Marijuana.com

Nime

Good point you make.

I love the spirtual side of life, my problem however is with the religions and the chruch twisting things to fit thier needs at a givin time. Ill never diss someones spirtuality, but the faith its based on is open to debate. For me its my way of tryig to understand why or how someone belives what they do. But it gets hard when some people say im right and your wrong when its not based on 100% fact or can be proven false. What is sad is almost every religion shares the same basic ideas, yet the arrogance of each religion thinking its pov on life is the only way makes it hard to admit they all are the same when you boil it down.

 

The Stoned Philosopher

Totally agree with ya,more evidence is being found that pretty much rewrites the bible like the dead sea scrolls,the apocyalypica (ap?) and the gnostic christian texts who tell a different story of jesus than being told by the roman catholic church. And is it true that the Catholics took out parts of the bible,in order to forcefully unify the different christian sects under thier own rule (note that catholic means universal).
My opinion is that the only "true" form of christianity is the religion lived by the gnostic christians,the roman catholic church and the others (which all came from the catholic church) are pretty much heretics.
And a interesting note: the actually historical Jesus was more like Buddah or Timothy Leary than a pious religious "king of the jews" potrayed in the bible.
I could ramble on and on about the errors of christianity,but as i always say, do what you feel deep inside that is right for you, you can only find enlightenment in yourself.

The Stoned Philosopher

DrugLawReform

I just wanted to share something I wrote in another thread. I'm not a literay genius by any means and when I wrote it I really felt that something other than my mind was at work. It just seemed to flow. Sounds wierd I know, but it sums up my viewpoint the best way I know:

I think organized religon does have its downfalls. I can only speak for myself. I grew up catholic. Went church every sunday.When I was about 13? I woke up with the notion that I really didn't want to go to church today. It's funny I'm 32 and still remember that day very clearly.
I didn't have to argue or anything. Next thing I know my dad's making french toast. I'd never seen him cook anything! We ate french toast religiuosly for many Sunday's to come. And to this day I'm a much more spiritual person. What does french toast have to do with spirituality? Nothing. But that day I saw things in a very different way.
My parents went to church because they wanted me to have a....good upbringing? You know "the good family goes to church". And when I stopped going, they did to.
That is when I think we all realized that we could find what we were looking for, in ourselves...in nature...and in others.
Religon is like any other organization. There is now way to remove leader ideals from the minds of followers. Man does better 1 on 1. No matter what your one with.
I call it the " thing that makes the world go round'"

Nime

Kind of a semi-off topic question, but if jesus was alive today would he adhere to all the rules of the christain faith or would he even be a christain?

What ive always wondered is why does jesus not have his own book in the bible? You would think there should be a book of jesus in there, but there is not.

Stephanie S.

Given that he was like, a Jew


peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

 

anduin

i was going to post this as a private message, because when a heap of people start arguing about religion, it's always bound to be trouble, but the message was too long, so this will do.

<b><i>I knew this unitarian schooled me about how she believes that the bible has been changed, books removed, and when I heard that it scared me. But I stopped thinking about it, cuz something like that could really distort the way you grasp concepts that are in the bible.</b></i>

if you choose not to think about it, you're just keeping yourself in the dark from the truth. at this point, you've got no idea whether you or she is right. better to just resolve it now - do some research. if you're right, more power to you. if you're wrong, hey, you've just learn the truth - even if it's radically different from what you believe now, if it's the truth, you still should be believing it.

<b><i>I really don't know how true that is. I know the roman catholic church is evil. I am not religious, I am not a part of any denomination and neither is my church. I mean I am not trying to put down catholics, but a lot of stuff they do is truly unbiblical. Praying to saints, it goes against the ten commandments. Confession is really wrong too. When I go to confession I go to Jesus myself. It seems like the church wants you to come to them in order to know God, whereas Jesus wanted everyone to come to him alone.</i></b>

i was raised catholic, and in 15 years, i never prayed to saints, nor did i see anyone pray to a saint. i agree with you that's ridiculous. as for confession, confessing to a priest is like confessing your sins to God and people at the same time - many people who confess their sins only to God have trouble talking about them to other people, which is a problem, i'm sure you can see. but when you confess to a priest, you overcome that problem, and still confess to God as well. that's how i felt anyway.

i'm christian no longer, but that's just because i couldn't accept a dualistic idea of divinity. if i was christian again, i would still say that roman catholocism isn't evil.

