Say it's not so!
Ah, and now comes the argument between KFC and Lula about which books of the Bible were put there by who, etc. etc. etc.
Sheesh Alderic, are you bored today?
Bored and pissed off; So no one tick me off or I'll open a can of whup yer behind!
Okay?
Lol, but emotion doesn't make a good, logical, argument.
True, but then again...it's actually been known to help my thinking; it just depends on how you harness/use it. Either you use it, or uses you. Right?
Hadn't thought of it like that.
There's a theory (for want of the right term), I don't rememeber the name, that suggests that emotions can be used for your sake. Instead of being just wildly angry, you can use that anger. You could divert it to a positive use.
Example: I was angry at a friend, so...instead of lashing out I used it to get stuff done.
Understand the premise, have actually acted upon said premise. I didn't know there was an actual theory for it though... but then there is a theory for everything now.
Indeed, everyone has a theory.
right. The gospels and other books of the bible had to meet certain criteria. I can list the criteria if you'd like.
yes but that doesn't make it right. Whenever you have an original anything, there are always imitations out there.
missing parts?
Einstein was a Jew. He didn't believe in a personal God like many Christians do but he did believe in a deity or a creator. He knew there was something out there.
Obviously that can't be true as the RCC and Galilao bumped heads on a scientific matter that everyone likes to bring up. I never said anything about "organized religion" and science going together. When I said "religion" and science go hand in hand I was referring to the bible. Usually I try to separate the two (religion and bible) but in this instance I didn't.
I'm not a religionist. I don't promote organized religion. I promote the gospel. There's a big difference. Many know their religion backwards and frontwards but don't have a clue what the book says.
awwwwh pul-eeese don't tell Lula.
We've been over this way too many times.
Shhhhh
By all means. It could help explain why there are missing books/i.e. "none-canon" books.
There's books, for example (off the top of my head): Judith, Esther, etc. These are parts of the bible that, over time, publishers and others have left out. I mean, seriously, if you're going to tell the whole story...tell the whole story, right?
Why leave things out, even if they may or may not be redundant.
Limitations, or selectiveness? Either you present the word of God as is, or you don't - and its hypocritical when you claim that you have the word of god, while knowingly leaving out texts.
Right?
Haha.
Honestly, that's how I feel when I go to debate certain people. It's like, "Oh great, here we go again..."
No he didn't. He may have believed so, but he didn't know.
He may have been a Jew by heritage, but not really through his beliefs. (Does that make sense?) And yes, Einstein referenced God a good many times, so I agree that he believed in a diety of some kind.
Yes, that's about right. What's interesting is the Christians like to think he was a Christian and the atheists like to think he was an unbeliever but in fact, he was hovering in the middle. He denied that he was an atheist but he didn't believe in the personal God of the Christians either.
Judith. It's not about being redundant. It has to do with being cohesive and correct. Some of these books in question had either questionable authors, errors and didn't read at all like the inspired word of God. I'll give you the critera that had to be met later. Not enough time to put it here now.
right but there weren't any texts left out. What we have is correct. The texts that were "supposedly" left out were either full f errors, contradicted the known scriptures or had no connection to any of the known books. Christ never quoted from any of them and that was a biggie. He verified almost all of what we call today as the OT. The 66 books of the bible are like five fingers on a glove. They fit together perfectly and are meant to be together.