The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ they feel comfort in hoping for cake or honey or barfi or baklava

in fact this entire thread proves that. "YOUR best encounter"

people use the parts of a religion that suits them and makes them feel the most comfy. It is true for all religions, from the most fundamental followers to the most occasional followers.

example: a lot of religious texts give instructions on how to treat your slaves, but today we do not feel comfy having slaves as it is no longer socially acceptable and so we set aside that part of the doctrine for some given reason.

[Humes]

I once heard someone say that Christianity would be a lot like fundamentalist Islam if Christian society hadn't become so "developed".

I laughed, because the word he should have actually been using was "secular".

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ there are fundamentalists in every religion and rightfully so

There is an argument that all religious people should be fundamentalists, because you cannot be half of a religion (half muslim, somewhat christian or kinda hindu), you need to follow a religion completely, in it's entirety. You cannot pick and choose what you want to practice and what you don't.

[pioneer]

LOL@ the long copy/paste replies from the religionists

[Chimera]

*runs in thread*

did someone say barfi?

[streetbeastINC.]

exodus 32 26 -29 the god of the bible has issues......

26then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, "Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me." And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. 27And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.'" 28And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. 29And Moses said, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day."

[meccalli]

I think he has right knowing that the people he just took out of egypt are having orgies over metal.

[d spike]

great!!! so now d spike in all of this,how did you manage to come up with this?

As usual, you didn't read one bit of what I wrote. Thanks for avoiding actually making a response to what was posted... You never fail in this regard.

LOL@ the long copy/paste replies from the religionists

What else was I to do?
He spouted a set of errant nonsense, and while he might refuse to learn, it is important that empty-headed folks (who might read his posts and consider that he might be right) get to see the facts involved (of which he is either ignorant, or hoping don't come to light) in order to recognize his codswallop for what it is.

My apologies to all those who prefer large font, gaudy pictures, and short sentences with small words.

[d spike]

^ there are fundamentalists in every religion and rightfully so

There is an argument that all religious people should be fundamentalists, because you cannot be half of a religion (half muslim, somewhat christian or kinda hindu), you need to follow a religion completely, in it's entirety. You cannot pick and choose what you want to practice and what you don't.

Fundamentalism is a lazy, cowardly approach to religion. It is the "Easy Street" approach - which hardly ever works in reality.
Just follow "the" instructions, and you'll make it. No room for individuality - so why were we created as individuals, if we are expected to deny it to succeed?
It is the perfect style of religion for sheep - no thought required, just obey.
What actually happens is more and more "instructions"/rules surface as the scripture of choice is studied. A perfect example of fundamentalism was the Pharisees' belief system, which became more of memorizing and following rules than trying to have a relationship with God and His creation.
We are created as individuals for a reason - our individuality adds to the beauty and expression of the creation. Our ability to rationalize and use logic is another gift that eventually is to benefit and enrich the human experience. Man's relationship with God (which is what religion is) must reflect the individuality and intelligence of those who share in it, and is deepened by the quality of these attributes that one develops in life, in turn further enriching the relationship with the Creator, and the experience of His creation.

[pioneer]

great!!! so now d spike in all of this,how did you manage to come up with this?

As usual, you didn't read one bit of what I wrote. Thanks for avoiding actually making a response to what was posted... You never fail in this regard.

LOL@ the long copy/paste replies from the religionists

What else was I to do?
He spouted a set of errant nonsense, and while he might refuse to learn, it is important that empty-headed folks (who might read his posts and consider that he might be right) get to see the facts involved (of which he is either ignorant, or hoping don't come to light) in order to recognize his codswallop for what it is.

My apologies to all those who prefer large font, gaudy pictures, and short sentences with small words.

nah i talkin bout megadoc n bluefete

[megadoc1]

great!!! so now d spike in all of this,how did you manage to come up with this?

