Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Gatefan1976]

oh so you don't like Jehova's Witnesses either eh?

if anyone was doing any "revising" of the Bible it was Luther himself as he was the one that went so far as to literally rip books out of the Bible and claim they didn't exist (i.e., what most Protestant denominations refer to as the Apocrypha but we refer to as the Deuterocanonical books)

No, what he means is that my catalogue of knowledge about RPG's is as relevant to the real world as knowledge of the bible.
Knowing a lot about a subject does not make that subject objectively "real"

[aretood2]

again....there is no defense whatsoever in the body of Magisterial teaching, that covers abusive and other immoral behavior....read the Catechism...until you do don't even TRY to claim yourself as some sort of expert on Magisterial teaching

You miss the point. How can the popes be the voice of God, if what they do defy God's teaching? How can the Papacy be holy, its holders have obtained it through unholy actions? How can the Church represent God's kingdom, if they have shown a desire for control over man's Kingdom? And by the way, what exactly did Luther rewrite?

You mean expert on an adaptation of an adaptation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a rewritten version of the Bible? Unless we find the Ark of the Covenant along with the original Bible, those experts expertise is to me completely bogus.

I'm an expert on Cthulhu's sacred teaching myself. Just ask Soul, he's my most devout fan.

Sure, if you believe every crazy militant atheist who claims to know and understand history and the relevant scholarship on the subject matter but in reality only knows what he reads on twitter.

No, what he means is that my catalogue of knowledge about RPG's is as relevant to the real world as knowledge of the bible.
Knowing a lot about a subject does not make that subject objectively "real"

What is that even supposed to mean?

Hamlet isn't real, and it has great worth in the "real world". The Hero's Journey isn't real, and it is worth billions and has provided jobs to thousands of people. Just because you want to knock a religion, it doesn't mean squat. And neither of those two things are claimed to be subjectively or objectively real.

[Chaka-Z0]

No, what he means is that my catalogue of knowledge about RPG's is as relevant to the real world as knowledge of the bible.
Knowing a lot about a subject does not make that subject objectively "real"

I have extensive knowledge of rune words in Diablo 2, some have extensive knowledge in magisterial teachings

My point was that the Bible has been redacted so many times how can you proclaim yourself an ''OG'' expert on the matter? You simply can't. To be perfectly honest I believe that Jesus would drop a swear or two if he saw what the Catholic Church institution has become.

Sure, if you believe every crazy militant atheist who claims to know and understand history and the relevant scholarship on the subject matter but in reality only knows what he reads on twitter.

My brother is just like that and I despise him for it. Atheists militants are just as bad in my book. You can't prove either position. I always found it ironic how these folks deny any existence of God(s) therefore it is a belief that no God exists. Atheism in itself becomes a religion.

If you want to know, I am an agnostic myself. Some might think I'm against religion, which is not the case. I only have strong opposition against any sort of institutions that seeks to control the masses using brainwashing. Trump flavored populism is another one of those.

[mad_gater]

You miss the point. How can the popes be the voice of God, if what they do defy God's teaching? How can the Papacy be holy, its holders have obtained it through unholy actions? How can the Church represent God's kingdom, if they have shown a desire for control over man's Kingdom? And by the way, what exactly did Luther rewrite?



Sure, if you believe every crazy militant atheist who claims to know and understand history and the relevant scholarship on the subject matter but in reality only knows what he reads on twitter.



What is that even supposed to mean?

Hamlet isn't real, and it has great worth in the "real world". The Hero's Journey isn't real, and it is worth billions and has provided jobs to thousands of people. Just because you want to knock a religion, it doesn't mean squat. And neither of those two things are claimed to be subjectively or objectively real.

and here you misunderstand what papal infallibility means...it doesn't mean that the current occupier of the Chair of St. Peter is infallible. It means that infallibility protects the papal office from the occupier's human weaknesses (kinda like the concept of respecting the Office of the President but not necessarily the person occupying that office)

[mad_gater]

You miss the point. How can the popes be the voice of God, if what they do defy God's teaching? How can the Papacy be holy, its holders have obtained it through unholy actions? How can the Church represent God's kingdom, if they have shown a desire for control over man's Kingdom? And by the way, what exactly did Luther rewrite?



Sure, if you believe every crazy militant atheist who claims to know and understand history and the relevant scholarship on the subject matter but in reality only knows what he reads on twitter.



What is that even supposed to mean?

