skidadl
2
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
The counsel at Nicaea is what you are talking about. That is when scripture was canonize.
Those guys weren't Catholic but back then the church was called the catholic church.
- Thread starter superpunk
- Start date
The counsel at Nicaea is what you are talking about. That is when scripture was canonize.
Those guys weren't Catholic but back then the church was called the catholic church.
Except that since everyone who is examining "scripture" is relying on questionable translations of copies that have been made of the copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts, none of which exist. And they're doing it based on a body of 'wisdom' passed down through ratifying bodies like the council of nicea, all of which derived their ratifying power from themselves, not through any sort of divine mandate.
We could start doing the same thing with Harry Potter books. In 2,000 years we should have quite the following.
The point is that it's all a human invention. Pretending there is a 'right way' to go about examining it is idiotic.
skidadl
2
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually no. There is a pretty big difference.
That's really my main point and a good example of what I am talking about. The Catholic Church is something different than the word catholic. But I'm sure that it's better to just throw some stuff against the wall and blow it off when facts are introduced.
That's really my main point and a good example of what I am talking about. The Catholic Church is something different than the word catholic. But I'm sure that it's better to just throw some stuff against the wall and blow it off when facts are introduced.
- Messages
- 11,877
- Reaction score
- 119
It's pretty much happening now with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. A bad science fiction writer decides to come up with a religion and now people follow it. It's good thing George Lucas didn't suck or there might be a bunch of people running around spreading the gospel of The Force.
and don't even get me started on Mormons.
Right. It means what universal? Try arguing down apostolic succession with the actual Catholic Church. What does your sect have against that?
It isn't even about that though. It's the idea that there is somehow a right way to analyze and absorb scripture - copies of copies of translated copies of manuscripts that don't exist in a language noone can read. There is no 'right way' to look at that shit, and implying that there is contributes to religious divisiveness. It (theological scholarship) is literally all made up. There are thousands of different 'right ways' to look at it because they all operate under the misguided assumption that it is worth looking at as anything more than a piece of ancient literature.
It's like fucking whose line is it anyway.
Theology - where everything is made up and the points don't matter.
skidadl
2
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, the bible is copies of copies of translations from one language to the other. The general flow of the bible is basically unchanged. I don't know if it would be fair to ask a person to take a leap that doesn't believe. Fair enough on that point.
History is another matter though. If you match history with the bible it's pretty easy to see that it does has some historical meaning. So dismissing theology as "made up" is not really an intellectual discussion. That is a wide sweeping accusation that doesn't really make sense.
It's pretty clear that the timeline of the bible follows what was going on in history at the time. Other manuscripts that aren't religious in nature back this up. Completely dismissing it is just as biased as Joe Bible Thumper.
History is another matter though. If you match history with the bible it's pretty easy to see that it does has some historical meaning. So dismissing theology as "made up" is not really an intellectual discussion. That is a wide sweeping accusation that doesn't really make sense.
It's pretty clear that the timeline of the bible follows what was going on in history at the time. Other manuscripts that aren't religious in nature back this up. Completely dismissing it is just as biased as Joe Bible Thumper.
Tons of books match up with history. If someone writes a book about characters living during the cold war it's not surprising or noteworthy when he takes his knowledge of the cold war and then applies it to his work of fiction. Yes there are now 'facts' in the fiction but it doesn't change the idea that the work itself is fiction. It's the points in the bible that don't match up with history that should worry you. The points that are just made-up legend, like the exodus and subsequent conquest of the promised land.
It's not fair to ask any person to take that leap without first informing them that this is what all conclusions in theology are based on - copies of error-filled copies. Unfortunately the majority of Christians have no idea how their modern bibles came into existence, and the ones that do only learned about it well after being indoctrinated.
And knowing the bible's history should make you intensely skeptical of anyone offering some sort of 'right way' of looking at it.
skidadl
2
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
You are assuming that I am saying that the bible is filled with errors. I am NOT saying that. I was saying that it's not fair to ask you to take that leap.
If there are errors it doesn't take away from the general flow of the message. That's what I was saying earlier. We could argue until we are blue in the face, even Christians do that with each other. That was my original point though, that it is a huge distraction from the main point of the bible and Christianity.
If there are errors it doesn't take away from the general flow of the message. That's what I was saying earlier. We could argue until we are blue in the face, even Christians do that with each other. That was my original point though, that it is a huge distraction from the main point of the bible and Christianity.
Last edited:
skidadl
2
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
huh?
FWIW this is the exact same problem mormons and scientologists have when trying to convince people to take their holy texts seriously.
Sweet lord almighty are there errors.
How does it not?
If the bible is the word of god, and he couldn't manage to get a perfect manuscript to every man woman and child on the planet, he's kind of a shitty god and those errors reflect poorly on him as a manager. Hire some better people to translate your words, if they're that important. I mean these errors and inclusions and omissions make even the simplest topics impossible for Christians to agree upon. Are you saved by grace only? Must there also be a manifestation of works? Don't pretend like this issue hasn't caused dissension among scholars since....forever. There's a reason none of them can agree, because they're effectively playing calvinball.
If the "main point of the bible" is something as silly and mundane as Love one Another then the enormous book really isn't necessary and we can learn that from any other number of fictional stories like Red Fish Blue Fish or something.
The rapture is not scriptural and made up bible stuff.
You're my favorite kind of Christian - the one that thinks all the other Christians are misled retards.
I'm sure you and your homies are the only ones with accurate bible-based understanding...finally after 2,000 years someone figured it out.
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 0
The rapture is not scriptural and made up bible stuff.
Nice. I would step out a little more and say the concept of an eternal hell where people are tortured is also a little made up. The problem with the bible is it only takes a few verses to cause confusion. Reading the bible is the worst thing a person can do. It will cause nothing but confusion and you will end up with more unanswered questions. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Last edited:
Cythim
2
- Messages
- 3,919
- Reaction score
- 0
You're my favorite kind of Christian - the one that thinks all the other Christians are misled retards.
He is smart enough to realize certain things in the bible make no sense but not so smart that he can put it all together and realize all of it was made up to turn the masses into sheep.
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
George Lucas DOES suck. All those movies are incoherent shitpiles
- Messages
- 5,614
- Reaction score
- 0
You ever speak of this nonsense again, I will find you, and I will kill you.