Cameron Introduces JESUS. No, really...

[chaseter]

[SIZE=-1]1) adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]a system of religious beliefs and rituals; "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]In traditional usage, the cult of a religion, quite apart from its sacred writings ("scriptures"), its theology or myths, or the personal faith of its believers, is the totality of external religious practice and observance, the neglect of which is the definition of impiety. Cult is literally the "care" owed to the god and the shrine. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religion)[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A religious group that follows a particular theological system. In the context of Christianity, and in particular, CARM, it is a group that uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable. A few examples of cults are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christadelphians, Unity, Religious Science, The Way International, and the Moonies. (See also Cults)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](cult) (kult) a system of treating disease based on some special and unscientific theory of disease causation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5)www.merckmedicus.com/pp/us/hcp/thcp_dorlands_content.jsp[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Veneration ( or honoring ) of a saint expressed in public acts, local or universal, and formally approved by the Pope.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6)www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/glossary.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A religious group which denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. The term is usually reserved for groups founded after 1750.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A following of people.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7)www.britishcouncil.org/ukinfocus-music-glossary.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](noun) often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL]; First appeared 1617 1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents 4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health ~s> 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.contecult.com/glossary.htm[/SIZE]

1) Christianity is not a fad. Celebrities don't join Christianity to be cool. That is Kaballah. Plus, Christianity is not exclusive...anybody can be a Christian.
2) Once again, Christianity is not outside the norm in the U.S. WHICH IS WHAT I KEEP FREAKING SAYING.
3) Finish your definition "
Impiety is a lack of proper concern for the obligations owed to cult in its proper sense of the outward practices of a belief system. Impiety was a main Pagan objection to Christianity, for unlike other initiates into mystery religions, Christians refused to cast a pinch of incense before the images of the gods, among whom were the protective deified Emperors. Impiety was a civic concern, for it could bring down upon the whole res publica the wrath of the tutelary gods who protected the polis." This here says that Pagans were cults! The Pagans didn't like what they Christians were doing so they created an exclusive society...with the Christians out.
4)Once again...haha I bolded the rest of that definition for you. Not all Christians make salvation unobtainable. Those that don't are out of the norm and so further considered a cult. It also says as an example "Christian Science" and not Christianity...two different things.
5) Catholocism...
6) Speaks for itself
7) Do you know what 'UNORTHODOX' means?

Welp...I am tired of proving you wrong. Night all!t:

 

[chaseter]

I'm a Christian too man. You claim to be serious about it yet you stoop and insult someone's country and act extremely superior how is that for being a Christian? Hence why you are a hypocrite. Do you think Jesus Christ ever needed to bag on someone else's homeland?

What are you doing right now? You are standing over me preaching to me at what I did wrong. Is that not acting superior? No I shouldn't have stooped to his level but that is just the way I am...like I said...I get pushed, I push back. I am not Jesus Christ nor pretend to be. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. It is not your place to judge me and it is certainly not your place to tell me what is right and what is wrong in your opinion. Do you think Jesus would be posting on internet message boards? So we are both wrong!?!?!?!?! You keep 'bagging' me over one act, I certainly know Jesus would not have done that.

 

[The Chairman]

I'm not...but f*** people need to stop putting it down like it's the freaking Devil (no pun intended). It's not some freaking cultish Pat Robertson headed religion of hate. It's sad how people let their views of the world become warped by television news.

Exactly, anyone who truly understands Christianity knows that a true Christian would not put down or discriminate against homosexuals, or anyone who would be viewed as a sinner according to their belief system. In fact, according to The Bible were suppsoed to love them. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

And personally, I don't beleive The Bible is perfect. I am a Christian, but there are some things I disagree with. I am for gay marriage, and I personally don't think God or Christ would be against it, either. I don;t even think they came up with that rule. I mean, if homosexuality is as sinful and immoral as the extremists make it out to be, than why isn't it one of The Ten Commandments? Why isn't it The Eighth Deadly Sin? My personal theory, and I;ve stated it a few time, was that the Jews who were in possession of the scriptures for 1200 years before The Bible was published inserted their own personal hatred to gays and passed it off as God's word. I don't see how God and Jesus, who are supposed to be excepting forces, would discriminate against a certain group. Doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't make any sense.