As usual, you didn't read one bit of what I wrote. Thanks for avoiding actually making a response to what was posted... You never fail in this regard.

mr d spike I asked you this question because of the fallacy you blatantly committed.
anyone can look back and see that you made a claim that, is an external argument to the church

Well, if you are going to swallow everything in the bible wholesale, you are going to end up in a certifiable mess, as the bible is simply a massive collection of writings, made up of many books, written by people who differed in outlook, religious beliefs, and culture. There are writings within the bible that contradict other writings within the bible...

then seek to substantiate it with an internal argument within the church

...so what are you really asking? Luther rejecting scripture have nothing to do with me...
I follow Jesus not Luther.

How nice...
Cut a long story short... which "Bible" do you use?

Something wrong, megadoc? Why is this question so hard to answer? It's not like I'm asking you why God allows kiddies to be raped...

maybe because what bible I use have nothing to do with what we were talking about............

Nice duck.




Wait a minute... weren't we talking about the Bible? Which one do you accept as a proper translation?

then delivered your selected side of the argument

Which one do you accept as a proper translation?

...to a new christian I will suggest the kjv or nasb

The KJV and the NASB, while the former is great literature and the latter is a decent modern translation, are both lacking certain books which were in the Septuagint, and so are not complete - which then raises the question whether they can be accepted as 'proper' translations.

the fact is the bible (the books)is an actual collection of books that is believed to be inspired (God breathed.)by God, Christians because of their faith in Jesus, can recognise the work of God hence the compilation of the bible....

So these very Christians accept books, such as Maccabees, and compile them with others in the Bible, as they considered them all "inspired", and Luther comes along hundreds of years later and tosses them out, simply because they don't fit his concept of his religion (he even modifies other parts of the Bible, admitting to rewording, even creating, new phrases)... to the point where his errors are upheld for decades, some for centuries...
...and you come claiming

the fact is the bible (the books)is an actual collection of books that is believed to be inspired (God breathed.)by God, Christians because of their faith in Jesus, can recognise the work of God hence the compilation of the bible....

...yet you consider bibles that uphold Luther's errors (and lack books of scripture) as proper translations...

My point is:
How can you consider the compilation of scripture to be "inspired", and the "Word of God"... yet quite happily ignore other perfectly acceptable books that

a man (who) can do as he choose

chose to throw out?
You spout this knee-jerk claptrap:

Luther rejecting scripture have nothing to do with me...
I follow Jesus not Luther.

...and then recommend two translations that hold to Luther's decisions regarding their content.
You still need to think about what you write before you hit that 'Submit' button. (I've told you this already moons ago, haven't I? )
You might think you are "following Jesus", but you are actually walking down Luther's path.
...but don't take my word for it... do some actual research for once... at least "google" Luther, for crying out loud, if finding an encyclopaedia is too much for you... see for yourself.

...one of the reasons why the kjv is preferred by many is that at the time of its translation, there wasn't alot of the "agendas" we have in this modern day

Agendas like preferring accurate translation? Please... the KJV is preferred because its archaic tongue gives it an "official" sound, which simple folk like to hear... "Yeah man, dat soun' like de real ting!"

then added to it the "dirt" you dug up on luther and attempted to find me guilty by associating me with luther through our similar beliefs ......
but because after all this I still manage to hold my position and despite the fact that all what you just argued for contradicts what you started with
you turn around and accuse me of refusing to learn or not reading what you wrote?
Bravo!!!

and to top it yuh still can't tell me what version of the bible you think I should consider using ,one that you find acceptable.

[dtp]

u don't need religion to d spiritually strong

pioneer and d spike [edited] u all b negative about god seriously


u all no d more u all try to find fault in god u are sealing your own fate

[megadoc1]

pioneer and d spike [edited] u all b negative about god seriously

c'mon how yuh could say that ? d spike is a very intelligent fella and has added some valuable stuff on here and I am grateful for being exposed to this kind of stuff

..and as for pioneer ,doh be on he.
show some respect nah

[Scoobert Bauce]

pioneer and d spike [edited] u all b negative about god seriously

c'mon how yuh could say that ? d spike is a very intelligent fella and has added some valuable stuff on here and I am grateful for being exposed to this kind of stuff

..and as for pioneer ,doh be on he.
show some respect nah

lol, owned

[dtp]

we maybe i went over board


got my sheit edited too

[d spike]

u don't need religion to d spiritually strong

pioneer and d spike [edited] u all b negative about god seriously


u all no d more u all try to find fault in god u are sealing your own fate

What makes you think I have said anything negative about God? ...unless you equate fundamentalists with God...

