The bible

and which authority are we talking about here? church? the pope? i disagree with both. church is nothing but a business and the pope should never be considered head on the church, he's a bastard. Jesus is head. end of. we don't need a leader on earth. the bible is not a religious book, i agree, its a book of faith.

Ah, the wonderful stench of Protestant hatred. What evidence do you have that the parents of the Pope were not married?

i don't need evidence to throw an insult.

Of course not--what Protestant gobshite ever need truth as a weapon in the arsenal of hatefulness.

i'm not protestant so that doesn't apply to me.

Nor would another need anything but your arrogance to throw an insult in return.

However, if you wish to be taken seriously, clearly presented evidence is a first requisite.

Do you contend that you are either Catholic, or Greek or Russian Orthodox? Because otherwise, you make yourself a liar.

i am none of those. i am a pentecostal.

OHMYGOSH! Set, come over for coffee. Quick!

I'll tell ya what he really is . . . he's a hoot.

By the way, since Parham was a Methodist, you're full of poop, Rockpie. You certainly are a Protestant.

Are you going to speak in tongues for us now?

Re: The bible


I think that if the bible was introduced overnight into our day and age, most people would probably look at it as a book of fairytales. After all, there are plenty of religious and cult books being released today, but none of them are being taken as seriously.
The whole bible thing is deeply embedded into our culture and being spoon-fed to kids from a very young age. The bible success story as a religious book lies in a long-term process that relied on such methods, including the need to explain and give meaning to things (no matter what) which persists in people today.
In other words, once people reach adulthood, they might be tempted to let go of the bible teachings because they don't make much sense from a logical or credibility perspective, but because of the strong need to explain and give meaning to things, most people still stick to it no matter what.

Rockpie

In the days when the bible was compiled christianity was on the rise. Shortly after, christianity was the law by wich everything was governed. The priests held ultimate power thanks to tis book. As far as faith goes, I think Tolkien's Silmarillion or the Matrix trilogy can supply just as much wisdom as the bible, and no misconceptions because none of them claim truth.




Yes. And such a shame. I must have been a very smart kid since I rejected it from the very beginning. That or very stupid. Either way, it worked out fine...

Cyracuz - I must not have been as smart as you - because I didn't reject it from the beginning. I loved church though (and sometimes still do) - just the whole atmosphere- so I was probably looking to accept it rather than reject it. But when I got to be a teen-ager, I started thinking about the logistics of all the stories and doubts started creeping in. Then I began to think it was a divinely inspired guide for life kind of thing - allegorical tales to live and learn by.

Now, I'm to the point that I agree with c_logic - pretty much word for word what he said- as well as with you in your statement that there are other books that are just as viable in terms of lessons for life.

What I'm wondering is: If the first five books are not the books of Moses - where did they come from? Did some early Christian just make all that stuff up - all the history - and ancestry as in so and so begat so and so and so forth? Is there any proof that people like Abraham and Isaac and Moses actually existed? I can understand and picture the New Testament coming out of the imagination of newly Christian zealots - but I can't fathom all of the history of the Old Testament being made up. Is there any record of prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, Amos, Micah - all of those guys - existing? How about Esther or David in terms of queens and kings of the Old Testament?

If I'm thinking that I know what the Bible isn't - I'd like to know what to think that it is.

Has anyone studied the actual origins or history of the Bible, beside the one we're spoon-fed in Sunday school as preschoolers? I'd be interested to learn what is the commonly accepted theory around it.

I'm in the very same boat - Cyracuz is one lucky bastard.
I was very religious until my late teens. I snapped out of it when I had a college class called "world religions". I couldn't help but realize that there are tons of religions out there, each one contradicting the other and doing its own thing... It's a religious swamp out there! Everybody's claiming to be 100% right... but... that's not possible. It makes one question the credibility...



aidan, it's the word of god - is that not good enough for you? You're a nosey person, aren't you?

Anyway, I'm curious about the same thing...

aidan

I'm not saying that the tales of the bible are made up. The five first books may well be the books of Moses, and there may well be truth to the various tales in the bible.

But it was compiled to establish a base of power in the old days. That means that it is biased. An example is the genesis. Men who stood to gain from the discrimination of women translated the genesis as "God made man and then made woman from his ribs". The original text says different. It says that god made the first creature and split it in two.

And there are hundreds of gospels, not just the four included in the bible. The remaining gospels told of things that didn't go over well with establishing the church's supreme power, so they were not included.

I view more as the story of god - or at least one interpretation of god. Kind of like a history book - I'm just wondering how accurate it is - or if it's an example of revisionist history that is so common whenever humans are involved.

I wouldn't say nosey - in fact probably the opposite. I ignore stuff that doesn't interest me at all - sometimes to my own detriment. But I am extremely curious about things that do interest me in one way or another- and this is interesting to me.

Anyway, I'm curious about the same thing...[/quote]
So you'll be interested in the answers too.

Cyracuz- I think a lot of the tales in the Bible must be made up - you know - Daniel in the lion's den- Jonah in the belly of the whale- Methusalah living 900 years longer than anyone else, etc.

I'm just wondering if there's any factual or historical evidence as to the actual existence of the people named - especially in the old testament- and to a lesser degree some of the events that occurred. I mean, is there evidence of a tower of babel, or that a place called Sodom and Gomorrah existed and was destroyed?

I have to admit, I'm woefully uneducated as to the actual history of the Bible as a document- and it'd be interesting to me to read what people have concluded about the veracity of the events recorded in it, or if they've even actually studied that aspect of it. It seems like someone somewhere must have. Do you know of any studies or references?

Sorry aiden, no references come to mind. But I seem to recall that the locations of the cities sodoma and gomorra have been found. An internet search might yield something.

As for the tower of babel, I can imagine humans attempting such a thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if we found that the tale has it's origin in the truth.

That is an interesting speculation about all myths. Maybe they all have their roots in actual events if we go back far enough.

I think a lot of these questions would be answered if the vatican released all the documents they hold secet.

i don't think i'm a protestant. i find them boring, too plain and i disagree with some of their views. just as i disagree with some catholic views. i read the bible and apply what it says to my life. i worship God in a free and lively way and if i am protestant then i haven't realised it yet.