There are some stories I don't believe in either, like Adam & Eve. I am overall a very firm believer, but I'm not afraid to question certain things associated with it. Examination and questioning are a big part of Christianity.

And like I said earlier, Christianity for me is more of a life style than a religion. To reitterate what I said, I don't see the point of organized religion. It has nothing to do with God. God did not create religion. There's nothing in The Bible as far as I know that states that man must create a specific belief organization devoted to God. My personal belief is that God is a spiritual force and religion is a manmade entity.

So I guess in essence, I'm technically a deist, except there are some fundementals of deism that I don't agree with.

 

[Tangled Web]

What are you doing right now? You are standing over me preaching to me at what I did wrong. Is that not acting superior? No I shouldn't have stooped to his level but that is just the way I am...like I said...I get pushed, I push back. I am not Jesus Christ nor pretend to be. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. It is not your place to judge me and it is certainly not your place to tell me what is right and what is wrong in your opinion. Do you think Jesus would be posting on internet message boards? So we are both wrong!?!?!?!?! You keep 'bagging' me over one act, I certainly know Jesus would not have done that.

Now you're just being rediculous. Go shoot at animals Tex.

 

[The Chairman]

Both chasester and TW are being hypocritical at this point.

 

[Kritish]

Both chasester and TW are being hypocritical at this point.

TW is just going through withdrawals, he hasn't dry humped someone ever since he told that girl he was bisexual.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Pat Robertson and an old roomate of mine still believe the Bible is 100% literally accurate...so you really blew the roof off with that revelation . You know there are also nerd who believe Star Wars really happened and people who think the aliens are out to get them.

yeah, that's cute, but It has NOTHING to do with what I said or posted.
It's alright that you go on little educational tangents and stuff just don't put them under a post of mine to make it seem as if you where refuting something I brought up.
the infalibility of the Bible has just recently

Right, around the time church fathers were meeting to decide on what stayed in and out of the Bible and set down Church Doctrine. But until that time it was believed an allegory. I can prove this being that no Jewish faith, who by the way wrote the first half, believes in a 100% true Bible. In fact

D00d, your proof needs work.
the Jews and Christians completely disagreed about the nature of the bible and all the followers (except perhaps for the main heads) believed the Bible to be true.
I can prove this by virtue that to this day thousands upon thousands of people refute Evolution based upon the teachings of the bible.
THIS DAY.
not thousands of years ago, not when the bible was used to justify slavery.
right now.

For example: Saint Augustine, (4th century), claimed that the entire Bible should be interpreted in an as literal as possible way, but his own interpretation of the book of Genesis was made in such a way that would be considered "allegorical" by many modern readers[9] (see Augustine's interpretation of Genesis).

not him

4th century would place it where. About 300 years, so 100 before you said it was redacted. Well then I'd say if such a high profile theologian like Augustine went without being hung and wrote books where he obviously did not take the as 100% literal.

Neither does the Talmud, which is Jewish textual criticism of the old testament. That book in fact plays on the contradictions of both the laws and events to create a never ending dialogue between Jewish scholars. The point of course is to illustrate the importance of theological discussion.

And of course lastly just read the damn book. Unless you believe the writers were purposefully stupid enough to include contradictory stories of Jesus, Genesis, Solomon, Saul, David and even contradictory laws I'd say you're point is far weaker than I thought.

LOL that was poor form man, because it was based on assumption.
this was your downfall.

I HAVE READ THE BIBLE.
that's one down, you think I'd give my opinion on this if I hadn't?

theological discussion was all fine and dandy, but lest you forget, the vast majority of believers were told that the bible was the word of god, and are told still this.
and In the past, theological discussion was often branded Heresy and landed you in jail and/or dead.
in case you forgot about the oh-so-awesome spanish inquisition.
(though nobody should forget about the spanish inquisition)
why do you keep citing OTHER religions to make your point about this one.
again, seems your argument is not only weak, but non-existant.
in fact. you tried to misdirect from the point I made that from religious practices and veneration the Christians are most certainly a cult.

don't do that please. it's silly.

