RELIGION

[maling]

ambot. mao ra gyud ni akong akong foundational thesis.

man thinks linearly.
assuming everyone believes in a God in whatever form or fashion, and everyone who believes in their God assumes that their God is Omniscient, they must also believe that their God is does not think linearly. therefore, the reason, the cause, the meaning of God's creation which is the essence of anything cannot be linear. thus, man can never understand creation if man continues to think linearly. imagine and visualize everything happening at the same time in your head. the past. the future and everything happening right now. the emotion. the rational. the beauty and horror. and understand it from a state of no time. other than that, man will only be telling lies. half truths. incomplete.
(*note: the essence of anything and everything is meaning. the why of its existence.)

religion is like profanity. for every idea we cannot express in normal vocabulary, we say either profanity or we call it religion. haha.

[mannyamador]

So I challenge you, MrBidldle. Kindly explain to us how Tyndale's translation became the first Bible printed by Gutenberg when it was printed nearly 69 years after the printing of the Latin Bible (by Gutenberg).

Because it's the truth.... mao lang gihapon NOT only this is history you deny, you also deny that Canon was already confident and decisive from 170 AD - 220 in the early churches and you also deny that the primacy of Rome didn't exist until the 3rd century... yes the church was catholic hence the creed not Roman Catholic, the great harlot.

Oh, so it's true because YOU say so? Yeah right. Maybe you ought to try your hand at being a comedian.

Try showing us some real proof next time. I'm still waiting.

[MrBiddle]

Oh, so it's true because YOU say so? Yeah right. Maybe you ought to try your hand at being a comedian.

Because the Bible says so and because history says so... even if I was saying "I declare" I have the Scriptures to support me of the geopolitical significance of Rome and it's hierarchy.

[Obese Bo Ricardo]

[img width=360 height=239]http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/s_w_a_t_/colin_farrell/swat2.jpg[/img]

KWINTAS OG PUSIL by
Andro Mazo

Asa man makita sa Bibliya nga si Pedro
ga rosaryo og ganovena?
Asa man makita sa Bibliya na si Pedro
nangurus og nisimba og rebulto?

Asa'y mas mauwawon nga kamatayon -
i-firing squad ba ka? o i-lansang ba sa krus?
Kung si Kristo gipatay, sa panahon ni Rizal,
musugot ba mo - mukwintas og pusil?

Gi ingon ba ni Juan nga kuwang ang kamatooran
sa atong kaluwasan og atong pagsangpit igo ra
siya niingon dili verbatim ang pagdocumento.
Si Pablo miingon paagi niining ebanghelyo,
maluwas kamo!

Asa man makita sa Bibliya nga si Pedro
nitugpa's Roma og nahimong obese bo?
Asa man makita sa Bibliya nga si Pedro kay
nihalad og mga kandila?

Giingnan na kamo, "kung sangyawon mo
namo... o anghel sa langit --
og ebanghelyo, lahi sa amo nang nasangyaw,
siya kay gibinaliw!"

[mannyamador]

Because the Bible says so and because history says so... even if I was saying "I declare" I have the Scriptures to support me of the geopolitical significance of Rome and it's hierarchy.

You mean you have YOUR WARPED PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures. That isn't worth squat.

I challenge you therefore:

1. Show me even a single verse that explicitly and unequivocally states that the Bible ALONE
is the SOLE source of Christian truth.

2. Then I challenge you to show me that YOU PERSONALLY have the infallible authority to interpret Scripture,
and as such YOUR PERSONAL interpretation can ever be wrong.

If you can do neither your entire line of argument sinks to the bottom.

I know you can't fulfill these challenges, but I would like to see your hilarious attempt to do so.

[MrBiddle]

1. Show me even a single verse that explicitly and unequivocally states that the Bible ALONE
is the SOLE source of Christian truth.

Rev. 22: 18 - 20, Is. 34: 16 But how can many of the Traditions of the RCC and the other scribes be "written word" (Jer. 8: 8 ) if most of their principles contradict and cannot be reconciled with the "dogmas" already indoctrinated in Scripture?

2. Then I challenge you to show me that YOU PERSONALLY have the infallible authority to interpret Scripture,
and as such YOUR PERSONAL interpretation can ever be wrong.

does the Magisterium have sole authority to interpret the Bible infallibly? (Rev. 19: 11 - 13 ) Wasn't it mentioned that the Scriptures won't leave us in the dark in matters very important that give light and understanding to the simple? (Ps. 119: 130 )
kung infallible ang RCC nganong mga verses sa Sirach naay uban gipangtangtang naay uban taas? ngano ang apparition sa Guadalupe mu contradict sa teaching sa RCC on the Immaculate Conception? Di daw Mary kay Mary being sinless is immune to the pangs of childbirth (Gen. 3: 16 ) but ngano ang interpretation sa santopapa lahi man?

So long as Christ's followers who believe through the message of the apostles and the prophets (Jn 17: 20 ) don't use passages arbitrarily to "infallibly" proclaim ridiculous dogmas and doctrinals.... and use the New Testament as a whole, it is a sign of good faith and fidelity and by that faith (Gal. 3: 14 ) it will no longer be anyone's interpretation but the Spirit's interpretation (Gal. 3: 14 again, Job 32: 8, 1 Jn 2: 27, 1 Cor. 2: 11 ) And the Holy Spirit certainly can't be mistaken.