<b><i>They (catholic church) have found a religion out of what originally was supposed to break the religious barriers. Christianity in its true state is not a religion. It is accepting a gift from another so that I won't be defeated on earth and in heaven. So far no one has showed me the books that have been removed.</b></i>

i am confused as to why you call catholocism a religion, but regard your own church as not being a religion. can you explain for me?

<b><i>I know about the gospel of Thomas, but that wasn't even a book. It was like he did mushrooms before he wrote the book. The way he talks about Jesus and women is totally contrary to Jesus' teaching. Plus it was written about 20 years after the rest of the books were. I know that maccabees is not in the christian bible, and I am not sure why.

If anyone can actually give me the list of books that were excluded and tell me what years this happened then I will give it some thought. But I doubt anyone knows and I think it is just another rumour to get me to lose my faith.</b></i>

you already know about two books - thomas' gospel and maccabees. you haven't even bothered to find out why maccabees isn't included, just shrugged it off. don't worry so much about losing your faith - it won't happen just 'cause you find out that people have taken books out of the bible. that's one of man's mistakes, not god's. god isn't dependant on the bible to gain and keep people's faith - he's stronger and greater than that.

<b><i>It's just like the theory about how when you whisper a sentence in one persons ear it will sound different when that other person tells another and so on etc. The problem with that is that the dead sea scrolls match perfectly with the king james version.<b></i>

when you translate from one language to another, you cannot say that the two versions match perfectly. even translating between two germanic languages, or two latin languages that are very closely related, you come across words that don't have meaning in the other language, or meanings that don't have words in the other language. of course, learning hebrew might help you to read the original texts, but you will not be able to think in hebrew - you will still be translating in your mind.

for an example, go to http://babel.altavista.com - and type in a phrase, and convert it to german. then, copy the german and convert it back to english. see if it's the same phrase as you started with. now think how much more confused it gets when you translate hebrew to latin or english - german and english are closely related, hebrew is not.

i'm not saying that you have to be hebrew to truly be christian though. just that if the bible is perfect, then the original texts and precise copies in hebrew are the only ones that you can regard as perfect. i'm certain you can still find god with most other versions of the bible - if you made a good summary, they'd all be the same.

hope this doesn't sound like i'm attacking your beliefs. i'm trying to make you question what you believe, so that you can answer the questions, and strengthen your knowledge of the truth.

(yes, i'm aware that babelfish isn't a perfect translator. that's the point.)

robb

Everybody,

Yes the King James version of the Bible is the most accurate one because it was translated from the original languages, but even the NIV can still be read for some people who just start in Bilbe reading it can be a little easier to understand nothing is really changed as in laws or what we should be doing except the language is a little more modern. But I still suggest that people read the KJV because of the accuracy. Be careful the Bible is not the word of man it was inspired by God, yes men did the actual writing but it was as they were moved on by the Holy Ghost.
-2 Tim 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
There maybe some fluff but it’s there because God wanted it there for a reason so you cannot discard anything in the Bible just by saying that it’s man that just wanted to add something there to attract people if they wrote it it’s because God wanted it. Yes it’s true that Catholics made some alterations but do not look to just any denomination, you must find a church that preaches the Bible for what it says and what it is. Also on this topic the New testament wasn’t all written at the same time, the way they put it together is: They stared with the Gospels which were the first books to be written (remember that even if the people that put it together didn’t know it God was using them to form his Word they way He wanted the world from then to now to see it) there were more than four books on the life of Christ written but they put together a test which would help them pick the best ones. This is from a book on early church history:-“ SOME think that the books to be included in the New Testament canon were decided on hastily, by a group of early church leaders, late on a hot summer afternoon. And it is sometimes implied that the choice of those men was no better than a comparable group of church officials would make in the twentieth century. The facts of history demonstrate, however, that the New Testament was not formed hastily, nor was it formed by the councils. It was the product of centuries of development…” - It is one thing to determine the need for a canon; it is quite another to decide what belongs in it. Tests of canonicity had to be employed. Early church Fathers suggested that those books were canonical that were inspired. But inspiration is rather intangible and subject to differences of opinion. So secondary tests were required. One of the most important of these was apostolicity: that is, was a book written by an apostle or someone very close to the apostles? Thus, Luke’s gospel was accepted because of his close relationship with Paul; Mark’s because of his close association with Peter and Paul. Of course Matthew and John were apostles. Then there was the test of internal appeal. Did a book contain moral or doctrinal elements that measured up to the standards set by the apostles in their acknowledged writings? >
I have lots more stuff on this but it would make this post too big perhaps if someone wants me to I will post more on this sometime. So my point is don’t let something like that scare you or shake your faith because it was the will of God for us to have the Bible as it is today. We worship Jesus because He is God the O/T name for God was Jehovah, or I am that I am, but in Isaiah 52: 6Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.
-Matt 1: 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
-Matt 1:23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
-Col 3: 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
Eph4: 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
The Lord gave us these ministries we should go to church because you need the preaching of the Word just find the church that preaches the whole Word I would be willing to assist you in finding that. I’m sorry but the Bible is no myth it can be proven historically and scientifically therefore you cannot class it as those other myths. Anyway I’ll be awaiting any responses in post or in my mail I would like to discuss more of this with anyone whose willing.
Thank,
Robb

