XPost: alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian   
   From: ingilt@yahoo.co.uk   
      
   On 30/12/2015 23:18, Ted&Alice wrote:   
   > Alex W. wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 30/12/2015 01:04, Ted&Alice wrote:   
   >>> Alex W. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 29/12/2015 21:52, Ted&Alice wrote:   
   >>>>> Alex W. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 28/12/2015 22:35, Ted&Alice wrote:   
   >>>>>>> talishi wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 12/27/2015 10:09 PM, Ted&Alice wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> As you know, there are thousands of Protestant sects.   
   >>>>>>>>> They all have varying levels of acceptance and   
   >>>>>>>>> rejection of the OT scriptures.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> But the important thing to take away is that God is not   
   >>>>>>>> the author of confusion!   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That might be one argument in favor of the Roman Catholic   
   >>>>>>> faith.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If it had to be a Christian denomination, try the Church of   
   >>>>>> England (Episcopalians in Leftpondia).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> They take the injunction very seriously that "in my father's   
   >>>>>> house are many mansions".  The CofE will bend over backwards   
   >>>>>> and then some to accommodate any sort of variant belief or   
   >>>>>> religious practice.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I agree that the CofE is preferrable in that sense to the RCC,   
   >>>>> but I meant from a logical point of view, since they claim to   
   >>>>> be directly derived from Jesus's rock(hard?) assignment to   
   >>>>> Peter.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Don't they all?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Rome does make great play of their descent from Peter and Paul,   
   >>>> but in the end they all claim authority from the bible which   
   >>>> supersedes any mere apostle....   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, but that's another consistency in Catholic doctrine. They   
   >>> believe that their administration has the authority to interpret   
   >>> the Bible as they wish, even rejecting parts of it.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Again, all churches do this -- even if they do not realise what they   
   >> are doing.  Different denominations do have different bibles, and   
   >> translations also differ.  For instance, Armenians include a third   
   >> letter to the Corinthians; the Ethiopian church has a rather larger   
   >> NT canon than anyone else; Copts are taught two letters of Clement;   
   >> Catholics and Protestants have a different numbering system for the   
   >> ten commandments; and so on.   
   >>   
   >> This provides me with a source of never-ending amusement, of course.   
   >> A great many believers simply do not realise that their bible is not   
   >> the only version, have never conceived of the notion that there are   
   >> different versions out there.  And it absolutely flummoxes the sola   
   >> scriptura loonies...   
   >   
   > There are even some of them who think the KJV is the original.   
   >   
      
   That would be Americans.   
   The rest of the world usually knows that there are other languages out   
   there, and that many of them came before English...   
      
   In this context, I will freely admit to owning and consulting a King   
   James bible.  To my mind, it is an essential reference book in any   
   well-sorted personal library and one of the three most important bodies   
   of work that largely determined the shape of our language (together with   
   the Oxford English Dictionary and Shakespeare).  Believer or atheist, if   
   one does not know one's KJV then one does not know the history of our   
   protean magical utterly beautiful tongue!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)