Yes the writers of the Bible, those who canonized it couldn't be bothered to notice how the orders of both Genesis' are backwards or how some passages claim God cannot be seen while other mention figures seeing God. That seems at least to me that the people writing it were a lot more concerned with the stories content and meaning that it's literal accuracy or else they would've been sure to iron out all the contradictions and different dates, times, events and orders...surely from the Gospels if anything else.

again, this was a lot of text that went nowhere.
contradictions in the Bible must mean that the writers thought of it as "allegory"? are you kidding me?

Trust me there were plenty recorders of history at that time, hell most of them were Jewish scholars...and trust me none of there stuff sounds like the Bible where stories are told multiple times by different speakers who interpret the situation of teachings differently. They knew how to write history, they weren't stupid. But they did not write a History book...they wrote a canonization of a series of oral traditions, events, people, stories, myths, legends, writings and teachings of their peoples.

If you read something like that as 100% accurate you don't have much of an understanding of the text to begin with. And luckily MOST Christians don't.

LOL, and you trust me.
the religion is the one claiming that the Bible is the sacred word of the lord.
not me.
and what "most people think"let's do a quick experiment
I just googled "bible is the sacred word of the lord"
results?

[SIZE=-1]1,340,000

googled "bible is an allegory"

results?

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] 870,000

and that's among supposedly tech -savvy people.
all this aside, I don't see how it detracts from my original statement that I have to reiterate

[/SIZE]

and your own argument must be surprisingly weak if you can't grasp that a cult is infact [SIZE=-1]a religious group that follows a particular theological system
and also the word cult as a noun is the act of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]formal religious veneration
THAT is my argument.
since Christianity has particular [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]theological system, and though sermons, services and prayer engages is religious veneration is therefore a cult.
I have no idea what you're argument is, I guess that the more people stray from a given religion's theological Ideas the less of a cult it is.
I guess since there's so many Branches of satanism it's no longer a cult.
go figure, I'd thought otherwise.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

[Super Kal]

You still think the shroud of Turin is real, you have no credibility with us what so ever. It was carbon dated to be somewhere in the 1300’s for your information.

uh, I've never said that on here... I've always believed that it was the impression of Da Vinci, since the face imprints resemble the painting that was done of him.

let's all try and keep this civil... there's no need to argue and flame someone else's religion.

 

[The Chairman]

TW is just going through withdrawals, he hasn't dry humped someone ever since he told that girl he was bisexual.

Yeah, it's really messed him up. He may never be the same again.

 

[chaseter]

Now you're just being rediculous. Go shoot at animals Tex.

You sit by and watch your religion being massacred...Judas? BWAHAHAHA Kritish that was mean yet funny. And back to what you said about what Jesus would do. I don't think he was bi-sexual. But seriously, its over. I am sorry I took a shot at where Sparkle lives even though I still don't know where the f*** that is. Just don't lecture me on how I am suppose to act and I won't tell you what is proper. We had an argument and a few punches were thrown below the belt and I am sorry I resorted to that but I push back...tis my nature. Goodnight to all...for reals this time.

 

[Tangled Web]

You sit by and watch your religion being massacred...Judas? BWAHAHAHA Kritish that was mean yet funny. And back to what you said about what Jesus would do. I don't think he was bi-sexual. But seriously, its over. I am sorry I took a shot at where Sparkle lives even though I still don't know where the f*** that is. Just don't lecture me on how I am suppose to act and I won't tell you what is proper. We had an argument and a few punches were thrown below the belt and I am sorry I resorted to that but I push back...tis my nature. Goodnight to all...for reals this time.

Massacred? Yes because Jesus Christ went around trying to fight people who didn't believe in his philosophy. We know there is this lost book of chaester where Christ makes fun of Egypt it's fantastic.

 

[chaseter]

Massacred? Yes because Jesus Christ went around trying to fight people who didn't believe in his philosophy. We know there is this lost book of chaester where Christ makes fun of Egypt it's fantastic.

