Religion rant!

[ElRazur]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

They have plates with an "inside" and an "outside" in Nigeria then do they?

You ****tard. It is a literal translation. Not everything translate well into English you see.

[Treefrog]

Only just seen this thread but had to ask - who has seen "Zeitgeist the movie"? Specifically the first third of it?

Watch online here if interested.

[Glaucus]

Originally Posted by ElRazur

What strikes me here is the fact how people will believe things and have faith they wont even bother to check out if it is the right path or even try to know a bit about it.
.

Totally agree. It's just like CoE and catholic has a whole. I mean most people don't even understand where the bible has come from and how much it has been messed about with. I mean the bible was put together by a Roman emperor who wasn't trying to preserve the word, but make sure anything which could lead to people uprising was taken out.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by AcidHell2

Totally agree. It's just like CoE and catholic has a whole. I mean most people don't even understand where the bible has come from and how much it has been messed about with. I mean the bible was put together by a Roman emperor who wasn't trying to preserve the word, but make sure anything which could lead to people uprising was taken out.

The Bible isn't one document, but a series of books that have existed for along time. The majority of it (the Old Testament) was around and collated long before the Roman Empire was barely even a glint in someones eye. The books of the Old Testament cover a time period roughly from the 12th Century BC through to the 2nd Century BC. The Roman Republic that preceded the Empire didn't even conquer Judea until the 1st Century BC, by which stage the "Books of Moses, the laws and the prophets" such as it was, was already firmly established.

Your argument at best can only pertain to the New Testament, but is far, far from the truth. You're taking the basic premise that the New Testament came to exist in a single act of collation which just isn't true. There have been numerous books added to the New Testament primarily during the first millenium AD, way beyond the influence of any Roman Emperor. A lot of the New Testament is formed out of groups of books or letters that were already in major circulation amongst the Christian church, letters and books that the Roman Emperor would have had little or no control over the circulation of. The Canonisation and collation of such texts was little more than various bishop councils saying "oh yeah, we use that".

[Glaucus]

Nope, I'm well aware that it is very old and a collection. However most bibles are based around the Romans which they decided which books would be included and which would not .