Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
#101 Old 24th Jul 2010 at 8:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Then what "version" of Catholicism are you then. And try to make some sense this time. I don't seem to recall ever mentioning you being the inventor of Roman Catholicism.


I am Roman Catholic, but I am not theologist. It just sounds stupid (to me) to hear: "That's your version!" ... like we are talking about Chocolate cake recipe.

@HystericalParoxysm

Since you realized that Christianity is not for you, why don't you start your own kind of religion without hypocritical and judgmental crap and gather people with equal conviction. It will be cool.

Abandoned account...
Advertisement
Scholar
#102 Old 24th Jul 2010 at 11:48 AM
The crickets are chirping. Do you mean you do not believe in God? Or are you saying you are not a theologist? Cause the latter would be irrelevant.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Lab Assistant
#103 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 7:58 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
The crickets are chirping. Do you mean you do not believe in God? Or are you saying you are not a theologist? Cause the latter would be irrelevant.


OMG, do you know the difference between theologist and theist?

I have said that I am Roman Catholic (that means that I believe in God), and I accept everything what is in Catholic Church, but I am not theologist (so I am not studying God) and I am not bringing my ideas into Roman Catholic Church. Ok?

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#104 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 11:21 AM
Don't you snap at me, you little brat. Let me put this through your fucking skull, see if it will fit in there. You accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Then Roman Catholicism is part of you. It is your version, because you have embraced it. It has defined you.

This isn't about being a theologist. If you accept a particular teaching, then that is what you accept. That is your version. You are the one splitting linguistic hairs, and not making a damn bit of sense.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Instructor
#105 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 11:27 AM
I doubt Ivan's trying to annoy you on purpose - there's just a bit of a language barrier so you're not understanding each other.
Scholar
#106 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 1:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
OMG, do you know the difference between theologist and theist?

I have said that I am Roman Catholic (that means that I believe in God), and I accept everything what is in Catholic Church, but I am not theologist (so I am not studying God) and I am not bringing my ideas into Roman Catholic Church. Ok?

Do you believe what the pope says?


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
Original Poster
#107 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 6:38 PM
Knock it off. I think jooxis is right about the language barrier, and even if she isn't, that doesn't excuse snapping at another debater. And really, this applies to everyone. Be polite.

There's always money in the banana stand.
Field Researcher
#108 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 7:19 PM
I am not trying to ruffle feathers or anything but I keep hearing that the bible is racist not on this thread but elsewhere. I am not a Christian I have never read the bible or gone to church and I can see where they think its sexist or homophobic mind you those are common knowledge.

Where in bible does it say or imply that its a sin to be black, or ok to discriminate because of the colour of their skin, or that whites are superior? To my knowledge their isn't anything that suggests those but please correct me if I am wrong.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Field Researcher
#109 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 7:31 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Don't you snap at me, you little brat. Let me put this through your fucking skull, see if it will fit in there. You accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Then Roman Catholicism is part of you. It is your version, because you have embraced it. It has defined you.

This isn't about being a theologist. If you accept a particular teaching, then that is what you accept. That is your version. You are the one splitting linguistic hairs, and not making a damn bit of sense.


"I wish that we could all get along like we used to in middle school and I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone could eat it and be happy"

btw I'm talking about ice cream cake because that's the only good type of cake.


Quote: Originally posted by Rectos Dominos
I am not trying to ruffle feathers or anything but I keep hearing that the bible is racist not on this thread but elsewhere. I am not a Christian I have never read the bible or gone to church and I can see where they think its sexist or homophobic mind you those are common knowledge.

Where in bible does it say or imply that its a sin to be black, or ok to discriminate because of the colour of their skin, or that whites are superior? To my knowledge their isn't anything that suggests those but please correct me if I am wrong.


I'm going way out on a limb here. I'm not a bible reader either but I've heard that the bible had a lot of stories about slavery and that is apparently how it is racist.
Inventor
#110 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 7:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Drakesecaravdis
I'm going way out on a limb here. I'm not a bible reader either but I've heard that the bible had a lot of stories about slavery and that is apparently how it is racist.


I think the racism is more about how white is written about as clean/holy/good and dark/black is written about as dirty/evil/wrong throughout the entire bible.
Mad Poster
#111 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 8:08 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Purity4
I think the racism is more about how white is written about as clean/holy/good and dark/black is written about as dirty/evil/wrong throughout the entire bible.