I tried to apologize and I could make fun of you along with Kritish. Goodnight...let it rest already.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

[SIZE=-1]1) adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]a system of religious beliefs and rituals; "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2) wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]In religion and sociology, a cult is a group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs and goals which may be contradictory to those held by the majority of society. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or due to idiosyncratic practices that cause the surrounding culture to regard it as far outside the mainstream. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]3)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]In traditional usage, the cult of a religion, quite apart from its sacred writings ("scriptures"), its theology or myths, or the personal faith of its believers, is the totality of external religious practice and observance, the neglect of which is the definition of impiety. Cult is literally the "care" owed to the god and the shrine. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]4)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religion)[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A religious group that follows a particular theological system. In the context of Christianity, and in particular, CARM, it is a group that uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable. A few examples of cults are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christadelphians, Unity, Religious Science, The Way International, and the Moonies. (See also Cults)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](cult) (kult) a system of treating disease based on some special and unscientific theory of disease causation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]5)www.merckmedicus.com/pp/us/hcp/thcp_dorlands_content.jsp[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Veneration ( or honoring ) of a saint expressed in public acts, local or universal, and formally approved by the Pope.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]6)www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/glossary.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A religious group which denies the essential doctrines of Christianity. The term is usually reserved for groups founded after 1750.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A following of people.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7)www.britishcouncil.org/ukinfocus-music-glossary.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](noun) often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL]; First appeared 1617 1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents 4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health ~s> 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.contecult.com/glossary.htm[/SIZE]

1) Christianity is not a fad. Celebrities don't join Christianity to be cool. That is Kaballah. Plus, Christianity is not exclusive...anybody can be a Christian.
2) Once again, Christianity is not outside the norm in the U.S. WHICH IS WHAT I KEEP FREAKING SAYING.
3) Finish your definition "
Impiety is a lack of proper concern for the obligations owed to cult in its proper sense of the outward practices of a belief system. Impiety was a main Pagan objection to Christianity, for unlike other initiates into mystery religions, Christians refused to cast a pinch of incense before the images of the gods, among whom were the protective deified Emperors. Impiety was a civic concern, for it could bring down upon the whole res publica the wrath of the tutelary gods who protected the polis." This here says that Pagans were cults! The Pagans didn't like what they Christians were doing so they created an exclusive society...with the Christians out.
4)Once again...haha I bolded the rest of that definition for you. Not all Christians make salvation unobtainable. Those that don't are out of the norm and so further considered a cult. It also says as an example "Christian Science" and not Christianity...two different things.
5) Catholocism...
6) Speaks for itself
7) Do you know what 'UNORTHODOX' means?

Welp...I am tired of proving you wrong. Night all!t:

1) you failed at reading
2)that was your defintion, the one you have been using since the start , that's one
3)actually
ïmpiety: [SIZE=-1]unrighteousness by virtue of lacking respect for a god
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]so unless you're saying Christians don't recpect god I don't get it.
( and I'll go with the princeton definiton over Wikipedia, thanks)
4) again, you failed at reading.
see, you missed the part where it said "in the context of Christianity"
so unless you're saying that christians [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]are not A religious group that follows a particular theological system.
I don't see your point.
5) so catholiscism is a cult but NOT Christianity.
careful there skippy, you might kill your own argument.
6) NOOOOOOOO:fakeshock:
7) do you know what "3:" means? it means it's one of many definitions sorry you can't read. LOL.

you're an idiot. good night.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

[Super Kal]

and Kritish, even if I did believe the shroud of Turin was real, it still doesn't change the fact that everyone needs to stop flaming other people's faith.

 

[Noir]

How did James Cameron find the remains of Jesus Christ Blessed be his name?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

yeah, that's cute, but It has NOTHING to do with what I said or posted.
It's alright that you go on little educational tangents and stuff just don't put them under a post of mine to make it seem as if you where refuting something I brought up.
the infalibility of the Bible has just recently

Be refuted or debated. Incorrect. The interpretation of an allegorical Bible has existed longer and actually pre-dates the literal interpretation.

D00d, your proof needs work.
the Jews and Christians completely disagreed about the nature of the bible and all the followers (except perhaps for the main heads) believed the Bible to be true.
I can prove this by virtue that to this day thousands upon thousands of people refute Evolution based upon the teachings of the bible.
THIS DAY.
not thousands of years ago, not when the bible was used to justify slavery.
right now.

So f***ing what. People use Evolution to justify eradicating entire "races" of human being...like during Slavery where documents used to be deciminated using "science" to prove blacks were inferior.

not him

No to him as well. He believed man was always mortal (i.e. no "fall") and the Universe was created instananeously not over seven days and that future evidence would prove this. He believed the Genesis story was attempted to "He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning".

