Not everything in the Bible is true...

[niky]

i believe in the bible 100%. i'm worried about people in this thread making harsh remarks about Jesus, God and the Bible.

We all are sinners. only Jesus is the spotless Lamb. He came to earth so He can show us how we should live our life.

Hell is definitely real. When you go to hell, there will be eternal sufferings and gnashing of teeth, as what Jesus described it to His deciples.

God offered His Son Jesus so we can be saved from hell. all we have to do is accept Him as our Lord into our life. He will make us separate from sin (adultery, stealing, etc..)

How can we be saved? Ask Jesus to enter your heart by accepting you're a sinner and to turn back from your habitual sins. Treat Jesus as your friend in your everyday life, not only on sundays. He is alive and always looks upon us. You don't have to read a prayer, just talk to Him like a real live person.

Why do we experience sufferings and confusions? It's because Jesus will be coming back (it's all in the Bible)

Correction. Nobody has said anything harsh about Jesus in this thread. I should know, I'm the only one who brings him up.

The atheists say that they don't believe the Bible because they don't believe in religion.

I say that the Bible was not written by Jesus. And that many things contained in the Bible (particularly in the OT, but some of the stuff in the NT, also) go against Jesus' own teachings and principles.

If you consider yourself a good Christian, read the Bible carefully, and consider whose words you're reading. Not the words of God, but the words of men. Many different men. That's why Christianity is split into so many different sects and Churches, because the words of men, as writ in the Bible, are imperfect. Thus they are difficult to interpret, and they often contradict one another. And over the centuries, these words have been edited, censored and embellished by Church leaders with their own personal agendas and political goals.

The question now is, whether revising the Bible now will bring it closer to the true Word of God or not.

[driven]

i don't think it's appropriate to discuss about religion here in this forum, i firmly believe that each one of us has a stand with his own faith, that's the main reason why you believe in it, right?

Peace & harmony be with you all!

[EL Chicane]

The question now is, whether revising the Bible now will bring it closer to the true Word of God or not.

But what is the true Word of God? Do you have a copy of the original manuscript?

[niky]

But what is the true Word of God? Do you have a copy of the original manuscript?

Nobody does. That's the problem. That's why it's so important to try to figure out which parts of the Bible are true or relevant. That's why uncovering the true history of the Holy Lands is important... why it's important to know who Moses was, whether he really existed... or who Jesus really was... was he a rebel? A pacifist? A zealot? A simple carpenter? A scholar?

As what we're seeing in the study of Egyptian history, not all that is written in Egyptian records is accurate. They gloss over facts that they don't want known, and they exaggerate their accomplishments.

The same can be said of the Church. They gloss over portions of the Bible that don't suit their political agenda, and they emphasize those that do... like the passage regarding the "guilt" of the Jews... which they used to justify thousands of years of persecuting and killing Jews.

Read the Bible, and think about why these people left certain passages in, or emphasized them, or embellished or changed them. For selfish, personal motives.

The spirit of Pope John Paul II's term as Pope was one of reform, of making the catholic Church matter to humanity now. And this idea of fishing out the untruths from the Bible is in the same vein. This is not for selfish motives, for power or political influence, like former revisions or inclusions or exclusions were, but to keep the Bible from being used for evil.

Like I said, I'm not a devout Catholic anymore, I don't believe in organized religion. But I applaud the spirit and goals of these bishops.

[EL Chicane]

Ayos, bumabalik na yung topic natin from whence it came from. A while back there, nandun na tayo sa usapang Japanese Imperial Army or something...

[Flagg]

that's a good point. i have no idea why the Romans chose to embrace Christianity over the other religions, and your theories seem to be as good as any. and there's no denying that it really helped Christianity because they gave it to Spain, who took care of the rest of the world...

Sir M54, you forget that Spain gave us another grace from God.... Mestizas! Mmmm mmmm.