It's a little clearer with the Mormons and the whole Lamanite thing. But all the stuff about God's chosen people in the Bible itself seems to have been used as justification for the oppression of others over the centuries (at least, that's how it looks from the outside).

I tried searching for racism and the Bible, but all I get is one side of the story (the Christian side), so I didn't find much that was helpful. I know there's stuff about slavery that was used to justify slavery in the U.S. South... but beyond that, I'm not sure.
Scholar
#112 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 8:33 PM Last edited by Vanito : 25th Jul 2010 at 8:50 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
It's a little clearer with the Mormons and the whole Lamanite thing. But all the stuff about God's chosen people in the Bible itself seems to have been used as justification for the oppression of others over the centuries (at least, that's how it looks from the outside).

I tried searching for racism and the Bible, but all I get is one side of the story (the Christian side), so I didn't find much that was helpful. I know there's stuff about slavery that was used to justify slavery in the U.S. South... but beyond that, I'm not sure.


The Bible approves of slavery, and it also give you some rules on how to treat them. Now THOSE are moral values! Obtain some slaves to enchance your sexlife, beat them to death, or sell your daughters to make money. Rules from the loving god about slavery.

THE OLD TESTAMENT:

How to get slaves:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Hostage hebrews
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
They can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these??

It is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. (gods gotta LOVE women, with all his rules)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he keeps feeding, clothing and fucking them. Viagra sponsored ©

Beating slaves is totally moral.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)


NEW TESTAMENT:

No "its the OLD testament" excuse. God is ok with slavery in the new testament too!

Christian slaves, obey too!
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Punish them severely. And if they didnt know they were doing wrong, punish them anyway.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


Christians can be slaves.. even to nonbelievers!
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


Racism? Against everyone but the people from israel.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#113 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 8:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Since you realized that Christianity is not for you, why don't you start your own kind of religion without hypocritical and judgmental crap and gather people with equal conviction. It will be cool.


Not all Christianity - or Christians, are full of hypocritical and judgemental crap. However, the Baptist church I attended at the time - and the Christian school I attended, -were- full of hypocritical, judgmental crap. They would preach love and forgiveness on one hand - and with the other condemn anyone who wasn't a believer or did something they believed was wrong. They would say "Jesus loves you" while using it to spew hate. The Sunday School class walls were filled with brightly-coloured construction-paper shapes that the children had been told to write different sins. Murder, jealousy, gluttony, all that was there... but then there were things like abortion, homosexuality, disobeying authority, lust... things that were real inappropriate to have written on construction paper by 3 year olds who were only being told what to write.

So I got the hell outta there.

My beliefs don't allow for religion - there's no reason for me to make one. In fact, my beliefs are pretty contrary to religion - believing in one god, one thing, not keeping your mind open - that's against what I believe in. I apologize if I was misunderstood - I have Christian friends and I do believe that Christianity has its place in the world and is a valid belief system - but so many twist it to misconstrue the meanings to what -they- want and use it as a fuel for hatred and then hide behind it as "God's word".
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#114 Old 25th Jul 2010 at 11:13 PM
Vanito, you're indeed correct - there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that nowadays is completely revolting. Rules about slavery, about disposing of an infertile wife, about how many people you're allowed to kill for revenge... all sorts of stuff which is patently insane by today's standards. The problem is that people - both Christians and non-Christians - often don't stop to consider a few things, such as context. If you've grown up in a largely Christian society, then you've probably had it pounded into your head at various points that the Bible is God's word as written. There are very few people who actually think of the Bible as having been penned by the hand of God, but there also aren't many who think of it as having been written as various stories, retellings, records and letters by a bunch of normal Christians; people who were living as part of a small, mostly underground, and in some places and times illegal group (albeit a loosely-connected one). If these people thought they could have put the world all to rights, they probably would have tried; but a limited group of people has a limited influence.

They were living in a world where slavery was an accepted fact of life - the idea that there could be a world without slavery would have seemed ludicrous and, to be honest, probably didn't even occur to these people. What did occur to them, however, was that slaves were often treated horrifically - and that that was incompatible with their shiny new religion. Looking at the verses you posted, they're all written in a way which very much suggests that they're intended to restrain - Christian slave owners shouldn't keep a slave forever, shouldn't beat a slave to death for a mistake, etc. At the time they were written, this was probably a rather liberal attitude to slavery.

