At 12:29 PM 27-05-1999 +0100, you wrote:
>>eg your comments on the most important book of history
>>is actually contained in the New Testament,?
>It's only the most important book in history to Christians, and even then
not all Christians.
Not so :-)
I meant the most read, most published,
most translations, most influential book of all time
as a statistical fact.
for instance, there are over 35,000 quotations from it in the other writings
of other people before say 400 AD...
>>that the words of Christ, and his apostles are written down, and
>>therefore are a safeguard against those who would pervert them,
>>and a safeguard against new and strange doctrines...
>>call this 'POINT B'
>The words of Christ being written down doesn't safeguard them
from perversion or uphold them in the face of new religions -
the King James bible is only an interpretation of the original words
(that were written down - not of Christ, who knows what he really said)
The KJV is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts...
not an 'interpretation' ...
People 'interpret' what they read, but the actual text is preserved
in various translations from the earliest time...
It must be obvious to you that the pagan believers of Ireland and Wales,
Scotland and Europe mostly and peacefully adopted Christianity :-)
They *have* voted on its merits, and they must have known better
than us the relative merits...?
>and it's been proved that parts are significantly different to the
>to the extent that they mean the complete opposite of the original texts.
If you say we don't know the original, (which I don't believe...)
how can you say you can prove the texts have been changed?
Can you actually give any examples?
>>Well, the words of Christ summing up the way to live and behave
>>are pretty hard to beat?
>Again, only if you are Christian - I can see how a Trappist monk
>would not think they are the best way to live.
I don't actually know much about Trappists?
Aren't they Christian? Don't they follow the bible?
>Neither would a Wiccan or a Satanist.
Perhaps they have something to fear from the bible?
The bible is not ambiguous about the final destination of
Satan and his followers...?
>>Love God with all your heart etc , and love your neighbour as yourself...
>>"Who is my neighbour?"
>>This story illustrates plainly Christ's message that one's neighbour
>>that we should love as much as ourselves
>>includes even other religions and to people not in 'the family'
>>or in the same political or cultural group...
>The essential meaning of the words can be found in other religions
and belief systems - it's not just Christianity that says do unto others
as you would have done unto yourself, and Good Samaritan-type people
can be found in all walks of life.
I don't think this way of thinking is exclusively Christian at all.
But it is surely a 'good' thing to follow rather than to follow Satan?
What do Satanists actually *do*?
I read a book once about black masses, and what some evil people
did to kidnapped children, told them were going to be all right,
that their parents were going to come and get them,
then stabbed them to death when they showed tears and relief...
in other words, evil for the sake of it...
Are you going to join Raimund and say
"Well if it makes the satanists feel good,
what's wrong with killing kids?"
>>In my untutored opinion, the sacrifice of a living person
>>whether 'because of religious ideas' or not, is either murder,
>>or just sheer hypocritical murder...
>>take your pick :-)
"A man who kills a few people is a murderer, a man who kills
millions is a conqueror...go figure".
So you're saying that more is better?
>It's perception - those within the religion who carry out
(or submit to) human sacrifice probably don't consider
it murder like someone 'outside' would -
This is really scary if you are serious, I can only assume
that you are just kidding :-)
>in the same way that cows are one of Britain's main
>food sources (which is why we're all mad!)
I'm sure lots of decent Britons would disgree with you...
>but a Hindu would never consider killing a cow.
>You can't impose your own subjective judgements
>on a particular activity without knowing something
>about both sides of it, like why humans were sacrificed,
>how they chose who would be done,
>when and how to do it, etc etc.
Murder is one 'particular activity' which no-one has the right
to actually *do* ... I agree it's OK to study the reasons WHY
some people want to do these things, or have them done to them
but there are counsellors and police to deal with the people
who get active in this area?
>It's like these blasted ecowarriors who know sod all about
>the environment or economics and impose their irrational
>illinformed opinions on everyone else by
>camping in trees and tunnels.
This sounds like the pits of anti-social behaviour...
compared to camping in trees, I can't imagine why anyone
would get upset at sacrificing a few innocent humans :-)
>>Doesn't the story of the 40 beautiful girls sacrificed on
>>Genghis Khan's grave *mean* anything to you?
>>Have you no spiritual discernment? No moral fibre?
>What is there to have a conscience about?
>Even if those sacrificed were unwilling participants
>it didn't happen in our lifetime so why should
>anyone now have a conscience about it?
OK, then you agree that GK was a mindless and unprincipled
and any such behaviour in these modern times
should be thoroughly discouraged?
>>Get real! Why will you not say that this behaviour
>>is at least 'wrong' if not 'disgusting'?
>It's only your subjective opinion that it's wrong.
>An ardent fan of GK would probably think it a
>very appropriate thing to do.
So things like mass murder, gang rape, torture,
human sacrifice, sacking of cities 'because you feel like it'
etc are now OK in your mind?
In other words, it just depends whose side you're on?
Again, you must be kidding :-)