[oldblue]

btw, did you know that spain was once an entire Muslim nation? they got converted to Muslims after the fall of the Roman Empire. the Arabs conquered and successfully converted the ancient Spanish people to Islam.

kinda ironic dont you thinkk? we owe our Christianity to them but little that we know that they too were converts from Islam. the same way they converted the early pre-spanish Filipinos like Rajahs, Sultans who was btw, on their way to becoming Muslims.


what happens when you cross white and arab/indian features? mestizas/mestizos

[Flagg]

Sir oldblue, hehe galit uli el chicane, sobrang OT na us. But I think only half of Spain was Muslim (Moorish), but I may be wrong.

[oldblue]

bosing, i think that the horse and chariot, iron (steel?) weapons and armor, and superior military tactics in the Legions had a little bit more to do with it

hehehe not really. in modern times, puwede siguro. like the US military, mixture of different people with different backgrounds/culture/religion still manage to unite.

but in the older days, warriors/armies who's got God (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) by their side had the advantage. ancient people -> knights, peasants, lords, foot soldiers, officers, kings feared the supernatural.

why do you think the barbarians/pagans became extinct? they had the same weapons/armors too. in fact, they even have the advantage in battle bec. they can kill without remorse with no religion to confuse them. but still they fell.

[Flagg]

Weeellll.... I think 70 virgins in paradise is a pretty good incentive. No confusion there.

[oldblue]

Weeellll.... I think 70 virgins in paradise is a pretty good incentive. No confusion there.

hahaha! pero pano mo kaya ma-enjoy yun kung gutay-gutay na katawan mo sa bomba?

[empy]

kahit yung original manuscript ng Bible, written by man pa din. dun na lang tayo sa Qu'Ran, written by God himself

i still believe in God, and i try to live my life in a way He would consider good and moral. i still believe that the Church does do more good than harm in the world. but i will not accept the words of His human agents in blind faith. some people on this forum need to understand that this is not the same thing as not believing in God or Christ.

hehehe not really. in modern times, puwede siguro. like the US military, mixture of different people with different backgrounds/culture/religion still manage to unite.

but in the older days, warriors/armies who's got God (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) by their side had the advantage. ancient people -> knights, peasants, lords, foot soldiers, officers, kings feared the supernatural.

why do you think the barbarians/pagans became extinct? they had the same weapons/armors too. in fact, they even have the advantage in battle bec. they can kill without remorse with no religion to confuse them. but still they fell.

bosing, did you know that the Roman empire was founded as a pagan empire? Rome didn't become Christian until Constantine I signed the Edict of Milan. by then Rome had already conquered most of the Old World, from Britain to the northwest to Syria to the East.

here's a link to how Julius Caesar conquered the tribes of Gaul (a region that is now France and parts of Germany and Italy) in two short years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars

here's the relevant text:
----------------------------
"The Roman success in the Gallic Wars was due to a combination of clever politics, effective campaigning and greater military capability than their Gaulish opponents. Caesar pursued a policy of "divide and rule" to pick off his enemies, siding with individual tribes in disputes with their local rivals. He systematically gathered intelligence on the Gallic tribes to identify their characteristics, weaknesses and divisions and so dispose of them in turn.

Many of Caesar's troops were themselves Gallic, so the conflict was not simply a war between Romans and Gauls. Indeed, his army was an extremely cosmopolitan entity. Its core was six (later ten) legions of heavy infantry, supported by the equivalent of two more in later campaigns. He relied on foreign allies for his cavalry and light infantry, recruiting from the Numidians, Cretan, Spanish, Germans and Gauls. Caesar made very effective use of these forces, exploiting individual units' pride to spur them to greater efforts.

Caesar's Gallic opponents were considerably less capable militarily than the Romans. They could field large armies but suffered from a lack of flexibility and discipline. Gallic warriors were ferocious opponents and were much admired for this by the Romans (see the Dying Gaul), but they lacked discipline in the field. Their tactics were effectively confined to charging their opponents en masse, and their lack of cohesion made them incapable of any sophistication in battle. They also lacked any logistical support and were unable to stay in the field for as long as the Romans."

