And the gene-pool gets a wee bit cleaner...

The great thing about this country is that we still all have the right to choose and practice any faith or non-faith in any way we want as long as it doesn't harm others. There has to be millions of examples where Atheists died from a belief that they were in full control of a situation where most would see a lack of common sense. And an argument about religion is about as productive as arguing about the best food or music.

homeagain wrote: My understanding of the issue is this.....the "phrasing" within that book was NOT INITIALLY
part of the Bible, it was INSERTED AT A LATER DATE.....(my understanding)....I am NOT an
expert on the Bible, however, I do understand when a text/content of something is REVISED/
or as BB indicated "mishandled".....the issue,from my POV is STILL one of translation....humans
have ATTEMPTED to interpret the Bible for eons and WITHIN THAT ATTEMPT lies the problem....
omissions/revisions/"mishandling" have created something OTHER than the ORIGINAL INTENT....

I STILL remain skeptical of mankind's meager attempt at understanding what the "word of God'
REALLY means......when the COMPLETE and unadulterated "word" is NOT available....so-o-o,
NO, I will not apologize for my thought process/postings on this issue.....WHEN would like to
discuss the OMISSION of the Gnostic Gospels and how THOSE ADDITIONAL books would have
RADICALLY changed the content of the "word of God".....??? :pop

So... why did some of those books you are so concerned about manage to be excluded from the Greek scriptures?

Maybe God made the decision about which gospels to include?
I don't consider myself a biblical scholar but I have had six university hours of bible study in a Catholic university and it is interesting to see which books made the cut. And which books the Catholic Church considers not exactly up to snuff. If God was guiding the people who wrote the Bible, why not what was chosen to be in the Bible?

FredHayek wrote: Maybe God made the decision about which gospels to include?
I don't consider myself a biblical scholar but I have had six university hours of bible study in a Catholic university and it is interesting to see which books made the cut. And which books the Catholic Church considers not exactly up to snuff. If God was guiding the people who wrote the Bible, why not what was chosen to be in the Bible?

Well of course I know why certain books were not included in the canon, and it was almost a 300 year process (and then some years) for that canon to be agreed on. But I can't seem to get Homeagain to actually discuss these books at anymore of a level than... "why aren't they in there."

First she goes off on a tangent that had NOTHING to do with Bailey Buds comments, and then when that's cleared up, she still can't engage herself in anything more than complaining about "why aren't they in there."

Like I asked. Homeagain... you tell me why those books are not in the canon?

Any serious study of scripture reveals the limitations of it.

There's clearly sections that were intended to be poetic or metaphorical.

There's sections that were obviously intended as literal --- while other sections were intended to be historic.

In terms of discerning what's right and wrong ---- snake handling is pretty low hanging fruit.

The point of scripture is righteousness, not showmanship. AND - the point of righteousness is not self-aggrandizement --- it's to encounter and share G-d's goodness.

From my perspective, G-d's INTENT was communicated by the Shema, and the commandments, and the great commandment. Everything else is really just icing on the cake (if you're diabetic - skip the icing).

Matthew 22:35-40

One of the great Rabbinical scholars noted that the only essential text was the "Do Unto Others..." admonition, adding that "all the rest is just commentary."

As a Unitarian, I was also taught this same message: we're to live in a humanitarian manner. All the rest is indeed icing.

And the Commandments of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) are simple:

1) Does it hurt when you do that?...Don't DO that.

2) Does it hurt someone ELSE when you do that?...Don't DO that.

3) If it feels good, do it. (See Commandment #2)

4) Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess.

FSM: 0:1-4

Words to live by... And it didn't take thousands of years of scholarship to come up with it.

LadyJazzer wrote: And the Commandments of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) are simple:

1) Does it hurt when you do that?...Don't DO that.

2) Does it hurt someone ELSE when you do that?...Don't DO that.

3) If it feels good, do it. (See Commandment #2)

4) Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess.

FSM: 0:1-4

Words to live by... And it didn't take thousands of years of scholarship to come up with it.

And it doesn't take one thread for you to break all of them.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: And the Commandments of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) are simple:

1) Does it hurt when you do that?...Don't DO that.

2) Does it hurt someone ELSE when you do that?...Don't DO that.

3) If it feels good, do it. (See Commandment #2)

4) Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess.

FSM: 0:1-4

Words to live by... And it didn't take thousands of years of scholarship to come up with it.

And it doesn't take one thread for you to break all of them.

:clap:
But LJ is an admitted athiest so why should she follow the tenets of Pastafari?

I follow what I wish to follow, and right now, the FSM/Pastafarians are waaaaay ahead of the nonsense of the other religions.