That's what an allegory is, a logical framework that is metaphorical rather than a physical account of what actually occured...which would be literal.
(Although he says his interpretation is no less "literal" he does not mean that in the physical sense...which is the distinct I am attempting to draw anyways).

LOL that was poor form man, because it was based on assumption.
this was your downfall.

I HAVE READ THE BIBLE.

Not very well...and obviously very selectively.

that's one down, you think I'd give my opinion on this if I hadn't?

Actually...yes. It doesn't stop most people, why should it stop you?

theological discussion was all fine and dandy, but lest you forget, the vast majority of believers were told that the bible was the word of god, and are told still this.

That is incorrect. And if this is the case they are not told very well as most do not believe this to be the case.

and In the past, theological discussion was often branded Heresy and landed you in jail and/or dead.

Some did some didn't. However just because they were thrown in jail did that mean they were incorrectly interpreting the Bible. Or do the political prisoners in Russia right now...did they actually break the law? The Church felt threatened and threw someone in Jail when they were politically able to do so...STOP THE PRESSES. Hitler threw people in jail in the name of aetheism and inferiority. America did it in the name of skin color and racial inequality...and as it turned out we were "mis-interpreting" (as MOST Americans would agree) the constitution which already had repelled the 3/5th compromise and slavery.

Just because someone uses a document for political ends does not someone lend correctness to their interpretation or even mean their interpretation was dominant or held by the people.

in case you forgot about the oh-so-awesome spanish inquisition.
(though nobody should forget about the spanish inquisition)

Again...I believe Jesus would denounce such an act, as would most Christians. However you seem to believe the correct interpretation or the most common comes from tradition, and a very bloody one at that. However only if you found your beliefs in that tradition does it hold any water. Some people believe progress is far more important that what past rulers did with a book.

why do you keep citing OTHER religions to make your point about this one.
again, seems your argument is not only weak, but non-existant.
in fact. you tried to misdirect from the point I made that from religious practices and veneration the Christians are most certainly a cult.

don't do that please. it's silly.

Christianity is tied to Judaism. All your "argument" has been is snappy sacrastic comments as usual wrapped in otherwise common knowledge. The same crap too. Spainish Inquisition blah blah Conservative beliefs blah blah Most believe blah blah. How about you TALK to people, like the ones posting on this thread and FIND OUT what they believe instead of dictating what they believe like a cultish leader would.

You have little or no clue that religion like Christianity is seperate in part because of these wars and offshoots. They started because people were unsure and contentious about how things were to be interpreted BECAUSE Christianity was an inclusive religion...i.e. not a cult. Cults easily deal with outsiders because they can oust them...but Christianity struggled from within because it made an attempt to be anything but a cult.

Christianity, for all it's faults, lest you forget was one of the first religions to deciminate its text amongst it's followers. Were it really married to one interpretation and one method of prayer it would have kept it's subjects in the dark about it's practices. Like Scientology which monatarily keeps it's subjects at arms distance.

again, this was a lot of text that went nowhere.
contradictions in the Bible must mean that the writers thought of it as "allegory"? are you kidding me?

Yeah. because they, unlike you, understood where it came from. Oral tradition, teachings, stories, myth. These people were mythical people. The post enlightenment notion of "facts" and "reason as the highest good" fyi had not even taken effect yet. It's clear from writers and even present day philosophers that intuition and emotion was much more highly regarded. For example David's (supposed) writings don't call upon reason at all...or facts. They believed things as allegories because it wasn't important to them whether stories were factually base, the meaning of said stories was important.

The literal interpretation of the Bible came as a backlash to post enlightenment thought. The Bible is a pre-enlightenment document, not a post-enlightenment document.

If you need a further understanding of what that means look at the Constitution, it doesn't call upon some God or supernatural power to show us "natural right" exists. It, and it's accompaning documents, use logic and reason and draw upon post enlightenment thinkers rather than Gods and Godesses.

