The 4-yr. old Preacher (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sheik Yerbouti
- Start date
- Status
You just said it's the same original text yet here you admit to omissions...??
Why does the 'Church' get to decide? If Jesus was son of God, why didn't he bring a law himself? (a book i.e.) If it wasn't for the Church and their decision to compile all these different stories written by different people, there wouldn't even be a Bible.
Here's my issue with all of this: I don't understand how the omissions & alterations,etc. that took place at the various councils don't bother you guys. It seems you lot are engaged in religious practices that you were never asked to do by God but what the Church decided on. On the smallest level you lot are engaged in everything from the celebration of the birth of Christ to the idea of singing in the church as a form of worship, that was the idea of a Church that wasn't divinely inspired (and if it was then I really wonder how divinely inspired Jesus really was to you guys.)
But forget that for a second. How do you explain over looking biblical text because its deemed outdated. For instance a century ago when a man and a woman got married the woman had to vow to "obey" their husbands but today they are to "love and cherish" instead. This is just a very small and basic example and I'd love to hear you explanation to that.
Why does the 'Church' get to decide? If Jesus was son of God, why didn't he bring a law himself? (a book i.e.) If it wasn't for the Church and their decision to compile all these different stories written by different people, there wouldn't even be a Bible.
Here's my issue with all of this: I don't understand how the omissions & alterations,etc. that took place at the various councils don't bother you guys. It seems you lot are engaged in religious practices that you were never asked to do by God but what the Church decided on. On the smallest level you lot are engaged in everything from the celebration of the birth of Christ to the idea of singing in the church as a form of worship, that was the idea of a Church that wasn't divinely inspired (and if it was then I really wonder how divinely inspired Jesus really was to you guys.)
But forget that for a second. How do you explain over looking biblical text because its deemed outdated. For instance a century ago when a man and a woman got married the woman had to vow to "obey" their husbands but today they are to "love and cherish" instead. This is just a very small and basic example and I'd love to hear you explanation to that.
my point was to illustrate how he was saying that the bible couldnt be trusted because of the time frame between the Resurrection and the oldest bible we know of and yet his Koran was written after a long period of time and was merely memorized for many years, so how come its ok for his book but not for mine?
I have read the gnostic and other missing Gospels they are heretic as they dont conform to the 4 gospels and the main principals of Christianity. The original gospels all four plus the Q that we dont have anymore along with the memorization these other books didnt fit they were against the main tenants
That's funny, I think your philosophy on life is full of bullshit. A man whose personal tragedies combined by the fact that a billion people around him worship cows has convinced himself with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. A man who can't see beyond his moon and the light of stars that went out billions of years ago has it all already figured out 
That's funny, I think your philosophy on life is full of bullshit. A man whose personal tragedies combined by the fact that a billion people around him worship cows has convinced himself with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. A man who can't see beyond his moon and the light of stars that went out billions of years ago has it already figured out
OP
That's funny, I think your philosophy on life is full of bullshit. A man whose personal tragedies combined by the fact that a billion people around him worship cows has convinced himself with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. A man who can't see beyond his moon and the light of stars that went out billions of years ago has it all already figured out
Second, we can all see beyond our moon and stars through the pictures of telescopes in space. But I don't see why that should affect my belief in a god.
Lastly, I never said I have everything figured out. And i'm fine with that. I'm even open to the possibility that a God/gods can exist. But I have no reason right now to believe they exist. It's the most logical and rational conclusion i've come to at this moment in life.
OP
OP
It means you (we) are insignificant little stains in a vast universes that we can't and probably won't ever fully comprehend. It doesn't necessarily have to have an affect on your belief in a God. It means slow your roll, you can mock us 24/7 about our 'fairy tails' but you're just as clueless as us. The opposite our belief doesn't = the truth. Science hasn't disapproved the existence of a God. So save the cheap jabs. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...and all that, type of deal.
Don't act all perplexed Sheik. Tell me, is this how you discuss religion with your mother? She's Hindu right? Do you go tell her you think the Vedas are bullshit (in those exact words?) Do you tell her you're now a Pastafarian and put put up posters around your room? Do you insult the Hindu Gods in front of your mother because you don't have any hair?
Don't act all perplexed Sheik. Tell me, is this how you discuss religion with your mother? She's Hindu right? Do you go tell her you think the Vedas are bullshit (in those exact words?) Do you tell her you're now a Pastafarian and put put up posters around your room? Do you insult the Hindu Gods in front of your mother because you don't have any hair?
- Status