[d spike]

mr d spike I asked you this question because of the fallacy you blatantly committed.
anyone can look back and see that you made a claim that, is an external argument to the church

Well, if you are going to swallow everything in the bible wholesale, you are going to end up in a certifiable mess, as the bible is simply a massive collection of writings, made up of many books, written by people who differed in outlook, religious beliefs, and culture. There are writings within the bible that contradict other writings within the bible...

then seek to substantiate it with an internal argument within the church...

then delivered your selected side of the argument...

then added to it the "dirt" you dug up on luther and attempted to find me guilty by associating me with luther through our similar beliefs ......

"Your" similar beliefs? Good grief, man... your beliefs are based on the nonsense Luther concocted... unless... (shudder) you are a charismatic Catholic in disguise...

but because after all this I still manage to hold my position and despite the fact that all what you just argued for contradicts what you started with
you turn around and accuse me of refusing to learn or not reading what you wrote?
Bravo!!!

Firstly, I doubt your position will ever change (unless another possessed girlfriend comes along), so stating that it hasn't doesn't mean anything;
Secondly, I have not contradicted myself. This has only happened in your mind because to you, everything is in a state of extreme polarization where religion is concerned, so to you, someone stating that the Bible isn't to be taken literally must mean that they don't accept the Bible as scripture.
Unfortunately for you not everyone is a fundamentalist - most of the world's Christians aren't (fortunately for the rest of us).

and to top it yuh still can't tell me what version of the bible you think I should consider using ,one that you find acceptable.

What really tops it... is that you can't/don't read (it must be those blinkers you wear... they get in the way)

The KJV and the NASB, while the former is great literature and the latter is a decent modern translation

As far as what I find acceptable, as I told you before

when they (a believer) ask me, I tell them.

So, now to deal with this:

anyone can look back and see that you made a claim that, is an external argument to the church

then seek to substantiate it with an internal argument within the church...

then delivered your selected side of the argument...

As stated previously (and often), your concept of Christianity is warped, as is your sense of logic. Claiming that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally is NOT an "external argument to the church". This belief of understanding the scriptures in the context in which they were written is quite acceptable within mainstream/orthodox Christianity.

You don't agree with this. You accept the Bible completely, literally.
Therefore I raised an argument that would make an intelligent person realize the error made here:
If a person accepts the Bible literally, and is shown that the scripture they hold is actually incomplete, then they would be faced with a choice: either accept the missing books as scripture (as they originally were), or admit that the Bible is made up of writings that differ in quality - in other words, it is not all "inspired". To admit the latter (which is what all fundamentalists do initially) would then negate the idea that the original compilers of the Bible were led "by the Spirit", as history clearly shows many of those who chose the books later "tossed" by Luther were of the opinion that they too were inspired. Could their "connection" with the Spirit have been "intermittent"? No, of course not. All believers in the Holy Spirit would tell you that He either leads you, or not.
To admit the former would be to accede to beliefs that fundamentalists have major problems with, such as "Purgatory"... leaving only one other option: that while the scripture may be inspired, it is also the writings of men, human expressions of the divine... each in its own way telling its own story. There is a clear difference between the qualitative link with reality that exists in the Gospel of Luke and that of Genesis.


...but like I said, this argument only works with an intelligent person...

[megadoc1]

As stated previously (and often), your concept of Christianity is warped, as is your sense of logic. Claiming that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally is NOT an "external argument to the church". This belief of understanding the scriptures in the context in which they were written is quite acceptable within mainstream/orthodox Christianity.

