Sunday, June 2, 2013 2:10:23 PM
Angilion: i was just pointing out that it's there.
But it isn`t - your interpretation isn`t the only one and it makes less sense than mine.
[quote]But in context, most the entire chapter is urging people to live righteously, instead of unrighteously which was outlined earlier in the chapter. Even though the examples outlined do indicate those who have rejected the knowledge of God (indicating someone who had faith) it`s beside the point, because the lessons are not just for the faithfuls to profit from, but for everyone: be righteous.[/quote]
And "be righteous" in those verses most likely applies to what was being stated to be unrighteous in those verses - leaving Christianity.
Friday, May 31, 2013 6:15:18 PM
False. Again, it looks like your knowledge of Christianity is based on incorrect pop culture.
Later on, Elizabeth who approved of the protestant movement started by Martin Luther as a backlash to the backwards and repressive teachings of the Catholic church at the time created the Anglican Church
They're right. You`re not.
The Church of England (i.e. the Anglican church) was created by Henry VIII of England taking control of the church in England, seperating it from Rome (the Catholic church).
The Anglican church later became a protestant church, but that`s not when it was created.
Friday, May 31, 2013 8:28:32 AM
@5Cats Well, parts of The Bible say one thing (Old Testament), and other parts (like the Gospels) say something different! So it's OK for Christians to ignore ONE part of the Bible if it`s been "replaced by" a different part. As others have mentioned, this is NOT hypocrisy at all.
Then could you please explain how a perfect being didn`t get his own rules right the first time? Why would he say one thing, then change his mind later? If perfect, his original declaration should have been without flaw. Why was it not okay to wear mixed fabrics, but then it was? Why did pork go from forbidden to okay?
Friday, May 31, 2013 5:29:38 AM
Too bad kilgore, that if you read the bible, it.. clearly.. calls a day the setting and rising of the sun. So no matter how many mental gymnastics you apply, you can't avoid the fact that just 7 sunsets and 7 sunrises occured during the creation week myth. Go read the bible if you don`t believe me. But let me guess, that is an error of the scribe, right? Let`s just cut right to the chase: what method do you apply to the bible to find out whether a particular passage is divinely inspired, or forged/altered in some way? Because if you call the things that are right, or haven`t been proven wrong "divinely inspired" and the ones that are wrong "forgery" that is just covering the bible`s tracks. Btw i know that most christians are not bigoted. But i can`t understand moderate christians. They hold a book as sacred yet they insist most of it is bullpoo. They believe in evolution, the bloodiest, most murderous way i can concieve of generating biodiversity, yet t