That type of thinking changing the game, because now if you are proven wrong it sucks because you're wrong. The original creators of the Bible though were Henotheists, they believed multiple Gods lived on the Earth...they were Monotheist because of them they worshipped one. So in fact they did acknowledge other beliefs as being true for other worshippers but at the same time affirmed their God as the "true God" meaning he was the God you ought to follow. So to them disproving a story meant nothing because the point was to illustrate their God. But factual backing to that story meant nothing.

LOL, and you trust me.
the religion is the one claiming that the Bible is the sacred word of the lord.

Sacred is a point of debate. Sacred how. In message, in meaning, in factual accuracy...huge point of debate I'd say.

and what "most people think"let's do a quick experiment
I just googled "bible is the sacred word of the lord"
results?

[SIZE=-1]1,340,000[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]googled "bible is an allegory"[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]results?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]870,000[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]and that's among supposedly tech -savvy people.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]all this aside, I don't see how it detracts from my original statement that I have to reiterate[/SIZE]

You're a moron

You realize searches not in "Parathesis" yield results for "sacred" "is" "the" "lord" "word" "of"...any and all words yield results. So every page with the word "Lord" and or "Sacred" comes up in that search...yeah I bet that would be a lot.

In fact lets look at your second webpage found.
"Some might say, if the rest of you believe it is the word of the Lord, go. ahead; I keep a polite silence during that ritual. The Bible is just ancient ..."

...Yeah he sounds especially conservative

There is even a nice MST3Kifying of the Bible that turned up on you're search on Biblidolatry.com.


So your first search had more words dumba$$ therefore yeilded more results ...don't worry I fixed it for you.

Here is the real search.
"bible is the sacred word of the lord"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="Bible+is+the+sacred+word+of+the+Lord"&btnG=Search

"0 results"

And for "Bible is an Allegory"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="bible+is+an+allegory"&btnG=Search
4,360 results.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Addendum]

So basically the monotheists believed their god-claim to be true, just as the polytheists believed their god-claim to be true.

And then the monotheists compiled a book where they have their god-claim as the one you ought to follow.

Why should we take them at their word?

And where's the link of the MST3K version of the bible? That dot.com you said doesn't exist

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Be refuted or debated. Incorrect. The interpretation of an allegorical Bible has existed longer and actually pre-dates the literal interpretation.

LOL, again, not for the BELIEVERS you dope.
the bible as the infallible word of god is the basis of Christianity, get that through your thick skull.

So f***ing what. People use Evolution to justify eradicating entire "races" of human being...like during Slavery where documents used to be deciminated using "science" to prove blacks were inferior.

LMAO, don't get testy there, raging roids. all I said was that my "proof" is infact, valid and more tangible than yours since we can see it happening TO-DAY.
again, your attempts at misdirection are sad and you fail. .

No to him as well. He believed man was always mortal (i.e. no "fall") and the Universe was created instananeously not over seven days and that future evidence would prove this. He believed the Genesis story was attempted to "He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning".

That's what an allegory is, a logical framework that is metaphorical rather than a physical account of what actually occured...which would be literal.
(Although he says his interpretation is no less "literal" he does not mean that in the physical sense...which is the distinct I am attempting to draw anyways).

yes, you are surely a poli-sci dude.
this whole dribble would be relevant if he had appended this explanation to the Bible and the "bible as an allegory" had been prevalent at the time which it wasn't, and you're arguing semantics since basically what you're saying is that Christianity doesn't have a set of standars for practicing it when IT DOES. and prayer is not a matter of interpretation.
now, mind you, you're showing that you know NOTHING of religious history by implying that everyone went around interpreting the bible as they saw fit (aside from kings), but it's cool I understand you think you know a lot.
sometimes it just pays to be interested in these things prior to these discussions.

Not very well...and obviously very selectively.

actually no.
you're the one that's all about "interpretation" so, the selectiveness is solely you.

Actually...yes. It doesn't stop most people, why should it stop you?

it's nice to see you try to sound like you know stuff. the best part is where you assumed I hadn't read the bible, then, that I had read it "selectively"
you know? I'm becoming convinced you haven't read the entire bible and weren't interested about these topics until rather recently.

That is incorrect. And if this is the case they are not told very well as most do not believe this to be the case.

No, that is not incorrect.
sorry, but you're just running around in circles now, weren't you the dude that said 60% of the earth's population was christian when it was actually 33%, forgive me if I don't hold your uninformed opinion in high regard.

