Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would suggest that the last person that is to judge a religion and say what it actually teaches is the person that is on the outside, looking in. As you've said yourself, you are not qualified to do so.
Uh, excuse me, Vizio, but how many times have you judged Mormonism and said what it teaches -- from the outside?
Uh, excuse me, Vizio, but how many times have you judged Mormonism and said what it teaches -- from the outside?
The living Jesus -vs.- Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Baptism, Lutherinism, Baptism, Episcapal, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Spiritism, Paganism, Pride, satanism, Atheism, your own "intelligence" USA, England, Vatican, other corporations, humans, etc. etc.
I would challenge you to back up that assertion. Please provide some evidence that the Bible was edited multiple times. The facts go against your claims. Seriously. I'd encourage you to do some research on the topic of textual criticism. You demonstrate you either have no clue, or you are being intentionally misleading.
I'll take that as a no. I do agree that the Christian does not know but that is not what they claim. We do not know either of course. You in particular do not know. You have just admitted that there is not reason to assume there is such a thing as heaven or hell or anything in between. That makes believing in something just because no-one know (or can ever know) is pretty silly.
You are quite right.
Isn't Christianity sexually transmitted?
I mean, if a child is born to Christian parents, it will be indoctrinated into the same beliefs. Sure, some will see the light and break free. Also, some folks will become entrapped and get indoctrinated but basically, Christianity is what one is born into and one gets born due to sex.
Bolded. EXACTLY..which is EXACTLY what I was addressing to "The ALL KNOWING" who claimed that he most certainly did know.....and then you took huge issue with that before coming around and agreeing to exactly what the hell I was saying. You haven't died and come back, either, so DUH, NO ONE KNOWS, was the fricken point! FCS!
What a colossal waste of time.
By the way, who the hell ever said I was Christian? More ASSumptions on your part.
Bolded. EXACTLY..which is EXACTLY what I was addressing to "The ALL KNOWING" who claimed that he most certainly did know.....and then you took huge issue with that before coming around and agreeing to exactly what the hell I was saying. You haven't died and come back, either, so DUH, NO ONE KNOWS, was the fricken point! FCS!
What a colossal waste of time.
By the way, who the hell ever said I was Christian? More ASSumptions on your part.
Well, you sounded like you were criticizing us. I've gone back and re-read your post and now I'm not sure who you were criticizing. Did I misinterpret your meaning? That would be my blunder. If so, I apologize.
(image of differences between KJV and some other translation)
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but translating anything, not just the Bible, is not going to produce an accurate rendering of the original in another language, in the sense that it can be proven mathematically or in some other way, 100% correct. Otherwise there would be no need for more than one translation per target language. Each translation is crafted with a certain balance in mind between literal translation and idiomatic translation, and each one translated chronologically later has access to a more complete corpus of original manuscripts to translate from. All of these things plus the simple fact that there are often multiple ways to say the same thing in any language, mean that of course there will be zillions of differences between any two translations. Plus the occasional error (I believe there's a rare edition of the KJV that misprints one of the ten commandments, e.g., "thou shalt commit adultery").
So this does not support the contention that the Bible has undergone corruption or editing. Any fundamentalist (shy of one of those KJV-only folks) will tell you that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts.
So the real substantiation for this claim has to do with the fact that no one HAS the original manuscripts and there are copying differences between the nth-generation fragments we have, including significant passages that appear to have been added generations after the original authors penned them. One then gets into a technical argument about how consequential those differences are.
Many fundamentalists are willing to claim on the one hand that the Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired by god and that this is what makes it unique among all the books in the world, yet on the other that thousands of differences between various scribal copies of copies of copies are not worth worrying about and don't materially impact its message or its veracity. Even more remarkable is that they generally will claim that god has supernaturally preserved the Bible for our perusal today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