[empy]

as for Spain, think about a Spanish expeditionary force fully outfitted with steel weapons and armor, horse cavalry, and even muskets and cannon...vs Inca and Aztec tribesmen with loincloths, stone spears, and arrows. a hundred Spaniards could sweep into a village and defeat an Inca army of thousands.

there must be some philippine history textbooks about how mismatched the pinoys were against the Spanish army, Lapu-Lapu vs. Magellan being a notable exception.

hehe...sorry for the OT pero sarap pag-usapan ang military tactics

[oldblue]

kahit yung original manuscript ng Bible, written by man pa din. dun na lang tayo sa Qu'Ran, written by God himself

i still believe in God, and i try to live my life in a way He would consider good and moral. i still believe that the Church does do more good than harm in the world. but i will not accept the words of His human agents in blind faith. some people on this forum need to understand that this is not the same thing as not believing in God or Christ.


bosing, did you know that the Roman empire was founded as a pagan empire? Rome didn't become Christian until Constantine I signed the Edict of Milan. by then Rome had already conquered most of the Old World, from Britain to the northwest to Syria to the East.

here's a link to how Julius Caesar conquered the tribes of Gaul (a region that is now France and parts of Germany and Italy) in two short years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars

here's the relevant text:
----------------------------
"The Roman success in the Gallic Wars was due to a combination of clever politics, effective campaigning and greater military capability than their Gaulish opponents. Caesar pursued a policy of "divide and rule" to pick off his enemies, siding with individual tribes in disputes with their local rivals. He systematically gathered intelligence on the Gallic tribes to identify their characteristics, weaknesses and divisions and so dispose of them in turn.

Many of Caesar's troops were themselves Gallic, so the conflict was not simply a war between Romans and Gauls. Indeed, his army was an extremely cosmopolitan entity. Its core was six (later ten) legions of heavy infantry, supported by the equivalent of two more in later campaigns. He relied on foreign allies for his cavalry and light infantry, recruiting from the Numidians, Cretan, Spanish, Germans and Gauls. Caesar made very effective use of these forces, exploiting individual units' pride to spur them to greater efforts.

Caesar's Gallic opponents were considerably less capable militarily than the Romans. They could field large armies but suffered from a lack of flexibility and discipline. Gallic warriors were ferocious opponents and were much admired for this by the Romans (see the Dying Gaul), but they lacked discipline in the field. Their tactics were effectively confined to charging their opponents en masse, and their lack of cohesion made them incapable of any sophistication in battle. They also lacked any logistical support and were unable to stay in the field for as long as the Romans."

conquer is such a relative term during those times. yes it's true that old ancient rome conquered much of the known old world but were they able to keep it for long? they capture one world and only to find out that another took over while they were busy conquering another. that's the main problem of the old barbaric/pagan wars. The conquered people are easily conquered by others of barbaric/pagan origin.

and since we were initially talking about the Christ and how his legacy lived on for more than 2000 years, it would be interesting to note that the Holy Roman Empire (the new empire after the fall of the old roman empire, 800AD to 18th century,1 millenium in existence) succeeded in stabilizing most of the western civilizations, and again under the banner of Christianity. The wars of the middle ages account to many of these religious conquests. One such campaign were the crusades.

These so-called people of the Holy Roman Empire is not limited to pure-blooded descendants of ancient Rome. It's surprising that majority are Germans na. ayaw ko na ituloy baka mapikon na naman si EL_Chicane

[EL Chicane]

:swear: .

[empy]

sir oldblue...sa sobrang OT natin nalilito ako

[CtrlAltDel]

I thank all the atheists and bible doubters in this thread for because of your views I had the opportunity to make a stand. I am not here to proselytize. I respect your opinion.

