There Are Many To Be Had
Published on June 5, 2009 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

Say it's not so! 


Comments (Page 3)
18 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jun 09, 2009

But his word does, right? If the Bible is the word of God, then why the claimed missing parts? If there are gospels and other parts that are apocryhpa - then yes, that is revising or adjusting. You cannot accept things selectively, right?

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? 

on Jun 09, 2009

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?

on Jun 09, 2009

Bored and pissed off; So no one tick me off or I'll open a can of whup yer behind!

Lol, but emotion doesn't make a good, logical, argument.

on Jun 09, 2009

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?

on Jun 09, 2009

Either you use it, or uses you. Right?

Hadn't thought of it like that. 

on Jun 09, 2009

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.

 

 

on Jun 09, 2009

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. 

on Jun 09, 2009

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.

on Jun 09, 2009

You cannot accept things selectively, right?

right.  The gospels and other books of the bible had to meet certain criteria.  I can list the criteria if you'd like. 

If there are gospels and other parts that are apocryhpa - then yes, that is revising or adjusting.

yes but that doesn't make it right.  Whenever you have an original anything, there are always imitations out there. 

But his word does, right? If the Bible is the word of God, then why the claimed missing parts?

missing parts? 

I don't think that Einstein believed in the God that Christians do either

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. 

If I'm not mistaken, Einstein held that belief in a god was not incompatible with science, but I'm not so sure that he believed organized religion and science 'go together' as you suggest, or that the Bible and science do so.

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. 

 

on Jun 09, 2009

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?

awwwwh pul-eeese don't tell Lula. 

We've been over this way too many times. 

Shhhhh

on Jun 09, 2009

right. The gospels and other books of the bible had to meet certain criteria. I can list the criteria if you'd like.

By all means. It could help explain why there are missing books/i.e. "none-canon" books.

missing parts?

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.

yes but that doesn't make it right. Whenever you have an original anything, there are always imitations out there.

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?

 

 

on Jun 09, 2009

awwwwh pul-eeese don't tell Lula.

We've been over this way too many times.

Shhhhh

 

Haha.

Honestly, that's how I feel when I go to debate certain people. It's like, "Oh great, here we go again..."

on Jun 09, 2009

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.

No he didn't.  He may have believed so, but he didn't know.

on Jun 09, 2009

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.

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.

on Jun 09, 2009

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. 

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.

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. 

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?

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. 

18 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last