Of course, the time they were written is several thousand years ago, and there aren't particularly detailed historical records of much of that time. Christians today who take the Bible, pick a verse, and then go "Well then, that's how it is" without even thinking about it - about how it applied when it was written and how it applies today, and who wrote it, what they were talking about, why they said it, how it could be interpreted in different ways, who they said it to... it's laziness, or fundamentalism. And if they then take that lazily formed opinion and use it as an argument over a major issue - like slavery, gay marriage, female clergy, racism - and do so in a way which actually ends up having a huge effect on the world, all of this without once studying and analysing and criticising their conclusion, it's staggeringly irresponsible and completely unacceptable to a Christian way of thinking. And, of course, it gives the entire Christian religion a bad name - because people listen more to antagonists than they do supporters.

At the time when the Bible was being used to support slavery, it was very clear that slavery could be abolished - this was a massive opportunity to improve the lives of thousands (if not more) people; the kind of opportunity that never existed in Biblical times. The thought process of Christians then should have been look - early Christians were trying to help slaves, to help free them; and now we can do the same, but on a massively bigger scale. Awesome! The realisation that the though process was probably "Harum harum, I don't like the sound of that, what's in it for me? I wonder if I can find anything in the Bible to oppose abolition." is one of the things that drive me away from the organised Christian church. There are groups who take the "Awesome!" approach, and groups who take the "Harum harum" approach - on all sorts of issues.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Scholar
#115 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 1:56 AM Last edited by Vanito : 26th Jul 2010 at 2:06 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
Vanito, you're indeed correct - there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that nowadays is completely revolting. Rules about slavery, about disposing of an infertile wife, about how many people you're allowed to kill for revenge... all sorts of stuff which is patently insane by today's standards. The problem is that people - both Christians and non-Christians - often don't stop to consider a few things, such as context. If you've grown up in a largely Christian society, then you've probably had it pounded into your head at various points that the Bible is God's word as written. There are very few people who actually think of the Bible as having been penned by the hand of God, but there also aren't many who think of it as having been written as various stories, retellings, records and letters by a bunch of normal Christians; people who were living as part of a small, mostly underground, and in some places and times illegal group (albeit a loosely-connected one). If these people thought they could have put the world all to rights, they probably would have tried; but a limited group of people has a limited influence.

They were living in a world where slavery was an accepted fact of life - the idea that there could be a world without slavery would have seemed ludicrous and, to be honest, probably didn't even occur to these people. What did occur to them, however, was that slaves were often treated horrifically - and that that was incompatible with their shiny new religion. Looking at the verses you posted, they're all written in a way which very much suggests that they're intended to restrain - Christian slave owners shouldn't keep a slave forever, shouldn't beat a slave to death for a mistake, etc. At the time they were written, this was probably a rather liberal attitude to slavery.

Of course, the time they were written is several thousand years ago, and there aren't particularly detailed historical records of much of that time. Christians today who take the Bible, pick a verse, and then go "Well then, that's how it is" without even thinking about it - about how it applied when it was written and how it applies today, and who wrote it, what they were talking about, why they said it, how it could be interpreted in different ways, who they said it to... it's laziness, or fundamentalism. And if they then take that lazily formed opinion and use it as an argument over a major issue - like slavery, gay marriage, female clergy, racism - and do so in a way which actually ends up having a huge effect on the world, all of this without once studying and analysing and criticising their conclusion, it's staggeringly irresponsible and completely unacceptable to a Christian way of thinking. And, of course, it gives the entire Christian religion a bad name - because people listen more to antagonists than they do supporters.

At the time when the Bible was being used to support slavery, it was very clear that slavery could be abolished - this was a massive opportunity to improve the lives of thousands (if not more) people; the kind of opportunity that never existed in Biblical times. The thought process of Christians then should have been look - early Christians were trying to help slaves, to help free them; and now we can do the same, but on a massively bigger scale. Awesome! The realisation that the though process was probably "Harum harum, I don't like the sound of that, what's in it for me? I wonder if I can find anything in the Bible to oppose abolition." is one of the things that drive me away from the organised Christian church. There are groups who take the "Awesome!" approach, and groups who take the "Harum harum" approach - on all sorts of issues.


The bible does not forbid to kill a slave - just to do it slowly.

