DrawingLord (June 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm)

Hello, yes, call me an attention whore, but:THIS VIDEO ISN'T ABOUT DISCUSSING THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD(S) AND WRONG DEEDS OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, you fucking morons! Take it somewhere else, like you're damn channel!

Pocketass666 (June 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm)

sure, you leave what is in-defendable and then stand by what cannot be proven, go suck scientology dick moron

jesperbech (June 13, 2008 at 11:36 am)

Why not just read about Jesus, or the Apostles, and see if that activity has some merit, the miracles aside.. He spoke a lot to ordinary folk, left instruction for ordinary people, and if you read the letter of the Apostles, you will find a slew of great advice.I have heard that way of defending oneself against the message of the Bible, which is outright childish. Because, the miracles are not what you are supposed to walk away with, but morals. Your focus is out of whack.Cheers,J

Pocketass666 (June 13, 2008 at 2:08 am)

wasnt the new testament reformed/changed in the time of constantine at the time of the "sin-fall"? to call them reliable would be a bit much wouldnt it :P. but I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It's not the historical jezus but the biblical one that you would have to be whacked out to believe, the historical one could have been walking around somewhere around there at that time, but then again theyre so many other explanations/theories for the life/myth of christ.

jesperbech (June 11, 2008 at 3:01 pm)

No, not when you take into account the four gospels, all the epistles by people who knew or heard of Jesus, and all the accounts of his life that were not included in the canon (the Bible).Actually, we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than most people of that age. For instance, in Galilee there would have been carpenters, pot makers, wine yard owners - of which we have heard nothing today. Still we know they must have been there. It's all relative baby!! :)

Pocketass666 (June 11, 2008 at 12:35 pm)

anyone who believes in the historical figure Jezus is whacked out anyway :P

jesperbech (June 8, 2008 at 4:14 am)

Yes, that is in fact exactly what it is. And that interpretation has developed ever since. It is called 'TRADITION' in Catholicism, it means HOW scripture is supposed to be interpreted.That is summed up in the Catechism. That book is in a sense a perfect summary of all the Church and the Saints know about how to interpret the Bible, since the time of Christ up til now.It is _not_ pick and choose, that has been done. But with the Bible as a raw text, one doesn't see that, = the problem.

vikingbroski (June 8, 2008 at 3:58 am)

see heres the problem with idioms- if the word is not absolute, then the word is open for interpretation. like a game of telephone, these idioms can be misinterpreted. and im not only referring to the eye- matthew alone is riddled with these examples (judgment solely on anger towards another is another) there is no distinction made between the judgment of the law of moses and the judgment of the new improved jesus law. so again we come to my original issue with pick and choose- its interpreted

jesperbech (June 8, 2008 at 3:27 am)

Hi,About the eye, that is often misunderstood, but it is a saying in Aramaic, it means don't bear envy. The same way we say, We'll cross that bridge when we get there, but it doesn't have anything to do with actual bridges, same way they have sayings in Aramaic. 'Cutting out your right eye' means to stop envying.I think these things are called idioms..?He also says he will 'bring the sword'. That is likewise a saying, meaning his teachings will cause division. It's not about weapons.

vikingbroski (June 8, 2008 at 3:25 am)

and since i dont see many eyeless people walkin around (given the idea that lust is still prevalent) im assuming people are picking and choosing not to follow that one either.