You don't agree with this. You accept the Bible completely, literally.
Therefore I raised an argument that would make an intelligent person realize the error made here:
If a person accepts the Bible literally, and is shown that the scripture they hold is actually incomplete, then they would be faced with a choice: either accept the missing books as scripture (as they originally were), or admit that the Bible is made up of writings that differ in quality - in other words, it is not all "inspired". To admit the latter (which is what all fundamentalists do initially) would then negate the idea that the original compilers of the Bible were led "by the Spirit", as history clearly shows many of those who chose the books later "tossed" by Luther were of the opinion that they too were inspired. Could their "connection" with the Spirit have been "intermittent"? No, of course not. All believers in the Holy Spirit would tell you that He either leads you, or not.
To admit the former would be to accede to beliefs that fundamentalists have major problems with, such as "Purgatory"... leaving only one other option: that while the scripture may be inspired, it is also the writings of men, human expressions of the divine... each in its own way telling its own story. There is a clear difference between the qualitative link with reality that exists in the Gospel of Luke and that of Genesis.


...but like I said, this argument only works with an intelligent person...

wow ...I see your logic here and it makes for a great argument ...I would have to take some ... wait a minute this is flawed....................
when speaking about inspired scripture we refer to the writing of the text or the books but . here you assume inspiration regarding the action of the compilers that you cunningly based your argument on........ you cannot use the actions of the early compilers and even the later, Luther (the toss outer) to determine whether scripture is inspired or not
thats bs!
the inspired scriptures are insulated from the actions of the ones who compiled them
simply because the compilers were just that, the compilers, who decided what belong in the bible cannon for use in the church based on their (the compilers' )tradition , the scriptures claiming inspiration,a quarrel or two and a vote


The Greek word for canon stands for measure, rule for judgement, or authoritative standard.

[Scoobert Bauce]

*goes back to the first post in thread*
*watches date*

MY WORD. lmao 2 years dread? Let it go nah lol

[MG Man]

lols
see what a lil sarcastic comment does create?
muahahahahahahahaha

[meccalli]

lol great thread i tell ya.

[d spike]

when speaking about inspired scripture we refer to the writing of the text or the books but . here you assume inspiration regarding the action of the compilers that you cunningly based your argument on........ you cannot use the actions of the early compilers and even the later, Luther (the toss outer) to determine whether scripture is inspired or not
thats bs!
the inspired scriptures are insulated from the actions of the ones who compiled them
simply because the compilers were just that, the compilers, who decided what belong in the bible cannon for use in the church based on their (the compilers' )tradition , the scriptures claiming inspiration,a quarrel or two and a vote


The Greek word for canon stands for measure, rule for judgement, or authoritative standard.

Thank you for bringing this to an end with your illogic. You have just clearly demonstrated your inability to rationalize your point of view.
The argument is not whether the books were inspired or not, but how the books were chosen.
The books were written and existed separately, and had to be compiled in order for that worthy tome, the Bible, to exist. The crux of the matter is who compiled them, and how.
These writings are not part of a scientific theory that could be debated and proven right or wrong. They are based on faith.
Faith is what cannot be proven.
Therefore in order to decide which books were inspired writings, the goodly folk who had to make these decisions, had to rely on their faith, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit who they believed in - as you, no doubt, do.
So to consider your point:

the inspired scriptures are insulated from the actions of the ones who compiled them
simply because the compilers were just that, the compilers

then on what spiritual authority did they compile? Their "Tradition"? Whatever you think it was, if you think that was not good enough, then what makes the Bible any more relevant to you than, say, the Koran? Or better?
If it was good enough, then why did Luther think differently? (...remember that history has shown quite clearly the errors of that deluded gentleman who suffered from a vile mixture of good and worthy intentions and a superiority complex)

you cannot use the actions of the early compilers to determine whether scripture is inspired or not

So how were they able to make those decisions?

Your personal conflict as a fundamentalist that is caused by your holding the Bible in extremely high esteem, yet your low opinion of the compilers of the Bible (because they are not your brand of Christians) is quite evident.
I and my peers look forward to your response in this matter, as we are sure it will be even more amusing and illogical than the last. (For a group of folks who were not sure that this discussion would be beneficial, they certainly find it most entertaining!)

