Man shoots and kills store owner over her rainbow gay pride flag

We will have to disagree on what the best NT scholars conclude. I will agree in a form of Mystery, that we get what the original Alpha Omega Author intended, in His timeframe

 

This is what is difficult about Christianity. (Drives me nuts)
One side of your fence says the bible (People I talk to are usually talking about the King James version) but it depends on the denomination..............

Many sect's of Christianity claim every word in that bible, as currently written, is sancrosanct and 100% accurate and infallible. Others do not.
I'm a non believer so..........WHICH IS IT?

You just typed:
Yes, there are some discrepancies between the thousands of copies that exist, but these are for the most part typographical errors. There is no contradiction in the meaning of any of the documents.

Your interpetation, as stated, is that, well, there are discrepencies but they all mean the same thing.

Perhaps in your view Phat. Not in mine nor millions of others.

If you watch or read Bart you will know that the copying scribes made some SERIOUS "Canon" changes at later dates. Changes that go to the very core of:
"There is no contradiction in the meaning of any of the documents."

Bart would disagree. I would disagree.

And according to scholars the "earliest" documented Gospel fragement (a copy) was found in Egypt, written in Greek and is about the size of a credit Card. Dated to 50 years after the crucifiction. I undersand all the gospels are written in Greek, not in Hebrew. Interesting that the bible does not mention many Greeks being around for the event.

All remaining existant "Gospel" fragments or copies, are dated to 150 years, or later, from the event. At least according to Bart.

 

While, I do not agree with your conclusions, I do appreciate your well thought out response. I believe that the original manuscripts were inspired by God. I believe that the Bible is infallible in all that it asserts. We need to keep in mind that there are different types of literature contained in the anthology that is the Bible: history, poetry, prophecy, letters, and, most importantly, the biographies of Jesus of Nazareth.

You asserted millions do not believe that the Bible is infallible, but there are also millions who do believe in the inspired word of God.

It’s useful to keep some perspective. The earliest partial manuscript of Plato’s dialogues that we have was written some 1200 years after he lived. The oldest copy of the Republic is from 500 years after he lived.

The earliest existing copy of a biography of Alexander the Great comes from the 9th century AD.

The earliest existing manuscript from Josephus is from the 11th century A.D.

We can argue whether apparent inconsistencies in the manuscripts are significant or not, but those arguments are minor compared to the most important question: what do you do with Jesus of Nazareth? Do you believe that God raised him from the dead according to the Scriptures?

For those who do believe, the minor inconsistencies can be reconciled. If you don’t believe, then it doesn’t matter at all.

 

And we are not talking about copies of copies of copies…the translations go to the original texts. And we have far more manuscripts that are much older than even Julius Caesar Gallic Wars.

 

Thank you for your response. I regret to inform you that I was once saved but fell off the train.

No I do not believe he rose from the dead.

Do I respect Christians that do not use politics to force the secular to adhere to Church dogma? Yes I do.

Similarly, I do not respect Christians that insist on using politics to enforce their own beliefs? NO.

The founding fathers and the Constitution are/were clear on the separation of church and state. Regrettably those in power in
Church circles, like the SBC, have conveniently forgotten that despite all the flag waving.

Evangelical prosperity power playing preachers make me want to vomit with their lies and greed. If Christ is true, they should be the first, thrown into the lake of fire.

 

It's from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Be sure to read the paragraphs on the lower right. A right wing group did their own analysis and concluded "our findings support the ADL study".

 

It makes perfect sense. The left are snowflakes, the far right hail. The far right are consumed by grievance and anger they can't master. However, to be fair, there are a few on the far left - Antifa - who have resorted to violence, but of a vastly different kind: they don't kill people!

 

Antifa is a small, loosely organized group with far less impact nationally than claimed by Trump and others. Yet they remain a major boogeyman for the right, being blamed for atrocities by the right.

 

Both sides have their "Boogyman" - I happen to believe that the right wing boogymen are a bigger danger to society than the left, for this reason:

The militant left is populated by large numbers of:
Minority skin color persons, LGBTQ / non heterosexuals, academia,
artists, anti capatalists and those dissafected by governance.

The militant right is populated by caucasians, military and policing entities, religous entities and the poorer and more uneducated caucasian types and again those dissafected by governance.

(excuse the over-generalizations)

My personal belief is that the left becomes militant for a myriad of reasons (George Floyd) / (LGBTQ Rights) but are less interested in voting for or creating a state that uses policing as a means of societal and behavioral control.
I also do not think this group is expansionist in terms of being a threat to other nations.

Conversely I believe the right is driven to supporting excessive policing to stifle the left, are more prone to militancy and of course are interested in placing religous belief systems ahead of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Traditionally the right was also very pro-military and supported American power projection around the globe. Interestingly the new "right" seems to have experienced some fracturing in this regard since the Trump phenomena.

Again, I am not a sociologist or political scientist, just a dumb American that observes my surroundings and the media. I have no doubt my definitions above are over-generalizations and could be critiqued unmercefully by those that actually study such things.

Personnaly I think both sides have much more in common than appreciated and trying to reach middle ground and keeping the American Experiment going forward is far more logical than ripping it apart.

I base this comment on my age (65) and the fact I have 2 children.

IMO the Human Civilization is under threat due to environmental factors and the pressure of human habitation. Climate is just one of MANY threats to human civilization. We should be working together collectively to face the upcoming challanges.

Notice I did not say man made global warming. I think folks should quit making climate a political football and just analyze what is actually happening and use common sense to combat it.

Unless Elon gets his rocket program into light speed ranges we are stuck on this planet and it makes sense to take care of it, so we take care of ourselves.

Pipe dream of course because of all the species on earth we are the most tribal, the most exploitive and our kind loves shedding the blood of the other for every imaginable reason under the sun.

For those that think I'm full of mularkey - Name me the longest lasting civilizations on earth? 3,000 years? Maybe China has a claim to exceeding that. The point is, our way of life can and will change, it is up to us to set that course.