WHY THE INJUSTIS

Pie · Postby **Pie** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:55 pm

hmm.. lets see...

1: There actually is a bible. As i said before, there are counltess "Bibles" in grees. These are HISTORAC texts of the gosple, dating way back to really old(Id say 'bout 100 a.d., when the gosple was mooving in greec.) also,tese bibles are.. say... 5000 in number.. and i was compairing them to the illiad. Thats why i brought them up. Also, in greec, it is REALLY HARD to mess up the bible. Its like this. In greek, there is no difference frome the saying "Man bites dog" to "Dog bites man", (Don't ask me how, i just read it somewere.)

2: no one bible.... I'd say thats true, but for good reasons. Such as, as for the gosple of timothy, it sais when jesus arose frome the dead, he comes out of the tome like.. 50 FEET TALL, and then THE CROSS COMES OUT WITH HIM AND TALKS!!!!!

3 It was actually posible for adam to have written the bible. You see, back then, it is possible that there was a large amount of vaper in the air that didn't ever come doun, and whater just came up frome the ground in the form of a mist, and the vaper in the air would have increased the air pressure, and it could have posably made people liv to 600 years old. And since adam could have lived to 3500, he could have written. See my other proof in the other discution about the bible.

4: hmm..... Actually, i agree. they didn't have the bible. They had there MEMORY, and other people memory. (By that, i mean first hand acounts) And considering that a normal person would memorise the INTYER TORA then their memory could have rememberd anything after it was written doun, say.. maby10-30 years after its occerance, were people still had a memory of the events that happened. Poor dead sheep and goats... they died to make the bible out of parchment.

5: Actually, there have been many times where the auther isn't the authur. But... those times, they could have probably just gone down the street and asked somebody"Hey, what happened at this point in time?" And they would still get a 1st person account of things that have happened.

Did it work? Did i dismantle your arguments?

Stan · Postby **Stan** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:29 pm

I know of a pretty good book as well called The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

It is very interesting in that it explores the arguments of why Jesus ISN'T Christ and debunks theories and uses logic to prove He is who He said he was.

If someone is interested in a copy of this, please PM me. I will personally send you a copy in the mail (assuming I don't get thousands of responses). Of course, if I did get that many I'd find a way to pay for it.

SekoETC · Postby **SekoETC** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:24 pm

Hey, I think my mom has that one. She shoves so many books to me that I usually just say "yeah yeah I'll check it out later", then put it in the pile with the rest and forget.

chadpants · Postby **chadpants** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:26 pm

Since this is a topic on religion...

For God's sake, somebody fix the spelling of the topic's title!!!!!!!!

SekoETC · Postby **SekoETC** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:31 pm

I second that. Pie, it's spelled injustice.

The Sociologist · Postby **The Sociologist** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:59 pm

chadpants wrote:For God's sake, somebody fix the spelling of the topic's title!!!!!!!!

Considering the nature of the topic, the spelling seems entirely appropriate...a sort of warning flag. :wink:

Pie · Postby **Pie** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:34 pm

LOL!!!! Sorry. i stink at spelling :lol:

Actually, i have alredy herd of the case for crist... were most of my information comes frome actually. And the reason i can actually BURN people like H.F.

Seriously, slaver wasn't that bad back then. AND I SHOVED THAT FACT IN YOUR FACE!!!! HA!!!!!

chadpants · Postby **chadpants** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:05 pm

Pie wrote:Seriously, slavery[sic] wasn't that bad back then. AND I SHOVED THAT FACT IN YOUR FACE!!!! HA!!!!!

I'm going to pretend I did not just read that!

Stan · Postby **Stan** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:36 pm

I'm not even sure what "back then" means.

formerly known as hf · Postby **formerly known as hf** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:46 pm

back then, when?

If you mean at the time of Christ - slavery was rife and awful - Roman Empire anyone?

SekoETC · Postby **SekoETC** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:34 pm

Actually, the status of a slave was pretty good in the Roman Empire. They got clothes and were taken care of by their masters. And in time you could gather money and buy yourself free. Many people sold themselves into slavery voluntarily when they couldn't have survived on their own. Though naturally there was a big difference between for example galleon slaves and house slaves. House slaves lived a protected life, could gain a better status later in their life, while galleon slaves and miners had to work so hard that most of them died in a couple of years.

formerly known as hf · Postby **formerly known as hf** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:37 pm

House slaves have always been treated 'better' than slaves used for other work - no one wants to see suffering, slave or not, in their own home - doesn't make it ok though (Nat that that's what I thought you were suggesting Seeks)

Nixit · Postby **Nixit** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:46 pm

The treatment of slaves during the Roman Empire depended on the master (as it always does). Some masters would allow their slaves to earn their freedom, some didn't.

However, I do know that if a slave ran away and got caught, FVG (FUG in English) would be branded on the slave's forehead. I'd say that's harsh.

Coramon · Postby **Coramon** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:32 am

Wouldn't we all?

west · Postby **west** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:14 am

This thread reminds me of nothing so much as twelve monkeys fighting over a dead parrot.

And that is all I'm saying on the subject.

WHY THE INJUSTIS

Who is online