the modern version of the world.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Busby

Religions of whatever faith have basic tenants which the supporters of such tenants call 'truth(s)' . This means that if religions change according to new scientific 'insights' then they are not worthy of the name.

That is because they have overreached themselves. They can say we were wrong and stop pronouncing on these things.

In the middle ages the Church insisted that the world is flat and the center of the universe. The even executed people of a different opinion. They have abandoned the idea that they should talk about astronomy and cosmology. They could do likewise in other areas. Abortion, gays, etc

[Busby]

Originally Posted by markings

That is because they have overreached themselves. They can say we were wrong and stop pronouncing on these things.

In the middle ages the Church insisted that the world is flat and the center of the universe. The even executed people of a different opinion. They have abandoned the idea that they should talk about astronomy and cosmology. They could do likewise in other areas. Abortion, gays, etc

No, they can't. They are either true to their principles or deny for instance the Bible where it says 'do not kill' and 'no man shall lie with another'.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by Honza

I'm fed up with the modern version of the world. It is all science, fact and news. But it is very cold; it has no soul.

There's more to life than just the mind, there's also the heart. I'm sure there are all kinds of historical reasons why we became so off balance, but one of the reason to me seems to be these are patriarchal societies as opposed to matriarchal. An extreme example is the problem of femicide in Mexico.

We're also 'independent' which is really isolated from the family/community and people are on their own. That's not a natural way of doing things.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Busby

No, they can't. They are either true to their principles or deny for instance the Bible where it says 'do not kill' and 'no man shall lie with another'.

Are you claiming that the Bible came up with these? I don't think so.

[Shivani Devi]

The Bible is 'sposed to be 'The Word of God'...yet a lot of stuff got lost in translation somewhere or was just omitted altogether, which leaves me wondering how much of it is "God's Word' and how much of it is "man's word'?

Homosexuality, abortion, non-circumcision, working on the Sabbath...there are passages in the Bible against all of these things, particularly in Deuteronomy and the OT...I mean Sodom was named and subsequently destroyed due to 'man laying with man'.

The Church seems more accepting of all these things now...there are LGBTIQ priests and all now...when they are questioned about it, the reason given is that "the times/society has changed a lot since the Bible was written".

All I have to say about that is "so, does that mean the Bible is no longer the Word of God anymore?" they say "No, the Bible is still the Word of God". nothing has changed in that regard.

They cannot have it both ways, in my honest opinion. They either admit the Bible is wrong, or their lifestyle/practices are wrong according to it...there is no 'both'...it becomes an either/or situation.

It just seems very highly hypocritical of them to preach what they don't practice themselves.

If a 'new Bible' was written to incorporate the 'evolution of society', is that still 'God's Word' or does it become 'man's word' then?

This is what I have the most problems with, viz a viz Christianity.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

The Bible is 'sposed to be 'The Word of God'...yet a lot of stuff got lost in translation somewhere or was just omitted altogether, which leaves me wondering how much of it is "God's Word' and how much of it is "man's word'?

Homosexuality, abortion, non-circumcision, working on the Sabbath...there are passages in the Bible against all of these things, particularly in Deuteronomy and the OT...I mean Sodom was named and subsequently destroyed due to 'man laying with man'.

The Church seems more accepting of all these things now...there are LGBTIQ priests and all now...when they are questioned about it, the reason given is that "the times/society has changed a lot since the Bible was written".

All I have to say about that is "so, does that mean the Bible is no longer the Word of God anymore?" they say "No, the Bible is still the Word of God". nothing has changed in that regard.

They cannot have it both ways, in my honest opinion. They either admit the Bible is wrong, or their lifestyle/practices are wrong according to it...there is no 'both'...it becomes an either/or situation.

It just seems very highly hypocritical of them to preach what they don't practice themselves.

If a 'new Bible' was written to incorporate the 'evolution of society', is that still 'God's Word' or does it become 'man's word' then?

This is what I have the most problems with, viz a viz Christianity.

Yes, let's keep hitting the nails on the heads.!

[OmniRedVT]

Busby
You suggest if a New Bible was scribed would it be man's or God 's concerning what you called "Modern Evolution".The Christian perspective would irrefute it's moot since concerning the Law Mosche's Pentateuch Christ clearly uttered that the World would end without one iota of the law being changed.Not being apocalyptic for the sake of itself yet Christ verbally signafied no law changes.Christ rarely called a hardliner yet it would proclaim what many have expressed.That being some of the World has occasionally turned its back on God even constitutionally and I mention that with absolute respect for Senate and Congress yet it's been done.Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!This sent before 3:51 P.M. May 19th. 2017.God either directed Mosche or He didn't.I beyond believe.I witness.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

This is what I have the most problems with, viz a viz Christianity.

it isn't christianity. IT is the people who practice it. But you seem to have made the classic mistake, taking people at their word simply because they want to CALL themselves christians. Obviously few who call themselves that name are actually chrisitians in any sense that would have made sense to jesus if you do what jesus said and examine the fruits of people's labors... they just call themselves that and everyone is supposed to go along with their proclamation for themselves without questioning the reality of it. But on the OTOH Jesus specifically said this would happen and it wouldn't fool HIM.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by OmniRedVT

Busby
You suggest if a New Bible was scribed would it be man's or God 's concerning what you called "Modern Evolution".The Christian perspective would irrefute it's moot since concerning the Law Mosche's Pentateuch Christ clearly uttered that the World would end without one iota of the law being changed.Not being apocalyptic for the sake of itself yet Christ verbally signafied no law changes.Christ rarely called a hardliner yet it would proclaim what many have expressed.That being some of the World has occasionally turned its back on God even constitutionally and I mention that with absolute respect for Senate and Congress yet it's been done.Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!This sent before 3:51 P.M. May 19th. 2017.God either directed Mosche or He didn't.I beyond believe.I witness.

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the Bible aka God's Word doesn't change because the 'modern' world sees things differently. Basic principles are just that, basic, so are the fundament upon which everything is built. So I am saying that all these popes, bishops, vicars, priests, the clergy in general are not professing and living as they, as disciples of the WoG should be. There may be an occassional exception - but I haven't seen one yet.

[markings]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

The Bible is 'sposed to be 'The Word of God'....

It may be taken as such in a metaphorical sense. To take it in a literal sense is just absurd.