211)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Locky12, you are assuming that everything written in the Bible is true. There are many writings from many different eras. We CAN DEFINITELY state what is written but we cannot validate that information for truth (unless we were present at the time of the event).
In this case, there is reason to doubt the truth in the document based on the many contradictions and conflicts.
But falling all that, the main reason for doubt is that the principles relayed in the Bible are practices that were present hundreds of years prior to Christ's birth which all seemed to portray a divine nature of various beings. Why is it that we conclude that all those other beings are "fake" but Christ is the one and only true divine being?
Also, when events occur today, we are quick to call the perpetrators insane, but in those days, they were divinly insipired doing the will of God.
Hmmm! I truly wonder...
Like I said, our source is not only from the Bible, but Apostolic Tradition. Our Pope and Bishops are a direct line from Christ.
For example, in the year 50 A.D. If Apostles/disciples spread the word to somebody, that somebody couldn't say to them, "Well, let me check the Bible". Because there was no Bible to consult!
Apostolic Tradition is JUST AS important as the Bible.
Yes, however, the apostles had an immediate stake in the game. They wanted to have the religion spread and eventually take over as the sole religion. For the Papacy and Bishops, that history is shrouded with the death, destruction and mayhem most unbecoming a religion. For example, at one time popes were the fathers of other popes. The papacy was passed elected not by the college of Cardinals, but by the Prince Electors who ruled the empire. The apostacy is responsible for considerable destruction. How fitting that you would turn to such arguments.
First of all, the Apostles spread the word at no apparant gain for their own, unless you consider a slit throat "riches".
Secondly, the Church is made up of imperfect men, spreading the perfect truth.
Your counter-argument, for what it's worth, completely ignores my point. Religion has been used repeatedly to bring about destruction and death. You cannot claim otherwise. Besides, you made reference to the papacy. Most of them were corrupt and in the job for their own good. At one time the Papal states controlled enormous wealth and land.
I did answer you:
Imperfect men trying to spread a perfect truth.
Some tried harder than others.
Some didn't try at all.
But the office never lost its' line of succession.
It's almost how the line of David went in the Old Testament. Some followed God better than others, and some didn't even try.
It would be the same as explaining to a fat person that he's got to diet and exercise to be fit. Then the fat person telling the doctor, "You're fat! I see you at Vitamin World buying different shakes and pills trying to lose weight yourself".
But the truth of "Diet and Exercise" never loses its' veracity just because the doctor himself doesn't do it.
Why do you need other sources if it is believed that the Bible is the complete inerrant word of God?
Pope and Bishops - Direct line from Christ - There are some gay bishops and some bishops have been known to sexually molest children. Would these also be direct lines from Christ?