Some did some didn't. However just because they were thrown in jail did that mean they were incorrectly interpreting the Bible. Or do the political prisoners in Russia right now...did they actually break the law? The Church felt threatened and threw someone in Jail when they were politically able to do so...STOP THE PRESSES. Hitler threw people in jail in the name of aetheism and inferiority. America did it in the name of skin color and racial inequality...and as it turned out we were "mis-interpreting" (as MOST Americans would agree) the constitution which already had repelled the 3/5th compromise and slavery.

LOL,now you're just kidding yourself SB, running in circles, basically you're saying "yes, you are right, it was Heresy , but that doesn't mean I'm wrong"
but it does, you see? It does mean in fact, that you are wrong.

Just because someone uses a document for political ends does not someone lend correctness to their interpretation or even mean their interpretation was dominant or held by the people.

Again...I believe Jesus would denounce such an act, as would most Christians. However you seem to believe the correct interpretation or the most common comes from tradition, and a very bloody one at that. However only if you found your beliefs in that tradition does it hold any water. Some people believe progress is far more important that what past rulers did with a book.

we're not talking about YOU or YOUR beliefs, we're talking about the practice of the Christ based religion ( read cult) on this our island earth in the past.
again, you're saying "yes, inquisition, jail, heresy.....but c'mon that's not what it's about now, they mis-interpreted it" well, no.
my point stands, you have a nasty habit of trying to misdirect and bull**** your way out of a tight spot, try it on the children, just give me a little more credit.

Christianity is tied to Judaism. All your "argument" has been is snappy sacrastic comments as usual wrapped in otherwise common knowledge. The same crap too. Spainish Inquisition blah blah Conservative beliefs blah blah Most believe blah blah. How about you TALK to people, like the ones posting on this thread and FIND OUT what they believe instead of dictating what they believe like a cultish leader would.

no, SB this has ben my argument

Originally Posted by Me like half an hour ago
and your own argument must be surprisingly weak if you can't grasp that a cult is infact [SIZE=-1]a religious group that follows a particular theological system
and also the word cult as a noun is the act of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]formal religious veneration
THAT is my argument.
since Christianity has particular [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]theological system, and though sermons, services and prayer engages is religious veneration is therefore a cult.
I have no idea what you're argument is, I guess that the more people stray from a given religion's theological Ideas the less of a cult it is.
I guess since there's so many Branches of satanism it's no longer a cult.
go figure, I'd thought otherwise.

and you have been sidesteping it like crazy so far, because, well...you know you can't beat it.
you're done dude, admit defeat, walk it off, more fights to come on other topics and stuff.

[/SIZE]

You have little or no clue that religion like Christianity is seperate in part because of these wars and offshoots. They started because people were unsure and contentious about how things were to be interpreted BECAUSE Christianity was an inclusive religion...i.e. not a cult. Cults easily deal with outsiders because they can oust them...but Christianity struggled from within because it made an attempt to be anything but a cult.

LOL, you're an IDIOT you HAVE TO WORSHIP CHRIST you have to follow comandments, it's EXCLUSIVE YOU BUFOON get with it.
you know nothing of these topics and just blindly go around like an imbecile trying to pass off your inane little conjectures as historical facts, they are not. grow the hell up already.

Christianity, for all it's faults, lest you forget was one of the first religions to deciminate its text amongst it's followers. Were it really married to one interpretation and one method of prayer it would have kept it's subjects in the dark about it's practices. Like Scientology which monatarily keeps it's subjects at arms distance.

when trying to sound lofty try to correctly spell "disseminate"
and what does this have to do with it being a cult?
you mean it's a good cult?
some dudes in the middle ages and here in good ole America would disagree with you.

Yeah. because they, unlike you, understood where it came from. Oral tradition, teachings, stories, myth. These people were mythical people. The post enlightenment notion of "facts" and "reason as the highest good" fyi had not even taken effect yet. It's clear from writers and even present day philosophers that intuition and emotion was much more highly regarded. For example David's (supposed) writings don't call upon reason at all...or facts. They believed things as allegories because it wasn't important to them whether stories were factually base, the meaning of said stories was important.

