Loss of Honour

[TMA_1]

people are hypocritical. People make up groups that are in a sense organisms. Thus people are naturally hypocritical and that makes a whole group hypocritical. Weather or not it is noticed. Look at christ. Not at the men. Christians are not supposed to have a ruling system. We are supposed to be individual churches. Our king is in heaven. After the apostles of Christ died the need for a leadership was no more. Christ set the church and so it is supposed to stay a community of equals. Not a rulership. Some small sects still did this throughout the ages and it still occures now. The remnant church.

[Inoculator9]

Thats true, you shouldn't always think of groups as a group of individuals. Some groups have beliefs that differ so little from the individual member that you can't distinguish. It's the difference between saying, for example the church does this and the parts of the church do this.

[Acriku]

A religion can be hypocritical. The bible (the system of beliefs that makes Christianity a religion) was written by human beings, so it wouldn't be surprising to have contradictoring and hypocritical passages/verses. There probably are, but I forgot a website that stated some.

[TMA_1]

I have seen those websites and they use kjv, nmsv, nkjv and many others. But they never seem to use the original greek and hebrew. Which would solve their problems. Also they arent bible scholars usually. If they are then they are usually bias. Its silly acriku and you know it man.lol ;)

[Acriku]

Well aren't all bible scholars biased? Once you become old enough to study the bible as a scholar, your mind has made itself up pretty much. And no one can translate the bible word for word, even the experts have problems. It probably is silly but who can tell these days on the internet.

[Inoculator9]

of course people are biased. If only bible scholars can accurately interpret these verses then we'll never get a straight answer.

[TMA_1]

Its your own bias opinion that the bible is interprited wrong inocular. If you interprited it then it would be just as bias.

[Inoculator9]

I'm NOT saying that the bible is misinterpreted. I'm speaking hypotheticaly. I think it is mistranslated and recorded. The bible was written during new, unstable times. Any errors in it are probably human error. And if I interpreted it I'm sure I would be biased.

[Caid Ivik]

Teachings can't be hypocritical. Only teachers. We believe that Bible was written by God's or history influence, those who created it (if I can say it like this) had much smaller word reserve than us, so some verses could be at first sign confusing.

Some parts have authors (New Testament books), but others were traditionaly sacred words. Philosophy of the Bible is unchangable, all mistakes are caused by false translation.

[Acriku]

Didn't the Catholic Church add books that tell what happened thousand years ago? *pictures old guys trying to remember a thousand years ago...*

Also, who is to say Jesus ever lived? His only record of living is in the bible, which is subjective in itself, so who knows...

[Edric O]

There's also the fact that there are these people called "Christians" who believed in Jesus as far back as their history goes. If He had been made up, the fraud would have been exposed long ago.

Besides, I think there are also Roman records about His crucification. You know, the Romans kinda kept track of the people they executed...

[Anathema]

I believe he existed- but I also believe many stories were made up. Walking over water? Yeah right.

[Edric O]

What's so unbelievable about walking over water?

In terms of the physics involved, it's not that hard.

[Anathema]

Theoreticly it's possible, but they lacked the knowledge back then.

[Edric O]

That's the whole point. Otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle. ::)

[Acriku]

People believed it a long time ago because they were static without anything to cling to, and Jesus was the clingee. Talk about a great man who will save you after death and people will love it back then. They didn't to see him to believe.

You are using roman records as a source? How valid are they? Not very.

Walking on water, yeah we know for a fact a man named Jesus did that ::) The ancient biblical mythology is just like Greek/Roman, just modernized.

[Edric O]

Uh, if you don't consider Roman records valid, then we also have no proof for the existence of Julius Caesar, or any of the Roman Emperors and personalities, for that matter.

For centuries, Roman records were the only form of recorded history in Europe...

[The_Sadukar]

yup, glory to Rome, the Ceasars shall rule again ;D

[Anathema]

Naaah...I don't like the italian premier to much :).

[Caid Ivik]

[quote author=Acriku

[Acriku]

Edric, I don't deny a man called Jesus lived, but who said THE Jesus lived. You know, the walking on water, healing blind man, that guy.

[Caid Ivik]

Miraclous healings occur even in today times. Thousands of them were confirmed by both scientists and Church.

[Acriku]

I doubt they were confirmed as miracles, but as "unknown occurrences". Scientists admit they can't explain such occurrences, but that doesn't mean they were God's workings.

[Anathema]

You know, some time ago a Dutch celebrity (Silvia Millecam) died because of cancer- one of those "miracle healers" (Jomanda Hal) told her not to go to the doctor, while she could easily have been treated for her cancer. Miracle healers are repugnant people (not including Jesus, assuming he was one).

[Edric O]

That's because most modern "miracle healers" just want to miraculously separate you from your money...