Hamlet isn't real, and it has great worth in the "real world". The Hero's Journey isn't real, and it is worth billions and has provided jobs to thousands of people. Just because you want to knock a religion, it doesn't mean squat. And neither of those two things are claimed to be subjectively or objectively real.

oh and thus that's why I put "revising" in quotes.....Luther's "revision" of sacred Scripture involved him very publicly ripping out a bunch of books in their entirety and significant portions of others (these books and book fragments which we refer to as Deuterocanonical books and which Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha)...and also the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 was added by Luther as he translated the Greek text...it doesn't appear in the original Greek text

Sure you can argue that where the Greek text on this verse says "apart from the works of the law" is another way of saying simply "alone"....but it clearly talks about the works of unjust man-made laws that contradict Christ's teachings, not the good works people do as a result of their belief

[Gatefan1976]

Hamlet isn't real, and it has great worth in the "real world". The Hero's Journey isn't real, and it is worth billions and has provided jobs to thousands of people. Just because you want to knock a religion, it doesn't mean squat. And neither of those two things are claimed to be subjectively or objectively real.

Is your God OBJECTIVELY real?

[aretood2]

and here you misunderstand what papal infallibility means...it doesn't mean that the current occupier of the Chair of St. Peter is infallible. It means that infallibility protects the papal office from the occupier's human weaknesses (kinda like the concept of respecting the Office of the President but not necessarily the person occupying that office)

So Jesus selects craven sinners who have no chance at entering the kingdom of heaven (Fornicators, Adulterers, oath breakers, murderers) to be his vicar? This isn't a simple issue of being "infallible". Fallible is shouting a curse when you step on a lego. Fornicating in direct contravention of multiple commandments and then flaunting it is beyond fallible.

oh and thus that's why I put "revising" in quotes.....Luther's "revision" of sacred Scripture involved him very publicly ripping out a bunch of books in their entirety and significant portions of others (these books and book fragments which we refer to as Deuterocanonical books and which Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha)...and also the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 was added by Luther as he translated the Greek text...it doesn't appear in the original Greek text

Sure you can argue that where the Greek text on this verse says "apart from the works of the law" is another way of saying simply "alone"....but it clearly talks about the works of unjust man-made laws that contradict Christ's teachings, not the good works people do as a result of their belief

Those books contain nothing that isn't already supported in the Canon. All of them are in the old testament and are not verifiable to the same extent. It's also a dead give away that Jews don't use them either for the most part as scripture. In any case, there is much in those books that contradict Catholic teachings so Luther did you guys a favor.

Is your God OBJECTIVELY real?

[COLOR="#000080"It's nice to see Annoyed isn't the only one who enjoys moving goal posts. Well actually, you're changing the entire sport.
[/COLOR]

I have extensive knowledge of rune words in Diablo 2, some have extensive knowledge in magisterial teachings

Congratulations. But if you want me to take you seriously this silly quibs are not helping.

My point was that the Bible has been redacted so many times how can you proclaim yourself an ''OG'' expert on the matter? You simply can't. To be perfectly honest I believe that Jesus would drop a swear or two if he saw what the Catholic Church institution has become.

Like I said, I have 95 reasons to agree with the bolded...at least 95 actually. Well...not about the cursing, he won't do that.


When was the Bible redacted? To what extent? What examples do you have? What are you talking about specifically?

My brother is just like that and I despise him for it. Atheists militants are just as bad in my book. You can't prove either position. I always found it ironic how these folks deny any existence of God(s) therefore it is a belief that no God exists. Atheism in itself becomes a religion.

Don't let atheists "hear" you say that.

If you want to know, I am an agnostic myself. Some might think I'm against religion, which is not the case. I only have strong opposition against any sort of institutions that seeks to control the masses using brainwashing. Trump flavored populism is another one of those.

Well you're in luck. Brainwashing isn't real. It's just a term invented by people who make a good living on "deprograming" people. In the end, everyone has full control of their faculties...barring mental illness or other similar circumstances.

[jelgate]

He can join me. I've been saying that about atheists for years here. I remember how I used to tick off lordofseas when I said ot

[Gatefan1976]

It's nice to see Annoyed isn't the only one who enjoys moving goal posts. Well actually, you're changing the entire sport.

Excuse me?
YOU are the one saying the Bible makes no claim of being objectively real, I think it does.
I'm playing the same game, you not recognizing the moves doesn't mean I changed the rules.