For a book written by mortal men, and for its time, it may be liberal, but don't make more of it than there is - this is not about stopping slaves from beeing killed or freeing them. (unless they are hebrew men who do not marry or abandon their family). For women its even worse; selling daughters is downright disgusting.

If you believe this book was written with the help of an omnipotent god, he would have known about the future. So if you accept that, it is logical to assume this all either still applies - or somewhere he forgot to update.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#116 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 2:56 AM
It looks like the verse about slaves dying is rather ambiguous. I don't know which translation you're using; CEV has it as "if the slave lives a few days after", which implies that the slave dies. The NIV has "if the slave gets up after a day or two", the NLV has "But if the slave recovers within a day or two", both of which imply that the slave lives. As if there weren't already enough ways to interpret any passage.

I don't think I am making more of it than it is. Christian writers today tell people to do charity work, to donate old belongings rather than throwing them away - but they don't tell readers to remove the problem of homelessness; it'd be pointless, it's just not possible. In however many hundreds of years, when there are no homeless people, the idea of donating them a winter jacket might seem a ridiculously weak gesture; but that doesn't mean that it's meaningless now, nor does it mean that the principle has changed.

I don't think God forgot to update - I think the church did. Hell, people are still writing theological texts and less theological ones that match perfectly the "formula" for what was included in the Bible - studies of particular subjects, stories of their own experiences, addresses to others, and so on. Why don't these go into the Bible? Why has there never been a Bible v.2? Why do people put more store by the particular texts that were selected by the council of whatsit to go into the Bible than to those which weren't, or are too new to have been considered? I swear, the most contradictory thing about the Bible is that 20-ish books after Jesus defeats death and demonstrates the attainability of eternity, the Bible itself is laid to rest.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Scholar
#117 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 3:43 AM Last edited by Vanito : 26th Jul 2010 at 3:59 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
It looks like the verse about slaves dying is rather ambiguous. I don't know which translation you're using; CEV has it as "if the slave lives a few days after", which implies that the slave dies. The NIV has "if the slave gets up after a day or two", the NLV has "But if the slave recovers within a day or two", both of which imply that the slave lives. As if there weren't already enough ways to interpret any passage.
I don't think I am making more of it than it is. Christian writers today tell people to do charity work, to donate old belongings rather than throwing them away - but they don't tell readers to remove the problem of homelessness; it'd be pointless, it's just not possible. In however many hundreds of years, when there are no homeless people, the idea of donating them a winter jacket might seem a ridiculously weak gesture; but that doesn't mean that it's meaningless now, nor does it mean that the principle has changed.
I don't think God forgot to update - I think the church did. Hell, people are still writing theological texts and less theological ones that match perfectly the "formula" for what was included in the Bible - studies of particular subjects, stories of their own experiences, addresses to others, and so on. Why don't these go into the Bible? Why has there never been a Bible v.2? Why do people put more store by the particular texts that were selected by the council of whatsit to go into the Bible than to those which weren't, or are too new to have been considered? I swear, the most contradictory thing about the Bible is that 20-ish books after Jesus defeats death and demonstrates the attainability of eternity, the Bible itself is laid to rest.

The original bible is claimed to be gods word; but not anymore he and/or his son appear on earth to give peope rules to live by: a new bible would require a new appearance of a miracle prophet.

Who else can decide which christian is following the 'true gods will'? (christians vary widely in ideas and interpretations)

The text can be translated in several ways; many of the passages no matter what way the translation is done, are still cruel. Even is the lightest way translated, slave as servant, beating to death as beating almost to death, and despite the friendlier passages, does not make it a friendly book. Was this inspired by a divine creator? May one consider the supposed inspirator of such a book holy?

Would bible 2.0 be made, including the lost gospels and ancient findings would make sense. Other than that, even if translated in the best way, erasing evil passages - erasing the majority - would be self deception. Interpreting them as if god was not omnipotent, would not make sense to a book which claims so, and who would decide which passages are supposed to be taken litterally and which are supposed to be taken metaphorically? The newest science theory, which kills off another passage? Humanism and altruism, human emotion, which no longer agree with text?

What purpose would it be to call a new book, based on our current human values still "christian", taking into consideration that other cultures without christianity also developed these good morals, or even better ones?


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Lab Assistant
#118 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 8:05 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
Do you believe what the pope says?


