9-11

We're even then.

Actually many thinkers of the centuries past have gone much further in rejecting the writings of the Bible without losing their religion; they were the first to criticize the works, in a long awaited revival of textual criticism in the 15th and 16th centuries and after. Before the Age of Enlightenment you cannot say of any Europeans that they were not Christians, yet there were plenty of them who criticized the texts of the bible.

 

And most of them were burnt...
Some church authorities needed a few lessons in grace!

Actually, on a serious note - which 'Christian' person actually criticised the word of the Bible?
Not the interpretation of the Bible, nor how it was translated (a la Wycliffe), but the actual text.
I need names!

 

Can´t help you there, I´m afraid.

Wycliffe, and those who came after him ( Jan Hus etc. ), attacked the Pope and the church, not the scripture.

 

Erasmus for one wrote critical comments on the New Testament.

 

He didn´t critisize the actual text. ( I should have been able to explain this better, but I´m afraid I don´t know the English terminology ). That Erasmus wrote critical comments means that he analysed the scripture, perhaps disagreeing with others on how to interprete a certain passage ( he was in strong opposition to the scholastic theology ), but not that he critisized the Bible.

 

Spinoza?

 

Spinoza was Jewish. Well, until he was expelled from his synagouge at least.

 

Corpcasselbury, please stop condemning people to hell, especially other members of the forum. Critisizing the Bible, Christianity or the Church is not the same as a personal attack, but a right for every person in the free-speaking world. If you can´t accept that right, then I would suggest that you stay away from discussions about religion in the future.

 

Skua, I have condemned no one to Hell; that is not within my power to do. And I have the right to express my opinion about this subject; how do you justify trying to stifle that while upholding the rights of those who disagree with me to express themselves? I have not told anyone to be silent on this or any other subject, nor have I called names or used profanity or other disgraceful language; I have merely expressed my point of view. And while I do thank you for your concern, I am perfectly capable of deciding what I will or will not discuss in this forum.

 

Skua means that you express your view as if it were fact, where it is just another view, like mine. And in this view you "condemn" people to hell by stating that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus will eventually go to hell because that's in the Bible. Please try to express your Christian opinion like the other Christians here: in a reasonable, open-to-others manner in which no one needs be told he will go to hell.

 

I see.

 

Well, it is worth pointing out at least once.

 

No, it isn't. It's not necessary. It doesn't matter to those who don't believe it, since they don't believe in hell either. Maybe they don't even believe in an immortal soul.

 

Let´s put an end to this right now.

1. Telling someone that they are bound for hell is considered an offence, regardless of whether the offended actually believes in a hell or not. You´re all free to have an opinion about who´s going to hell, but you´re not allowed to express it on this forum.

2.

Actually, it is the forum administration who decides what will be allowed to be discussed on this forum.

3. If anyone have any further comments or questions, please use the PM function.

 

Fair 'nuff

Still waiting for examples Roel!

 

Cornered, outnumbered and outgunned. Must surrender the statement.

Vercingetorix style!

 

An interesting view on Al-Qaeda and terrorism generally...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4171213.stm
Your thoughts please...

 

As it comes forward on this site I like the point made in the programme discussed. While terrorism is indeed a threat to law and order it is not a world-spanning organization with any power beyond that of blowing up trains, planes and other public places and scaring people. I think it is very sane to point out that Al Quaeda, rather than an all-powerful organization, is a frustrated minority that does not have the support or understanding of any significant group within the Muslem world.

What follows from this is that any action taken by a Western country to "punish" the muslim world for housing terrorist groups will have a negative effect; they don't support the terrorists and therefore see no reason for violence and death brought to them by invading forces.

 

Words of Wisdom Roel.

It is surprising how many think that arabs and Muslims are all AlQaeda.

 

Wise head, young shoulders.