Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Considering the Bible has over two-dozen authors and the parts relating to Jesus were written and compiled approximately 200 years after his supposed death, it's a minor miracle it has any consistancy at all.

That's why you read Qur'an.

[Vester]

It's in one of the Papal encyclicals, I think. Humanae Vitae.

(It was Gaudium Et Spes 22. Heh. Silly me.)

Considering the Bible has over two-dozen authors, has been translated through half a dozen languages, rewritten multiple times over the last two thousand odd years and the parts relating to Jesus were written and compiled approximately 200 years after his supposed death, it's a minor miracle it has any consistancy at all.

I think they've determined that the first three gospels were written only about 40 years after he died, especially since the first one (Mark) makes no references to the destruction of the temple, while the other two (Luke and Matthew) do. I think the stuff like Acts and Revelations were written a fair bit after as well.

The compilation itself, yes, wasn't until a couple hundred years after.

You can put the inconsistencies in Luke and Matthew down to the fact that they definitely added a lot of stuff that wasn't in Mark - the Nativity, among other things. Matthew has different miracles I think (I'll have to recheck), and has the Sermon on the Mount while Luke has the Sermon on the Plain.

Why am I ignoring the gospel of John? Because he was a self-aggrandizing little arse.

[Neruz]

It's actually pretty much impossible to pin down exactly when the gospels were written, as the church has added and removed chunks from them so often over the years that the correct answer to "What time between ~50 AD and 2000 AD were the gospels written?" is "Yes."

[Vester]

I suppose that's so. But the accepted timeframe of Matthew and Luke is "sometime after the rebellion", where the one of Mark is "sometime before".

Anyway, I don't think they removed chunks out of individual books. They just removed whole books from canon. Which is in its own way worse.

Heh.

[Neruz]

The gospels have all been pretty heavily analysed and several of them show ovbious signs of tampering, including additional entries written in different styles and language use to the original entries. There's thousands of books on the subject if you're interested, including more than a few that conclude that the entire Jesus story was probably made up.

[Vester]

THAT WOULD INVALIDATE MY ENTIRE EXISTENCE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEEEEE

Actually what I mostly care about is the basic "social justice" message. If the Catholic Church ever completely loses sight of that it can go right to hell.

[Ampersand]

You can have a message of social justice without demanding people believe in magic.

[Leafsnail]

As long as the Pope continues helping the spread of HIV, I'm not gonna listen to a word he says.  How dare a man responsible for thousands of deaths tell me what is right and wrong?

[redacted123]

I don't think it's entirely fair to consider him responsible but he has been incredibly disgusting in that he's hindered aid in the form of sex education and condoms.

[Vester]

As long as the Pope continues helping the spread of HIV, I'm not gonna listen to a word he says.  How dare a man responsible for thousands of deaths tell me what is right and wrong?

Too bad for him then. Current Pope is way more conservative than previous ones.

Also he's a dick.

I don't see Church reform happening, or that 40 year-old decision being repealed until he dies.

[Muz]

As long as the Pope continues helping the spread of HIV, I'm not gonna listen to a word he says.  How dare a man responsible for thousands of deaths tell me what is right and wrong?

I think the point is that you're not supposed to have sex (not with random people, at least). No sex means no AIDS via lack of protection. You can't just have sex willy nilly and blame the Pope for not letting you use condoms. You either do it with protection or not at all.

[Leafsnail]

You either do it with protection or not at all.

And what is the Pope telling millions of his followers in Africa that they can't do?  Ah yes, use protection.  Sure, they could ignore him, but shouldn't "God's representative on earth" take a bit of responsibility for his actions and influence?

[Muz]

He's telling them to not have unmarried sex. I'm pretty sure that's the main point.

[Rilder]

These days you pretty much have to be as fanatically christian as the pope or get married when your 12 to not have pre-marital sex.

[Jackrabbit]

These days you pretty much have to be as fanatically christian as the pope or get married when your 12 to not have pre-marital sex.

Amen (or whatever) brother.