The literal interpretation of the Bible came as a backlash to post enlightenment thought. The Bible is a pre-enlightenment document, not a post-enlightenment document.

If you need a further understanding of what that means look at the Constitution, it doesn't call upon some God or supernatural power to show us "natural right" exists. It, and it's accompaning documents, use logic and reason and draw upon post enlightenment thinkers rather than Gods and Godesses.

That type of thinking changing the game, because now if you are proven wrong it sucks because you're wrong. The original creators of the Bible though were Henotheists, they believed multiple Gods lived on the Earth...they were Monotheist because of them they worshipped one. So in fact they did acknowledge other beliefs as being true for other worshippers but at the same time affirmed their God as the "true God" meaning he was the God you ought to follow. So to them disproving a story meant nothing because the point was to illustrate their God. But factual backing to that story meant nothing.

Jesus that was really long winded and pointless.
you're sugesting that since the stuff makes no sense it must be seen as allegory?
you're oficially an idiot.
scientology makes no sense NOW yet everyone that practices it thinks it's teachings are totally true, I can Imagine some future poli-sci dude trying to tell some frustrated sensible, rather handsome guy that since scientology made no sense the people that practiced it MUST have known it to be bull****.
you realize that people died for sugesting the earth was not the center of the universe back then right?
you realize that people believed in witches and the devil walking the earth consorting with nubile young virgins as early as two centuries ago?
where was the Allegory then?
jeeeeeeesus you're dumb

Sacred is a point of debate. Sacred how. In message, in meaning, in factual accuracy...huge point of debate I'd say.

"sacred word of god"as in in "this is the word of god, thus it is sacred because he spoke it"

You're a moron

You realize searches not in "Parathesis" yield results for "sacred" "is" "the" "lord" "word" "of"...any and all words yield results. So every page with the word "Lord" and or "Sacred" comes up in that search...yeah I bet that would be a lot.

In fact lets look at your second webpage found.
"Some might say, if the rest of you believe it is the word of the Lord, go. ahead; I keep a polite silence during that ritual. The Bible is just ancient ..."

...Yeah he sounds especially conservative

There is even a nice MST3Kifying of the Bible that turned up on you're search on Biblidolatry.com.


So your first search had more words dumba$$ therefore yeilded more results ...don't worry I fixed it for you.

Here is the real search.
"bible is the sacred word of the lord"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="Bible+is+the+sacred+word+of+the+Lord"&btnG=Search

"0 results"

And for "Bible is an Allegory"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="bible+is+an+allegory"&btnG=Search
4,360 results.

Thanks for playing though.

LOL you misinterpreted my attempt at humor for scientific research.
but let's apply your awesome methodology to your own results
(should've been more careful SB, pride cometh before the fall and all that)

first link?

Are you absolutely certain that God exists? » Netscape.com

[SIZE=-1]It follows then that to bible is an allegory and not a book to be read literally. It also follows that if the bible requires interpretation to comprehend [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

LOL
[/SIZE]
second?

St. James Presbyterian Church, Chicago: Confirmation -- Unit 10 ...

[SIZE=-1]But that doesn't mean all of the Bible is an allegory[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

infact, I tweaked the search and
well

"the bible is the word of god"

gee I wonder how many results I got?

[/SIZE]132,000

so SB, if you're still confused
132,000 > 4,360

just in case you had trouble with it.

I'd say Pwned, but it's overkill, you know you're in over your head.
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

[Sloth7d]

I saw a commercial about this.
Its completely a publicity stunt, just like the devinci code.

 

[Addendum]

You are aware that the DaVinci Code is a work of fiction, right?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

It is? :cdejected:

 

[Sloth7d]

You are aware that the DaVinci Code is a work of fiction, right?

The movie itself is.
But if you read the book, alot of factual claims are being made aswell.

 

[Addendum]

The movie itself is.
But if you read the book, alot of factual claims are being made aswell.

The movie is based on a "novel"

Novel = a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes.

Fictitious = created, taken, or assumed for the sake of concealment; not genuine; false

 

[Abaddon]

The movie itself is.
But if you read the book, alot of factual claims are being made aswell.

isn't that sort of invalidated since the book is a work of fiction

 

[Mr Sparkle]

shhhhh! don't wake the children.