Pride turned an angel into Satan.

The thing that annoys me, is if you dare go against the church or the church’s interpretation of the bible, you’re ostracised, demonised and labeled a heretic and blasphemer.

Didn’t Jesus himself sit and challenge so-called religious scholars when he was just 12 years-old? He sure pissed them off.

The church is still just a bunch of old, geriatric farts telling kids do as they say, as per their ancient, perverse interpretation of the bible, or you’re going to sit your ass in molten lava for the rest of eternity, without even a drink of water.

Just some more of my opinion on this ancient cult.

On your first point 100% agree. The bible is quite clear that christians are expected to use their minds and learn and think for themselves.

While Jesus did "challenge" religious leaders when he was young, that didn't "piss them of" the bible says the so called scholars were "amazed" but they might have been annoyed

"The Church" ? who is that exactly? I think you mean institutional christianity?

To me, "The church" represents the social gospel which is spending most of our time actually trying to improve the world and for our fellow person, and much less time worrying about dogmas or church doctrine.
 
I have read the bible twice, during my teenage years.(I see nothing with it, but each their own) But there's a pbs documentary thats on this topic...when I get the title I'll post it. It's pretty interesting, but it's 6 hours long though lol.
 
One can look up the dead sea scrolls, and texts of the massoretic jews, and see how they almost unerringly carried on the oral traditions over a 1000 year timeline.

Most biblical scholars would agree the text is correct, and the so called "errors" are mostly of a minor clerical nature. This however is a completely different subject than "interpretation" which in the case of the RCC? for them is a matter of cannon.

Interpretation and belief? That is an entirely different topic. But it is interesting that bible critics record one typo in 3000 bibles as 3000 errors.

Besides, the bible is a tool not the religion, and the first real christians did not have a heirarchy they did not have "leaders" They shared common property, sold the excess and gave it all to the poor and lived communally. Women had positions of importance, True Christianity is nothing at all like institutional Religion. One would need to read the the book of Acts which makes that clear.

as for the RCC scribes,? Might want to rethink that one, they were educated, scholars in many languages, latin and greek certainly, and probably hebrew as well. Might want to read about Jerome as well.
go argue all that with Dr.Erhman; I really don't give two shits about what you think you know.
 
go argue all that with Dr.Erhman; I really don't give two shits about what you think you know.
then you don't need to reply since I wasn't referring to you. Dr Ehrman is well known, I agree on much of what he has to say- however i'm not interested in parsing ever word letter and the like, haven't been for many years in fact. Im more interested in, walking the walk when I can.
 
On your first point 100% agree. The bible is quite clear that christians are expected to use their minds and learn and think for themselves.

While Jesus did "challenge" religious leaders when he was young, that didn't "piss them of" the bible says the so called scholars were "amazed" but they might have been annoyed

"The Church" ? who is that exactly? I think you mean institutional christianity?

To me, "The church" represents the social gospel which is spending most of our time actually trying to improve the world and for our fellow person, and much less time worrying about dogmas or church doctrine.
Here are the literal definitions of the word ‘church’. Please tell me which of these you mean, because you borrowed from a few of the literal meanings there?

View attachment 956853
 
Here are the literal definitions of the word ‘church’. Please tell me which of these you mean, because you borrowed from a few of the literal meanings there?

View attachment 956853
I assume the last definition pinky, its the only once that with one brush stroke covers almost all of christianity. Plus it works where I say about the social gospel as being a force for social change 🙂
 
I assume the last definition pinky, its the only once that with one brush stroke covers almost all of christianity. Plus it works where I say about the social gospel as being a force for social change 🙂
(Also covers where they should be — institutionalised)

Whaaat? Who said that??
 
(Also covers where they should be — institutionalised)

Whaaat? Who said that??

Now now…..let’s try and be tolerant and accepting of people’s beliefs. ☺️

While we may not all agree with each others faith, if it helps people navigate their lives, that’s a good thing. 😎
 
Now now…..let’s try and be tolerant and accepting of people’s beliefs. ☺️

While we may not all agree with each others faith, if it helps people navigate their lives, that’s a good thing. 😎
you're making things up or projecting again.

There is nothing intolerant with asking questions and challenging.

BUT then free thinking is difficult for some people.
 
For almost as long as human beings have been on this Earth, they have told stories about the world around them and what lies beyond. These stories and myths help people make sense of things they may not understand. From a dragon swallowing the Sun (a solar eclipse), to Zeus being angry (thunder and lightning), to God’s grand design of the universe. These stories helped shape the culture and explain the world around us for many people.

I would highly recommend the work of Joseph Campbell who explored archetypes and myths in many of his writings. The Hero with a Thousand Faces is a classic book. He can get pretty deep so be prepared. He was also a bit controversial. And if people are a nerd like me, Campbell’s work influenced George Lucas in the development of some of the archetypal characters in the Star Wars movies. 🤓
 
I’m thinking of getting delusions of grandeur and becoming a Jedi Knight.

And in my defence, I have a very good reason for disliking the church.

May the Force be with you 🤓

And of course you can like or dislike anything you want to. My original comment was in response to your insinuation that people who believe in religion are crazy (institutionalized).
I was simply suggesting a more tolerant approach, because even if you don’t agree with a particular religion, for many people that faith helps them get through life. That’s all. 😊 ✌🏻
 
(Also covers where they should be — institutionalised)

Whaaat? Who said that??
The social gospel? In the West, in particular Canada, The socialist /Leftist political parties and others were led by "church" Ie religious activists- who where determined to improve the lives of their fellow person.

Quakers, who don't actually use/have/own a church, have no hierarchy, but yet are christian, -- started Greenpeace, were leaders in woman's suffrage, and centuries before anyone else was treating the mentally ill with compassion and care, began a facility called "the retreat" and work tirelessly on poverty issues , legal reforms, and much more.

Christian anarchists, and most of the leaders of the social justice movements come from the ranks of the social gospel. In Canada, Tommy Douglas (a leader of the social democrats) also from the social gospel- and is the reason in Canada we don't pay for healthcare.

None of which means "the church" is good or bad or should or shouldn't be respected. Character and action are more important to whichever membership card one claims to have or be part of.
 
I have such admiration for liberation theology and such activists, but Christian Nationalist theocrats have been a thorn in my queer ass lately.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to act on my gay thoughts to own the fundies. Hail Satan. Praise Eris.
 
Top