Let me finally state in this thread that I believe in God and I believe the Bible is true to the last letter. For those men of God, bishops who said otherwise... well, may God deal with you just as you deserve. You said the story of creation isn't true, that they're just metaphors? I say, if God wants to create the whole heaven and earth and everything in it in seven days, he can most certainly do it. Literally. If he said he can make human descendants of David out of mere stones in the desert, he can most certainly do so. Long before we ever dreamed up the word "science" or "physics" or "evolution" God had already invented them and laid out the natural laws which govern them. We have barely scratched the surface of all the wonders and wisdom of God. And if he said he will resurrect the dead in the last day, he will. No matter which ways my ashes were scattered. I have no doubt about it. Glory be to God.

Peace be to all of you!

[city]

i believe in the bible 100%. i'm worried about people in this thread making harsh remarks about Jesus, God and the Bible.

We all are sinners. only Jesus is the spotless Lamb. He came to earth so He can show us how we should live our life.

Hell is definitely real. When you go to hell, there will be eternal sufferings and gnashing of teeth, as what Jesus described it to His deciples.

God offered His Son Jesus so we can be saved from hell. all we have to do is accept Him as our Lord into our life. He will make us separate from sin (adultery, stealing, etc..)

How can we be saved? Ask Jesus to enter your heart by accepting you're a sinner and to turn back from your habitual sins. Treat Jesus as your friend in your everyday life, not only on sundays. He is alive and always looks upon us. You don't have to read a prayer, just talk to Him like a real live person.

Why do we experience sufferings and confusions? It's because Jesus will be coming back (it's all in the Bible)

Is jesus really the only spotless lamb? How about Mary the mother of god? isn't she spotless that's why she was chosen to be the mother of god? If mary can be spotless, god can choose to erase sin for one or for all...so meaning...he could have chosen a different way to erase sin than by sending his son to death. I just have a hard time thinking about why god chose death to erase sin. From day one man learned to offer sacrifices, the blood of an animal is always pleasing to god. One bible character was even tested to kill his son to test faith... i just don't understand why blood sacrifice is so appealing to god. OT accounts many instances that the blood of the first born be offered as a sacrifice. i find it odd for this xtian god to be so please with blood. Up to the last day or second coming...more blood will be spilled.


hell, imo, can't be real. it's completely opposite of the xtian god's all loving nature as claimed. if he (not a she) is real, creating an infinite punishment for a finite sin doesn't make any sense to me. man can only sin so much..but to punish him eternally for a finite sin doesn't sound justice to me.

hell is here on earth...for atheists like me. it's temporary. it's either we choose hell for ourselves or make hell for others.


and to comment on the last statement, men are suffering because jesus is coming back?..i don't get this one...i beg your pardon. If this statement is true..then jesus is the cause of all sufferings and confusions?

[city]

I thank all the atheists and bible doubters in this thread for because of your views I had the opportunity to make a stand. I am not here to proselytize. I respect your opinion.

Let me finally state in this thread that I believe in God and I believe the Bible is true to the last letter. For those men of God, bishops who said otherwise... well, may God deal with you just as you deserve. You said the story of creation isn't true, that they're just metaphors? I say, if God wants to create the whole heaven and earth and everything in it in seven days, he can most certainly do it. Literally. If he said he can make human descendants of David out of mere stones in the desert, he can most certainly do so. Long before we ever dreamed up the word "science" or "physics" or "evolution" God had already invented them and laid out the natural laws which govern them. We have barely scratched the surface of all the wonders and wisdom of God. And if he said he will resurrect the dead in the last day, he will. No matter which ways my ashes were scattered. I have no doubt about it. Glory be to God.

Peace be to all of you!

IMO, it's not good to say may god deal with them with what they deserve. it's like teaching or asking god to do something. Sounds like praying for someone's criminal sentence to me. And it's not a good example of tolerance. It's probably god's business what to do with those who chose to oppose him or whatever.

[BlueBimmer]

loincloth! :D