If you can do neither your entire line of argument sinks to the bottom.

I know you can't fulfill these challenges, but I would like to see your hilarious attempt to do so.

I can and I just did...... not hilarious, but with style nonetheless ;-b

[Uri Geller Burton]

OT: naa na diay armalite sa panahon ni Rizal?! ;-b

[img width=360 height=239]http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/s_w_a_t_/colin_farrell/swat2.jpg[/img]

KWINTAS OG PUSIL by
Andro Mazo

Asa man makita sa Bibliya nga si Pedro
ga rosaryo og ganovena?
Asa man makita sa Bibliya na si Pedro
nangurus og nisimba og rebulto?

Asa'y mas mauwawon nga kamatayon -
i-firing squad ba ka? o i-lansang ba sa krus?
Kung si Kristo gipatay, sa panahon ni Rizal,
musugot ba mo - mukwintas og pusil?

Gi ingon ba ni Juan nga kuwang ang kamatooran
sa atong kaluwasan og atong pagsangpit igo ra
siya niingon dili verbatim ang pagdocumento.
Si Pablo miingon paagi niining ebanghelyo,
maluwas kamo!

Asa man makita sa Bibliya nga si Pedro
nitugpa's Roma og nahimong obese bo?
Asa man makita sa Bibliya nga si Pedro kay
nihalad og mga kandila?

Giingnan na kamo, "kung sangyawon mo
namo... o anghel sa langit --
og ebanghelyo, lahi sa amo nang nasangyaw,
siya kay gibinaliw!"

[mannyamador]

1. Show me even a single verse that explicitly and unequivocally states that the Bible ALONE
is the SOLE source of Christian truth.

Rev. 22: 18 - 20, Is. 34: 16

WRONG AGAIN. That passage in Revelations refers explicitly to a book, meaning itself. The Bible DID NOT EXIST when it was written, so it does not explicitly refer to the Bible. You are again engaging in an INTERPRETATION.

Furthermore, all it says is that you cannot add or remove from the said book. It does not say there are no other sources.

FAILURE. Try again.

2. Then I challenge you to show me that YOU PERSONALLY have the infallible authority to interpret Scripture,
and as such YOUR PERSONAL interpretation can ever be wrong.

does the Magisterium have sole authority to interpret the Bible infallibly?

Yes it does, given directly by Christ to the Apostles. No other perosn or group was goiven such authority. Read the Gospels, for goodness sake!

So long as Christ's followers who believe through the message of the apostles and the prophets (Jn 17: 20 ) don't use passages arbitrarily to "infallibly" proclaim ridiculous dogmas and doctrinals.... and use the New Testament as a whole, it is a sign of good faith and fidelity and by that faith (Gal. 3: 14 ) it will no longer be anyone's interpretation but the Spirit's interpretation (Gal. 3: 14 again, Job 32: 8, 1 Jn 2: 27, 1 Cor. 2: 11 ) And the Holy Spirit certainly can't be mistaken.

That's even more hilarious! Then why is it so many non-Catholic Christians "in good faith" make so many contradictory doctrines? There are over 25,000 "bible-believing" churches with different interpretations! You must be dreaming if you think they are all being guided by the Holy Spirit's interpretation. And if you think you're the only one using the Bible "in good faith", I have some Arizona beachfront property you might want to buy.

FAILURE again.

That's TWO FAILURES in a single message. What comedy do act in?

[MrBiddle]

That's even more hilarious! Then why is it so many non-Catholic Christians "in good faith" make so many contradictory doctrines? There are over 25,000 "bible-believing" churches with different interpretations! You must be dreaming if you think they are all being guided by the Holy Spirit's interpretation. And if you think you're the only one using the Bible "in good faith", I have some Arizona beachfront property you might want to buy.Â*

faithful ba diay nang naay magpatuyang og interpret? there's only one simple and blameless religion that God accepts James 1: 27 and it's devoid of esoteric mysticism or "Christianized" voodoo and whatnot. Furthermore those with interpretations that can't be reconciled with Scripture are those who aren't consecrated in Truth (Jn 17: 17 - 20 ) because they use the Word of God for their own expedient purposes. and don't pretend that the RCC doesn't have contradicting interpretations or oxy*****s at most (as I've mentioned in part of my post above)

WRONG AGAIN. That passage in Revelations refers explicitly to a book, meaning itself. The Bible DID NOT EXIST when it was written, so it does not explicitly refer to the Bible. You are again engaging in an INTERPRETATION.

Refering only to the last book? are you sure? God knew a Book containing all scriptures would exist (Isaiah. 34: 16 NAB)

[bad donkey!]

With all this arguement about who is right or wrong..Which one of the thousands of christian religion out there is the one with the right answers to the questions..Each one of them has different interpretations of the bible.Â* Different interpretation results in different religion..In my opinion there is no single human being that can prove that the bible is the only source of christian truth..The King James bible was the first of many that we are using now...Even then it was people who made the bible from the scriptures...Everybody in the world knows that bible did not exist when it was written.Â* The bible that we know today has undergone thousands of revisions....The original scriptures where written in Aramaic..Even today only a very few people can speak and write it in perfect grammar.Â* Who knows they could have made a mistake in translating them when the king james version was made..Without the original scriptures...No human can ever say the his or her interpretation is the right one...