CHS DOMINATED BY 2 GIRLS

Hey . . . i am going to have to be totally honest with you all. I'm not a member of the "GOD SQUAD", im just a sh*t disturber. I think that this whole GOD SQUAD thing is ridiculous, and that these girls should mind their own business and let people believe what they want to believe. I do not go to CENTERBURG or whatever, not even on the same continent. So in that case . . . this was pretty funny for me, bye.

cburgit...wow so you spent all your time arguing on a topic you know nothing about. thats pretty dumbin my opinion. but i mean do what you want with your time

hey centerburg 06...
I'm sorry for sounding snaughty...it wasn't my intention...I do however read the Bible, and yes, it is the real one. If you can find specific scriptures though, to back up what you are saying, I would appreciate you sharing it with me because I'd like to study it and look into it a little more. I do know that the Bible says in Matthew 5 to "Go ye into the world and spread the Gospel". That is a direct command to SHARE ones faith faith in Christ, not hide it...
Honestly though, if you have specific scriptures with references, I'd really enjoy it if you shared them with me...

You're right, it does say that. However, look at what the "God Squad" is doing-- driving people away from God. Jesus describes in Matthew 7 how to spread the Gospel appropriately, in contrast to the ways of the Pharisees. The "God Squad" is very much like the Pharisees in how they attempt to "share" their faith, and thus they are quite counterproductive to God's work. Look how Jesus himself scolded them.

I take it then you're familiar with Philo's 1st Century Antiquities, with The Sibylline Oracles, the texts of Qumran, the works of Hillel the Elder, with The Talmud and The Torah, The Pentateuch, the Kabbalah, familiar with Origen, Theodotion, Eusebius, Pamphilus, Epiphanius, Lucian, Hesychius, Maimonides, with Augustine and Aquinas, with Athanasius' 4th Century Greek codex commissioned by The Emperor Constantine, essentially the foundation of Jerome's monumental late-4th Century - early-5th Century Latin Vulgate, upon which is based both the now-abandoned Geneva Bible (the version chosen by Guttenberg for printing, and which was the bible brought to The New World by The Pilgrims) and the Clementine Vulgate of 1546 , which spawned the far more rigorously and comprehensively resaerched and compiled 1582 Douay-Rheims Version, from which the 1611 King James Version directly derived (which version, incidentally, included, textually interspersed, 7 Deutero-Canonical books now referred to by Protestants as The Apocrypha, which in all subsequent editions either were redacted entirely or consigned to an appendix or addendum), as well as with the myriad other translations, transliterations, interpretations, and variously "authorized" versions which have appeared over the past half millenia. With your knowledge and familiarity, could you tell us just which bible is the "real one", and why?



I for one would really enjoy seein' the references, scriptural, ex-canonical, and/or academic/philosophical, on which you base your assessment of the provenance of whichever bible you champion. I really, really, really would like to see them.

"crickets"

Grrrrr ... you snuck that in before I noticed a buncha typos and misspellin's ... oh well. I guess the only thing to do now is enjoy the cricket concert, eh?

Yeah, when you are driving people away, then you are probably doing something wrong. This does not mean that you need to change your beliefs, it only means that you may need to rethink how you come across to others, unfamiliar with your beliefs. This is not an attack, just a suggestion.

this religion debate is getting out of hand every1 at chs just needs to chill out

i agree its gotten way out of hand and im guilty of it too. i mean seriously how many rooms are on this forum just for CHS and this religious situation? a lot and its craziness. just everyone stick to what you believe and be done with it. if people want to hear your testimony tell them. if they dont then dont. that should settle it all.

I haven't really done a rigorous search, but I believe the count is 3 or 4, with some spillover into a few other essentially otherwise unrelated topics.


I think its worth considerin' that folks tend to react a lot more to how a thing is said than to what, or by whom, that thing is said. There are ways to "spread the word", whatever might be that "word", without alienatin' the intended audience. A sure way to line up opposition to a proposition, whatever the proposition, is to set about preachin', prosyletizin', and parrotin'. A lotta folks who find themselves frequently engaged in arguments the nature of the one currently goin' on here create their own enemies, and strengthen the resolve of those enemies.

lol...timberlandko
I should have been more specific as to which Bible I was referring to, because as you've pointed out, there are many. I am referring to the Christian Bible...