Thank you for your pleasant (but quite unnecessary) Greek lesson. My Greek and Latin is sufficient for these discussions. I would advise you to focus on your English (which has greatly improved, I must say - please keep it up) and more so on your History.

[megadoc1]

Thank you for bringing this to an end with your illogic. You have just clearly demonstrated your inability to rationalize your point of view.

my illogic ?....lol yuh mean your psuedo logic.
I may have demonstrated my inability to rationalize my point of view but that
does not negate he fact that your line of reasoning invented to support your claim was
full of illogic and cunningry ...I see no need for your attempt to shift the focus on me instead of what is actually being discussed ...are distractions a part of you technique?

The argument is not whether the books were inspired or not, but how the books were chosen.

ok then....are they inspired or are they not inspired ? what are we working with? this argument, really have to do with your claim that "they should not be taken wholesale else you will end up in a certifiable mess" if they were inspired how then would one end up in a certifiable mess when taking them wholesale?
this argument that you are now putting forward is to corroborate your former claim.
who are you trying to convince ?

The books were written and existed separately, and had to be compiled in order for that worthy tome, the Bible, to exist. The crux of the matter is who compiled them, and how.

no that's not the crux of the matter, it is , but in you secondary argument, the one that you attempted substantiate your former claim with , which the crux of the matter, is really about how one would end up in a certifiable mess

These writings are not part of a scientific theory that could be debated and proven right or wrong. They are based on faith.
Faith is what cannot be proven.
Therefore in order to decide which books were inspired writings, the goodly folk who had to make these decisions, had to rely on their faith, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit who they believed in - as you, no doubt, do.

agreed! but here you seek to extinguish the human element of the matter on the compilers part but only attempt to reintroduce it when drawing your conclusion against the writings themselves

leaving only one other option: that while the scripture may be inspired, it is also the writings of men, human expressions of the divine... each in its own way telling its own story

So to consider your point:

the inspired scriptures are insulated from the actions of the ones who compiled them
simply because the compilers were just that, the compilers

then on what spiritual authority did they compile? Their "Tradition"?

tradition is not a spiritual authorithy...
I think your question should be, on what authority did they compile which is a good question but who are the "they" you are speaking of? seeing that the argument regarding cannon was between already compiled scriptures..

Whatever you think it was, if you think that was not good enough, then what makes the Bible any more relevant to you than, say, the Koran? Or better?

the Holy spirit

If it was good enough, then why did Luther think differently?
(...remember that history has shown quite clearly the errors of that deluded gentleman who suffered from a vile mixture of good and worthy intentions and a superiority complex)

you assume that it was good then but there is not much information on opinions of men regarding the books before this disagreement surfaced, who knows they could have been similar to that of luther or beter or worse... the fact that there was a need to canonize the scriptures speaks a lot

you cannot use the actions of the early compilers to determine whether scripture is inspired or not

So how were they able to make those decisions?

by vote? tradition?, familiarity? ,personal agenda? lol... I belive its the scripture themselves that determined whether they are inspired or not

Your personal conflict as a fundamentalist that is caused by your holding the Bible in extremely high esteem, yet your low opinion of the compilers of the Bible (because they are not your brand of Christians) is quite evident.

If that is the opinion you hold ,I can't really help yuh dey however this have nothing to do with what is being discussed, unless this is the position that you considered as the "certifiable mess "

Thank you for your pleasant (but quite unecessary) Greek lesson. My Greek and Latin is sufficient for these discussions. I would advise you to focus on your English (which has greatly improved, I must say - please keep it up) and more so on your History.

sorry I was not speaking to you

[sMASH]

i may be wrong, but what i think mega is trying to say is that no matter how the book was compiled, like who did it, and what every they were going through, the end result was what was supposed to happen any way, that god intended it to reach that state.

is like in popular christianity self: the jews did all sorts of crazy stuff and killed jesus, but he was supposed to die anyway...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

one the most successful broadway plays from Andrew Lloydd Webber


Interestingly it was based on "political and interpersonal struggles between Judas Iscariot and Jesus, struggles that are not in the Bible."