Let me try this a different way.
Let's say I can speak perfect conversational Klingon, and I have a Klingon/English dictionary.
Does the fact that I can speak Klingon, and translate Klingon mean that Klingons exist?

[Chaka-Z0]

Congratulations. But if you want me to take you seriously this silly quibs are not helping.

What's the difference? Both are fiction / fantasy themed

When was the Bible redacted? To what extent? What examples do you have? What are you talking about specifically?

Nobody knows for sure and you can't really put a date in regards to the Old Testament, since it was a collection of scrolls, texts and books compiled over centuries, mostly of Jewish origins and traditions. Some say it might go as far as 1200 BC, your guess is as good as mine.

What I'm talking about specifically is the fact that Catholicism is based on a version of a book which has been constantly changing over the millennia, modified, translated, etc. Why are there so many branches to Christianity? Because nobody agrees.

Don't let atheists "hear" you say that.

Why not? Always fun to trigger them a bit

Well you're in luck. Brainwashing isn't real. It's just a term invented by people who make a good living on "deprograming" people. In the end, everyone has full control of their faculties...barring mental illness or other similar circumstances.

Call it what you will, I call it brainwashing.

Bolded: I completely disagree with that. Child soldiers? What about the ISIL extremists or any religious zealot? What about creationists that don't believe in evolution or that the Earth is billions of years old even though there are a TON of evidence proving otherwise? When you get to the point where you are deaf to reason and logic, I call it brainwashing.

[aretood2]

No, what he means is that my catalogue of knowledge about RPG's is as relevant to the real world as knowledge of the bible.
Knowing a lot about a subject does not make that subject objectively "real"

Here you speak to value or worth via relevance. To which I responded that it does have quite some worth and value beyond that of an RPG by using two fictional stories as proofs of concept. You made the wild claim that knowledge of the Bible or the Bible itself is as worthless as a house game.

Is your God OBJECTIVELY real?

Here you talk about the existence of God, which has nothing to do with the above

[COLOR="#000080"It's nice to see Annoyed isn't the only one who enjoys moving goal posts. Well actually, you're changing the entire sport.
[/COLOR]

Here I point out what a weird shift that was.

What's the difference? Both are fiction / fantasy themed

You have a lot in common with those militant atheists. And no, it doesn't count as fiction. Mythology is not part of fiction. But that never stops religion bashing.

Nobody knows for sure and you can't really put a date in regards to the Old Testament, since it was a collection of scrolls, texts and books compiled over centuries, mostly of Jewish origins and traditions. Some say it might go as far as 1200 BC, your guess is as good as mine.

So you're just assuming it happened? Well in that case I assume it didn't. Neither of us, in this situation, have any stronger claim to the truth so it kinda renders your point moot.

What I'm talking about specifically is the fact that Catholicism is based on a version of a book which has been constantly changing over the millennia, modified, translated, etc. Why are there so many branches to Christianity? Because nobody agrees.

Um...the Catholic Bible is pretty daming of Catholicism. Why do you think the Church didn't want it translated and why they didn't want a literate population when it was translated? Why do you think it was illegal in many places and times for lay people to own and read a Bible?

Call it what you will, I call it brainwashing.

Call what brainwashing? What is brainwashing? How does it work? What specific processes are undertaken by these groups to wash one's brain? What would I need to do to wash your brain? What are the neurological and biochemical processes involved? Why doesn't the government use that to prevent crime? Why don't schools use it to prevent delinquency and instil strong study habits and good citizenship values? Why don't multi million to multi billion corporations use it to establish unwavering brand loyalty and employee submission?

Bolded: I completely disagree with that. Child soldiers? What about the ISIL extremists or any religious zealot? What about creationists that don't believe in evolution or that the Earth is billions of years old even though there are a TON of evidence proving otherwise? When you get to the point where you are deaf to reason and logic, I call it brainwashing.

Notice that I mentioned "other similar circumstances", being a child fits in that category.

As for ISIS, excuse me? Those terrorists are all 100% responsible for their own actions and have no one else to blame. They are as guilty as the Neo-Nazis who shoot up churches and run over people with cars. No one is making them do it by some voodoo magic "brainwashing". They are simply people who saw/heard a message that suited their needs and met their worldviews and they invested themselves committing to that message wholeheartedly. There is no magic voodoo dance they can use to "wash my brain" into becoming one of those animals. That's the case from the Neo-Nazis to the Islamic Extremists to anyone similar.