robb

Everybody,

Yes the King James version of the Bible is the most accurate one because it was translated from the original languages, but even the NIV can still be read for some people who just start in Bilbe reading it can be a little easier to understand nothing is really changed as in laws or what we should be doing except the language is a little more modern. But I still suggest that people read the KJV because of the accuracy. Be careful the Bible is not the word of man it was inspired by God, yes men did the actual writing but it was as they were moved on by the Holy Ghost.
-2 Tim 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
There maybe some fluff but it’s there because God wanted it there for a reason so you cannot discard anything in the Bible just by saying that it’s man that just wanted to add something there to attract people if they wrote it it’s because God wanted it. Yes it’s true that Catholics made some alterations but do not look to just any denomination, you must find a church that preaches the Bible for what it says and what it is. Also on this topic the New testament wasn’t all written at the same time, the way they put it together is: They stared with the Gospels which were the first books to be written (remember that even if the people that put it together didn’t know it God was using them to form his Word they way He wanted the world from then to now to see it) there were more than four books on the life of Christ written but they put together a test which would help them pick the best ones. This is from a book on early church history:-“ SOME think that the books to be included in the New Testament canon were decided on hastily, by a group of early church leaders, late on a hot summer afternoon. And it is sometimes implied that the choice of those men was no better than a comparable group of church officials would make in the twentieth century. The facts of history demonstrate, however, that the New Testament was not formed hastily, nor was it formed by the councils. It was the product of centuries of development…” - It is one thing to determine the need for a canon; it is quite another to decide what belongs in it. Tests of canonicity had to be employed. Early church Fathers suggested that those books were canonical that were inspired. But inspiration is rather intangible and subject to differences of opinion. So secondary tests were required. One of the most important of these was apostolicity: that is, was a book written by an apostle or someone very close to the apostles? Thus, Luke’s gospel was accepted because of his close relationship with Paul; Mark’s because of his close association with Peter and Paul. Of course Matthew and John were apostles. Then there was the test of internal appeal. Did a book contain moral or doctrinal elements that measured up to the standards set by the apostles in their acknowledged writings?
Continued>

robb

sorry I thought my reply didn't get through and was going to post it in two parts but i found out it was there.
robb

robb

To ask what would Jesus be doing or what Law he would be following if he woul'dn't had died is like asking what if he hadn't come at all. If Jesus hadn't died we would be dead in our sins Jesus came to earth to be killed so we could have life through him. To ask questions like this is not just because there is no answer only that he had to die for us to live. God gave his own blood for our sins. The word Christian means to be like Christ so to say he would practice judaism and not Christianity is also unjust because He is Christ. Try not to underestimate the Word of God and don't make it more complicated than it really is> 1cor 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769. You see that God does not intend for us to be confused by His word but sometimes we make it confusing. If you don't understand something ask questions to God or someone that you have confindence that will answer truthfully according to the Word.!