[pioneer]

so thaz where megadoc av from

[d spike]

i may be wrong, but what i think mega is trying to say is that no matter how the book was compiled, like who did it, and what every they were going through, the end result was what was supposed to happen any way, that god intended it to reach that state.

is like in popular christianity self: the jews did all sorts of crazy stuff and killed jesus, but he was supposed to die anyway...

If that is what he is trying to say, then perhaps he should say it.
This concept however, is not logical (and despite what fundamentalists say, religion is logical) and employs the same rationale as "if you put a roomful of monkeys to sit each before a typewriter and allow them to plays with it, sooner or later one of them will type one of Shakespeare's works".
While there is nothing wrong in believing in God working through arbitrary circumstances (this is sometimes referred to as His Secondary Will) to believe what you are suggesting takes away the value of man's Free Will in aiding to bring about the achievement God had in mind for His Creation.
We are here to bring about (not via happenstance, but through obedience to love) that which the Creation was destined for from the moment of its creation.

[sMASH]

nice pick up thar pios,,,, but it strikes me some what, that, well, mega is accused of misrepresenting christianity, while his avatar pic is that of the character judas, whose actions aided in the supposed killing of christ... ah lil ironic coincidence


that monkey/shakespere analogy, i heard that before. but i think he means that self.
but which has the better odds, a room full of monkeys typing out the works of shakespere, or repeated chemical reactions becoming more complex, eventually after millions of years resulting in human consciousness?

although u may think it illogical, the idea ' it was foretold!!!' and ' the prophecies are being fulfilled..' are well accepted by many religious types, even me. there are many things that we are told would happen in the future, but the exact machinations we may not know about, until the end result is near. is like cars, all get u from here to there, but some use diesel, sum use gas, some use electricity, and in the past some used steam.

but,

[d spike]

my illogic ?....lol yuh mean your psuedo logic.
I may have demonstrated my inability to rationalize my point of view but that
does not negate he fact that your line of reasoning invented to support your claim was
full of illogic and cunningry ...I see no need for your attempt to shift the focus on me instead of what is actually being discussed ...are distractions a part of you technique?

Not distraction, but just an explanation.
I have told you time and again, that your problem is not your belief, but you. Christianity is quite logical... your natterings are not.

The argument is not whether the books were inspired or not, but how the books were chosen.

ok then....are they inspired or are they not inspired ? what are we working with?

What sort of question is that??? CLEARLY, you have (once again) not read my posts. It is most obvious that for the sake of argument, the scriptures are held as "inspired" (what else are "scriptures" anyway?)... I guess what is obvious to the literate is only obvious to the literate...

this argument, really have to do with your claim that "they should not be taken wholesale else you will end up in a certifiable mess" if they were inspired how then would one end up in a certifiable mess when taking them wholesale?
this argument that you are now putting forward is to corroborate your former claim.
who are you trying to convince ?

Your feigned ignorance belies your actual ignorance in this matter.
I have answered your question already. Others have gone before in great detail and answered it. You are just finding a phrase of mine too hard to swallow, so you keep digging at it like an old fool with a sore.

I will try once more, as simply as I can, to explain:
To accept the Bible literally is to invite confusion, due to the different idioms that exist throughout the multiple writings within it.
A good example is Genesis. Can one believe the incidents recorded there as factual, as one would with St. Luke's writings?
The Ark, the Tower of Babel...

while the scripture may be inspired, it is also the writings of men, human expressions of the divine... each in its own way telling its own story. There is a clear difference between the qualitative link with reality that exists in the Gospel of Luke and that of Genesis.

As I have said before, the writings in scripture are there to teach us... not necessarily a history or science lesson, but about God's relationship with His Creation, and the relationships within the Creation.

but here you seek to extinguish the human element of the matter on the compilers part but only attempt to reintroduce it when drawing your conclusion against the writings themselves

No lad. Big words and intelligent-sounding phrases only mean you are a good parrot - the things you say must actually apply to what you are talking about... remember you are not talking to one of your fellow street-corner Bible-thumpers here. If you want to amaze me, attempt rationality, not verbosity.