And categorizing creationists with that lot is just downright offensive, and ignorant at best and malicious at worst.

[Gatefan1976]

Here you speak to value or worth via relevance. To which I responded that it does have quite some worth and value beyond that of an RPG by using two fictional stories as proofs of concept. You made the wild claim that knowledge of the Bible or the Bible itself is as worthless as a house game.

No, I said they were of equal value.
I played RPG's for decades, Do you think I would have done that if I found no "value" in it?.
I never claimed the bible was useless, nor worthless.
You just said that my knowledge was "as worthless as a house game"
Sounding slightly militant yourself there Tood.

Here you talk about the existence of God, which has nothing to do with the above

It's not a shift at all.

I think you should re-read the exchange Tood.

[Falcon Horus]

But what about open trial process?
You want to go to secret trials, where the details are hidden to all but the govt.?

That will end real well.

During trial is different than before trial when the investigation is on-going. Trials are public, no way around it.

You mean expert on an adaptation of an adaptation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a rewritten version of the Bible? Unless we find the Ark of the Covenant along with the original Bible, those experts expertise is to me completely bogus.

Could start with the Dead Sea scrolls and work your way back.

if anyone was doing any "revising" of the Bible it was Luther himself as he was the one that went so far as to literally rip books out of the Bible and claim they didn't exist (i.e., what most Protestant denominations refer to as the Apocrypha but we refer to as the Deuterocanonical books)

The folks who decided on what was good enough to be put in the bible at that gathering at Nicea sure didn't rip any out.

[mad_gater]

So Jesus selects craven sinners who have no chance at entering the kingdom of heaven (Fornicators, Adulterers, oath breakers, murderers) to be his vicar? This isn't a simple issue of being "infallible". Fallible is shouting a curse when you step on a lego. Fornicating in direct contravention of multiple commandments and then flaunting it is beyond fallible.



Those books contain nothing that isn't already supported in the Canon. All of them are in the old testament and are not verifiable to the same extent. It's also a dead give away that Jews don't use them either for the most part as scripture. In any case, there is much in those books that contradict Catholic teachings so Luther did you guys a favor.


[COLOR="#000080"It's nice to see Annoyed isn't the only one who enjoys moving goal posts. Well actually, you're changing the entire sport.
[/COLOR]



Congratulations. But if you want me to take you seriously this silly quibs are not helping.



Like I said, I have 95 reasons to agree with the bolded...at least 95 actually. Well...not about the cursing, he won't do that.


When was the Bible redacted? To what extent? What examples do you have? What are you talking about specifically?




Don't let atheists "hear" you say that.



Well you're in luck. Brainwashing isn't real. It's just a term invented by people who make a good living on "deprograming" people. In the end, everyone has full control of their faculties...barring mental illness or other similar circumstances.

There is nothing in those books that wasn't supported by canon? really? says you eh?

History, however, says something different

This is another main difference between Catholics and Protestants...Protestants treat the Bible the same way their founder did, as something that can be cherry-picked through and the proverbial "pits" discarded

Catholics treat the Bible as a complete seamless tapestry, wherein every passage must be considered within the context of the whole collection

If Luther REALLY wanted to address the clerical abuses going on at the time (again abuses that occurred DESPITE Church teaching, not because of them), he could've made his case entirely based upon Magisterial teaching and pointed out where the power-hungry clerics where falling away from it. But instead he used the fact of the abuses occurring as nothing more than an excuse to do things his own way rather than the way laid out by Christ Himself.

[mad_gater]

During trial is different than before trial when the investigation is on-going. Trials are public, no way around it.



Could start with the Dead Sea scrolls and work your way back.



The folks who decided on what was good enough to be put in the bible at that gathering at Nicea sure didn't rip any out.

Actually no...they didn't....Luther ripping out the Deuterocanonials was simply Luther taking a page out of the book some Jewish rabbis in the days of the early Church....who actually rejected those very same books that Luther ripped out because there existed no Hebrew manuscript for them and they'd made a rule that no translated or original book without an accompanying original Hebrew manuscript could be added to or be part of the Jewish canon

The Deuterocanonical books didn't fit that mold because for some of the translated ones the original Hebrew manuscript was lost, others were original Greek works and thus there would be no original Hebrew manuscript

The rabbis that did that were threatened by the growing influence of the then still fledgling Church and they enacted that measure in a desperate but ultimately futile attempt to halt its spread