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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Of course it is. 66 books with different authors written at different times agree on one thing.
Heck the bible can't even agree on how many books it contains, depending which version of christianity you subscribe to, never mind what the wording in those books actually say or mean. How the heck can it be held up as the "truth".
Say what you will about Islam, at least they ensure that their scripture is irrevocably the same. The Jews may argue on what their scripture says, but they haven't changed it either. Nor have Buddhists. Or the most wacked out of all religions, Scientologists.
Only Christians have multiple books that are included, added or excluded. Some veracity, huh?
Heck the bible can't even agree on how many books it contains, depending which version of christianity you subscribe to, never mind what the wording in those books actually say or mean. How the heck can it be held up as the "truth".
No. 66 is pretty universal. The Catholic church includes the apocrypha, but they will tell you they are not inspired.
Quote:
Say what you will about Islam, at least they ensure that their scripture is irrevocably the same. The Jews may argue on what their scripture says, but they haven't changed it either. Nor have Buddhists. Or the most wacked out of all religions, Scientologists.
And you BELIEVE them? WOW!
I wish you'd grant us the same courtesy.
Quote:
Only Christians have multiple books that are included, added or excluded. Some veracity, huh?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
No. 66 is pretty universal. The Catholic church includes the apocrypha, but they will tell you they are not inspired.
And you BELIEVE them? WOW!
I wish you'd grant us the same courtesy.
nah. We have 66 books. ONLY 66 books.
The Book of Mormon is an added book.
I never said I have any belief in the muslim book, the koran, but it is unchanged, and you can not deny that. I am somewhat empathetic to Buddhists, as many are not theists, although their concept of metempsychosisis is one of those extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof, and so I reject it. But their book has not changed. You may want to read some of Siddhartha Gautama's writings. There may well be some great topics for a sermon or two in there.
As far as the Deuterocanonicals not being inspired, there is some dispute to that, although you are right that currently the RC church does not say they are. On the other hand, historically, it is questionable. The Septuagint manuscripts available are somewhat dichotomic about this; some contain parts, some don't and some also contain books classed as pseudepigraphaic.
What about the gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi? Inspired or not? Who said? Why?
Most of Christianity does not consider that to be a Christian book.
Quote:
I never said I have any belief in the muslim book, the koran, but it is unchanged, and you can not deny that. I am somewhat empathetic to Buddhists, as many are not theists, although their concept of metempsychosisis is one of those extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof, and so I reject it. But their book has not changed. You may want to read some of Siddhartha Gautama's writings. There may well be some great topics for a sermon or two in there.
Why do you take the Muslims for their word in regards to their book, but you think that the Book of Mormon is a Christian book?
Suppose I decided that the Book of Mormon was an Islamic book? What then? Are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Do you get my point? Why do you get to decide (as an atheist) what is part of Christianity and what isn't? Why do you just accept what Islam says regarding it's books?
Quote:
As far as the Deuterocanonicals not being inspired, there is some dispute to that, although you are right that currently the RC church does not say they are. On the other hand, historically, it is questionable. The Septuagint manuscripts available are somewhat dichotomic about this; some contain parts, some don't and some also contain books classed as pseudepigraphaic.
What about the gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi? Inspired or not? Who said? Why?
No. They are not. They are clearly forgeries. Compare them to the rest of Scripture. They just don't match up.
Do you have any evidence or truth as you state, I'll go with no reincarnation and please none of this burden of proof on the believer as you the non-believer made the statement , this ain't my first rodeo dude.
I always find it funny when someone who believes in something with no proof, tries to call out someone for saying something with no proof.
Do you have any evidence or truth for your belief, perry? Your Bible doesn't count, FYI.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Most of Christianity does not consider that to be a Christian book.
Why do you take the Muslims for their word in regards to their book, but you think that the Book of Mormon is a Christian book?
Because Mormons say they are Christian. Muslims say they are Muslims. Catholics and Baptists say they are Christians. Nobody doubts Scientologists when they say they are Scientologists, right? No one doubts a Buddhist whether they are, right? It doesn't matter if they are Theravada, Mahayana or Vijayanagar.
Quote:
Suppose I decided that the Book of Mormon was an Islamic book? What then? Are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Do you get my point? Why do you get to decide (as an atheist) what is part of Christianity and what isn't? Why do you just accept what Islam says regarding it's books?
If Muslims accept the BOM, then that is their issue. I'm saying, as an atheist, that if a Mormon, or a Catholic , or a Coptic or a Jehovah Witness or a Baptist say they are Christian, who am I to argue? If a Sufi, a Sunni, a Shiite or a Wahhabi say they are Muslim, that is their call, not mine. Or yours.
Quote:
No. They are not. They are clearly forgeries. Compare them to the rest of Scripture. They just don't match up.
They don't match up? Since when is that a criteria? Need I remind you of the synoptic versus John?
I always find it funny when someone who believes in something with no proof, tries to call out someone for saying something with no proof.
Do you have any evidence or truth for your belief, perry? Your Bible doesn't count, FYI.
Don't tell me my Bible doesn't count and as predictable you have the same mundane answer as I expected. By the way I didn't ask you or I don't remember putting the statement or query under your user name, so I will let propulser answer , thank you.
Of course it is. 66 books with different authors written at different times agree on one thing.
Not that the multitude of editors after the fact had anything to do with that...
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.