Well, rare are days when he is really talking about facts about God and Christianity.
He is apologizing, sends condolences, etc.
I think that better word is that I trust him. He is not prophet, so it's hard to say that I believe.

I hope that people like Nekowolf are rare.

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#119 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 11:43 AM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
Well, rare are days when he is really talking about facts about God and Christianity.
He is apologizing, sends condolences, etc.
I think that better word is that I trust him. He is not prophet, so it's hard to say that I believe.

I hope that people like Nekowolf are rare.

So you trust his HIV spreading methods in Afrika are good and moral. Ok, insane, but well its his idea.

People like Nekowolf are rarer than they should be.

Popes should be rarer. Like non existant. And priests. That saves Afrika on HIV, and saves children from a lot of pedophillia.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#120 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 1:34 PM
Jesus was not alive when the majority of the Bible was written, and he certainly didn't have a hand in compiling it. If you're Christian, then God is still just as present now as he ever was in the times of Elijah and whatnot, and is still "appearing to" and communicating with people just as much - of course, if you're not Christian you won't believe that to be the case, but then you wouldn't believe that the Biblical prophets were talking to God either.

Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
...and who would decide which passages are supposed to be taken litterally and which are supposed to be taken metaphorically? The newest science theory, which kills off another passage? Humanism and altruism, human emotion, which no longer agree with text?

Yes - this is the problem that I've not yet managed to come up with an answer for. The Church contains some people who I would be ecstatic to see take on such a task - and an awful lot who I wouldn't trust to open their mouth in the presence of a child (because of the impact that being taught hypocritical crap has on children). While I can happily point out, and so can many others, who falls into which group; there could never be a consensus, and such an effort would end, as things often do in the Church, in years of circular debate.

That said, many Christians spend just as much time studying and discussing the works of modern day people as they do the Bible - they don't, however, wield such works as weapons the way the Bible is commonly misused; and so there's no real debate between religious (or non-religious) groups about such new works and ideas.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Field Researcher
#121 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 4:53 PM
I've watched this documentary the other day, entitled Who Wrote the Bible?. It was extremely interesting and I actually learned a lot about the history of the Bible and the Old Testament.
Scholar
#122 Old 26th Jul 2010 at 5:43 PM
The Pope is a propagator of anti-pagan sentiments. He is a con-artist with followers. The whole damn Vatican is. It is a symbol, forged in the fires of war, soaked in black blood. He might as well just read straight from the Malleus Maleficarum!

Apologetic?

"And in the 20th century, in the darkest period of German and European history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate European Jewry. The result has passed into history as the Shoah." - Pope Benedict XVI, 2005

Yeah. Real apologetic. And wholly full of bullshit. The Vatican is a beast. They are demons in the guise of saints. They have been exonerated from their history, their crimes, their hate for long enough! The Pope is not a vassal of God, he is a man, and a fool. And so long as the Vatican has its dominion, it will continue to be exonerated in spite of its victims. It makes my stomach turn with disgust.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Alchemist
#123 Old 27th Jul 2010 at 3:59 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Neerie
I've watched this documentary the other day, entitled Who Wrote the Bible?. It was extremely interesting and I actually learned a lot about the history of the Bible and the Old Testament.


but..that question alone is interesting in itself.


MAN wrote the bible, yes?
and if we can all agree that man was made with free will...who's to say that in between "the word" and the hand, nothing extra slipped in or was omitted? or changed, for that matter?

last i checked, the 'holy spirit' ( agreeing that it is a spirit, an energy with no body ) doesnt have fingers with which to grasp a quill and write.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Lab Assistant
#124 Old 27th Jul 2010 at 8:28 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
So you trust his HIV spreading methods in Afrika are good and moral. Ok, insane, but well its his idea.

People like Nekowolf are rarer than they should be.

Popes should be rarer. Like non existant. And priests. That saves Afrika on HIV, and saves children from a lot of pedophillia.


I didn't know on what you thought. But I doubted on trick question. For more ask the pope.

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.

Abandoned account...
Scholar
#125 Old 27th Jul 2010 at 9:14 AM
Quote: Originally posted by ivan17
I didn't know on what you thought. But I doubted on trick question. For more ask the pope.

Anyway, I think that only thing that can save Africa is Apocalypse.

Hmm.. I dont think the pope will think Apocalypse will "save" Afrika. No, he goes for the HIV method.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
 
Page 5 of 23
Back to top