[Ghostavo]

Stealth?

I DIDN'T MOCK ANYBODY!! READ THE F****** POST AGAIN!!

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Let's see... Total times the Devil and Hell were mentioned during mass this morning: 0. Doesn't seem to be that big of an emphasis to me....

So you're basing your entire interpretation of Catholic doctrine on the content of a single Mass?

an0n, you're dead wrong.  That has to be the strangest interpretation of Christianity I've ever read.

[Bobboau]

I think he was useing today as an examle of normality

[Grey Wolf]

Bobboau has a good grasp of the point I was trying to make.  It is quite rare in my experience for the Devil or Hell to be mentioned during a mass.

[Flipside]

Indeed, somehow I severely doubted you went to Mass that particular morning just to see if someone mentioned Satan

[Taristin]

Originally posted by an0n
All that stuff...

Scarily enough, this is basically my take on the Bible too, aside from the blatant an0nisms... The Bible was written by Man. And according to faith, only Moses, and Abraham spoke to God... SO where the hell do all of these other guys who worte the 'good book' get their ideas from?

They put their own biases in there.

[Mongoose]

Grey Wolf, the Mass is just one part of the whole of Catholic doctrine.  You're not going to get the entire catechism proclamied at every Mass.  Certain elements of Catholocism are brought up in the Mass, and certain ones are not.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Raa



Scarily enough, this is basically my take on the Bible too, aside from the blatant an0nisms... The Bible was written by Man. And according to faith, only Moses, and Abraham spoke to God... SO where the hell do all of these other guys who worte the 'good book' get their ideas from?

They put their own biases in there.

That's what I've always felt - at the end of the day, it was men who wrote the bible, and you have to regard it as you would any story 'based on a real* event' - with a lot of caustion.

(*?)

[an0n]

Originally posted by Raa
The Bible was written by Man.

Not neccessarily. Even if you concede that the Bible was written by divine inspiration, be it from God or from Selma Hayek, there's still the small matter of it being deliberately, purposefully and calculatedly changed to accomodate the new additions to Christendom during the crusades.

Encarta agrees with me. It specifically says the Bible was ****ed over to pander to the sacreligious beliefs of the heathens and to make their transition and incorporation into the great Christian Empire just that little bit smoother.

[Taristin]

Bah! It's still a biased story book...

[Knight Templar]

Personally, I'd beleive the bible more if God (or Jesus) actually wrote it. You know, like, with thier own hands and pen?

[an0n]

Nah, that'd leave it open to simple "Look, there's a mistake" things.

If they have some guys writing it under divine inspiration, all mistakes can be attributed to the man as opposed to debunking the whole 'book of God' thing.

[Flipside]

To be honest, after 2000 years of the Church having their hands on it, if the Bible had been written by Jesus, the situation today would probably be far far worse, since it would be far easier to froth up religious fervour

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by an0n
Nah, that'd leave it open to simple "Look, there's a mistake" things.

If they have some guys writing it under divine inspiration, all mistakes can be attributed to the man as opposed to debunking the whole 'book of God' thing.

Although, theorhetically speaking, a book written by a perfect God wouldn't have any such plotholes or mistakes, and as such, there would be nothing wrong to attribute to it. All of the arrogance and hipocracy within could then be acredited to the author deity, and there would be no confusion.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Raa



Scarily enough, this is basically my take on the Bible too, aside from the blatant an0nisms... The Bible was written by Man. And according to faith, only Moses, and Abraham spoke to God... SO where the hell do all of these other guys who worte the 'good book' get their ideas from?

They put their own biases in there.

as was mentioned, divine inspiration...

an0n:  that's a good theory, but as far as i know, the going belief as to why God himself didn't write the "good book" as you put it ( ) is because it's much more effective written from an imperfect human's perspective, for an imperfect human.  i mean look at all the trials many of the writers had to go through, and their "temptations" etc. etc. etc.  how could someone who's never experienced any of those trials, temptations, etc. (i.e. God?) write it?  it wouldn't be as effective as reading it from a 1st person point of view.  it's for that reason that he had men write the Bible for Him.

ummm well, that's as far as i know anyway.  there may be other reasons or theories out there as to why the book was written by man.

EDIT:  Ghostavo:  go back and read some of your posts fool. thx.

[Flipside]

Thing is that by allowing the book to be written by an 'imperfect hand' has allowed for an 'imperfect translation' of Gods will. Surely only God Himself would understand the true scope of his plans, so why leave such an important job in the hands of a fallible human being and then expect everything to work out ok?

[Grey Wolf]

Well, there are a few possibilities in this situation:
1. God wrote the Bible, in which case most of us are screwed as nobody follows all of the laws enshrined within the Bible.
2. People inspired by God wrote the Bible, in which case we have some factual inaccuracies.
3. Idiots on drugs wrote the Bible, in which case we've been listening to a bunch of potheads for the last few thousand years.
4. Megalomaniacs wrote the Bible, in which case they succeeded in taking over the world.
5. Well intentioned people wrote the Bible to provide a moral society, in which case they failed horribly.

[Flipside]

Well 1 has already been refuted by the religion itself, same with Islam, since Muhammed was illiterate, so that leaves 2-5

[Taristin]

I'm more inclined to believe it's a mixture or 3 and 4, with a little bit 5 mixed in...

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is that by allowing the book to be written by an 'imperfect hand' has allowed for an 'imperfect translation' of Gods will. Surely only God Himself would understand the true scope of his plans, so why leave such an important job in the hands of a fallible human being and then expect everything to work out ok?

"imperfect hand" and "imperfect translation"?  where are you getting those quotes from?

see thing is, if the writers were inspired by God, don't you think God would make sure they put the points He wants in their writings?  kind of defeats the purpose of "divinely inspired" if they don't... think about it