So to consider your point:

the inspired scriptures are insulated from the actions of the ones who compiled them
simply because the compilers were just that, the compilers

then on what spiritual authority did they compile? Their "Tradition"?

tradition is not a spiritual authorithy...

"Tradition" was your suggestion, not mine.

the inspired scriptures are insulated from the actions of the ones who compiled them
simply because the compilers were just that, the compilers, who decided what belong in the bible cannon for use in the church based on their (the compilers' )tradition

I think your question should be, on what authority did they compile which is a good question but who are the "they" you are speaking of?

(Typing... slowly... so... that... you... might... understand...) The people who compiled the scriptures into one book.

seeing that the argument regarding cannon was between already compiled scriptures..

Apart from the Septuagint, what else was compiled? Engage brain before releasing mout', nah man...

If it was good enough, then why did Luther think differently?
(...remember that history has shown quite clearly the errors of that deluded gentleman who suffered from a vile mixture of good and worthy intentions and a superiority complex)

you assume that it was good then but there is not much information on opinions of men regarding the books before this disagreement surfaced

What you mean is that YOU are unaware of such information. This information exists. Many of those men wrote, and more wrote about those men. Your ignorance is your affair - and this willful blindness to recorded history is most likely as a result of

your low opinion of the compilers of the Bible (because they are not your brand of Christians)

who knows they could have been similar to that of luther or beter or worse...

It is known... it's just that you don't wish to know... but you preach and berate and rebuke based on the collection they compiled...

the fact that there was a need to canonize the scriptures speaks a lot

Simply because there were other writings in circulation that WERE questionable - and these (please note) were left out. (And it wasn't that those writings determined themselves to be unfit... )

you cannot use the actions of the early compilers to determine whether scripture is inspired or not

So how were they able to make those decisions?

by vote? tradition?, familiarity? ,personal agenda? lol... I belive its the scripture themselves that determined whether they are inspired or not

Ehhhh?

Your personal conflict as a fundamentalist that is caused by your holding the Bible in extremely high esteem, yet your low opinion of the compilers of the Bible (because they are not your brand of Christians) is quite evident.

If that is the opinion you hold ,I can't really help yuh dey however this have nothing to do with what is being discussed, unless this is the position that you considered as the "certifiable mess "

I am not alone in holding this position.
Neither am I in need of your help

d spike is a very intelligent fella and has added some valuable stuff on here and I am grateful for being exposed to this kind of stuff

However, this conflict does add to the "certifiable mess" that fundamentalists find themselves in.

sorry I was not speaking to you

Very well then... but still make an attempt to learn some history... and, as far as your elucidation regarding the word "canon", apply what you seem to know regarding the word and its spelling in your posts please.

who decided what belong in the bible cannon for use in the church

I would hate to ask what use one would have for a cannon in the church...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

that monkey/shakespere analogy, i heard that before. but i think he means that self.
but which has the better odds, a room full of monkeys typing out the works of shakespere, or repeated chemical reactions becoming more complex, eventually after millions of years resulting in human consciousness?

ah! the fundamental difference is that in the case of the monkeys, we already know the outcome we are expecting i.e. Shakespeare's work. However in the case with evolution, we do NOT know what the outcome will look like. We have no idea what humans will look like or act like in 3 million years from now.

you are basing your logic on the belief that humans and all animals are the way they are because that is how they are supposed to look. But how could we know how we are supposed to look? How do you know we not supposed to look different? If we all had 5 eyes we'd all be sitting here saying that God created us with 5 eyes and you would say that is the way he meant it and that the odds of us ending up with 5 eyes via evolution would be as slim as monkeys typing Shakespeare.

However, the way evolution works, the life form evolves based on natural selection. Based on what is needed in it's environment for survival of the species. Giraffes evolved with long necks because the trees in their habitat have leaves that are high up in the branches. A giraffes heart is huge and can weigh up to 22lbs! It evolved like that to be able to pump blood up it's long neck and maintain blood pressure.