatically accepted it as true.. completely different

[*kryogenix*]

well, maybe us all being the same race might be dangerous, but i still think that the idea of " if there was no such thing as religeon " is beneficial

Well, I don't see all of us going to hell as beneficial. Meanwhile, getting rid of fundamentalism would prevent religion wars.

[yo pusha]

Well, I don't see all of us going to hell as beneficial.

well, that depends if you believe in the existence of "hell". and without religeon, different interpretations would not be an issue. and i dont think this debate will go anywhere, because we both have different believes and neither of us are going to convince eachother their belief is wrong. have a beautiful day

peace