Catholic Transparency...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

And I know you were joking, but the bible just TICKS ME OFF!

How can you call yourself a Christian then? The Bible is the only original source for the life of Christ. Everything else stems from that.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

How can you call yourself a Christian then? The Bible is the only original source for the life of Christ. Everything else stems from that.

Which bible or should I say which scripts? There is nothing original about the bible.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Which bible or should I say which scripts? There is nothing original about the bible.

Also true. My point was that you can't claim to follow someone whose life is taken from one source, and then claim to not believe the source.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

How can you call yourself a Christian then? The Bible is the only original source for the life of Christ. Everything else stems from that.

Eh. There's only one sentence in any Christian literature that I'm going to take literally. 'Love thy Neighbour as you love yourself.'

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Eh. There's only one sentence in any Christian literature that I'm going to take literally. 'Love thy Neighbour as you love yourself.'

You might be interested to know that at least 20 people said that same thing long before Christ was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

My point is still the same: There is only one source for the very existence of Jesus. How does one claim to be his follower and refuse to acknowledge that source?

[Cybermat47]

I do acknowledge the Bible, but I also recognise that people have changed it other the centuries. I mean, I really can't believe that a God who loves everyone would punish some people merely because of their sexuality. It's my theory that all those writings about non-believers burning in hell were simply added to control people out of fear, to forcefully stop them from leaving their faith. That's the reason the bible annoys me.

And what do you mean only one source for his very existence? Jesus was a genuine historical figure who was born in Bethlehem, spread his message of love and forgiveness, and was crucified by the Romans. Even Richard Dawkins thinks so! Wether or not he was a divine being, a prophet or a rambling lunatic is open to debate.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I do acknowledge the Bible, but I also recognise that people have changed it other the centuries. I mean, I really can't believe that a God who loves everyone would punish some people merely because of their sexuality. It's my theory that all those writings about non-believers burning in hell were simply added to control people out of fear, to forcefully stop them from leaving their faith. That's the reason the bible annoys me.

I fail to see how you can call yourself a Christian when you blatently reject Christian scripture. Every single Christian denomination holds that the Bible, whichever version they endorse, is the Word of God. You cannot dismiss that and claim to be a Christian.

[Cybermat47]

I don't reject it entirely. But can you really entirely trust a book that in some places says "The all-merciful Lord said 'I don't like gays, I think I'll subject them to eternal torture'"?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I don't reject it entirely. But can you really entirely trust a book that in some places says "The all-merciful Lord said 'I don't like gays, I think I'll subject them to eternal torture'"?

So, which parts to you consider true, and which do you consider false? Do you reject the 10 Commandments? The Immaculate Conception? The Sermon on the Mount?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

IAnd what do you mean only one source for his very existence? Jesus was a genuine historical figure who was born in Bethlehem, spread his message of love and forgiveness, and was crucified by the Romans. Even Richard Dawkins thinks so! Wether or not he was a divine being, a prophet or a rambling lunatic is open to debate.

There are actually three. Josephus and Tacitus both interviewed Christians to find out what the fuss was about, and recorded what they were told. That's it. Two second-hand sources and the Bible, which doesn't give a single account claiming to be eye-witness, except for Paul's account of his conversion.

So your statement of "a genuive historical figure who was born in Bethlehem, spread his message of love and forgiveness, and was crucified by the Romans" has not one single actual historical record. No Hebrew or Roman records of his birth, no external records of "spreading his message", no Roman records of the crucifixion. Nothing.

I'm not saying it isn't true. I don't claim to know. But historical records? Not a single one.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'm not saying it isn't true. I don't claim to know. But historical records? Not a single one.

Steve, you have a unique talent. You can be absolutely polite to someone while destroying their argument. No wonder you were made a moderator!