There are more than one Christian bible.

There's more than one version...they all say the same thing, it's just worded differently...usually to provide a more easily understood message for the reader

By definition, they're all "Christian Bibles" ... a conjoining of texts referred to as "Old Testament" and "New Testament" into a single unified tome. The point I'm makin' is that many folks who claim to "Know the Bible" know nothin' more than the text of a particular version or edition- one among many - which for whatever reasons satisfies the individual makin' the claim. "Knowing the Bible" and knowin' ABOUT THE BIBLE are 2 very different things; the former comes about by rote learnin', the latter only as a result of extensive study involvin' history, archaeology, philosophy, comparative theology, and literature, among other disciplines. I don't claim to "Know the Bible" - though I'm quite familiar enough with its various iterations to carry on a reasonably well-founded, fairly high level discussion of it with even the most ardent exegete. Neither do I claim to know "All about the bible", but I know far more about the bible, and of canonical text scriptural or otherwise and commentary and analysis relevant to same in general, than do most folks who claim to "Know the bible".

I have no reason to doubt you are both familiar and comfortable with whatever bible you happen to endorse. That to which I take exception is your assertion of the primacy of the version you champion over any of the rest. It is my contention that despite your personal conviction that you are right in your endorsement and concomitant assertion, no forensically valid, academically sound defense of your stated position can be made.


I would submit the various iterations are intended to more readily convey a given partisan interpretation of the scriptures to a target audience than to render scripture itself more readily understandable in and of itself. Witness, for example, the 16th Century development of The King James Bible - no doubt the direct progenitor of the bible you endorse; its primary raison d'être was to butress the Stewart claim to the English throne and to distance the English from The Papacy.

As to the various bibles all "saying the same thing", that claim is patently aburd. To draw but one example, I invite you to research the word "filioque" and the impact it has had on Christian theologly and hermanuetics over the past 17 centuries or so.

And just to clarify, it is my conviction that religion - of any stripe - equates to superstion, and that "sacred writings" in general, regardless the faith to which which writings are sacred, equate to myth. "The Bible" is propaganda. Not that there's anything wrong with that - just that it is neither more nor less than that. Aesop's fables offer moral and ethical lessons as well, you know, as do the writings of Confucius and of the Bhavagad Gita and The Epic of Gilgamesh (which itself is deeply intertwined in the much-later appearing texts which became "The Bible")and myths and legends of all cultures across history - lessons echoed in, not unique to "The Bible".

also, the bible is a book written by men who claim that god spoke to them, with no proof of this actually happening, how are we to belive it, we shouldn't need it to belive in god, we should just belive. this is something the "GODSQUAD" can't seem to understand. To them, to not even pick up the bible is a sin and now i'm going to hell. I don't want to read the bible because it isn't interesting to me, yet to say i belive isn't enough, i have to releave myself of all life and devote my entire mind to one thing. Then why are we alive. Just puppets on a string that is so tight that if we don't follow it, it breaks and guess what, we go to hell. I don't buy it.

How do you expect to prove that God inspired something? Do you want him to sign it in stardust or something?



Well, you don't in theory, but it's our only resource as to what God says. And learn how to spell b-e-l-i-e-v-e, please.



You're really speculating at this point. Stick to what somebody actually says if you're going to try to say they're wrong.



That's absolutely false as every Christian I've ever met, including myself, does something besides pray and meditate 24/7.



No true Christian will ever tell you that. You seem to be making up stuff to make whatever point you're trying to make.

Please don't let this thread die, as I am writing the script for "Saved 2: Apocalypse Boogaloo" and have been getting most of my material here .

hahha man this is funny ..... now was this my fault or was it the so called "christians" that weren't living a whole heartedly following of jesus christ their lord and savior?