I\'d love to reply to little snippits of everyone\'s posts, but I think a lot of you would get annoyed quickly. So I\'ll just add in my input.
Jesus, I believe, was a real guy who walked the earth. Was he the son of God? I don\'t know. I, myself don\'t think there is enough evidence to say. From what I understand, he didn\'t deny nor claim to be the son of God.
What I do know about Jesus is is that he had some really good things to say about how people should live. I wouldn\'t say they were laws, but guidelines, really. He\'s just a guy who knew some philosophy like Socrates or Plato.
I agree, the Bible should be read in it\'s Latin version. It is the closest translation from the very original text which was Hebrew which was then translated into Greek (yes Greek was the language of the \'old\' world like English is the language of the world today) which was then translated into Latin.
There is way too much lost in the translation that I think is the reason why there are so many branches of Christianity. Example: during the translation from the Greek version, some doofus screwed up with the description of Moses. The screw up later resulted in Moses having horns as one of his attributes in famous works of art like Michaelangelo\'s sculpture for a tomb. (Don\'t ask me what it the attribute was, I don\'t feel like pulling out my Art History notes).
Also, a lot of the Bible has been a play on words. Like for example: (I\'m tired so I\'m sorry for being crude) the line \'thou shalt not spill thy seed\' or something to that effect. We know that it means \'Don\'t masturbate, don\'t let your semen end up where it wasn\'t meant to be.\' How can anyone be so sure that that and a couple other such phrases are the only ones like it in the Bible? According to my anthropology teacher he said that the phrase \'walking on water\' means walking on a pier since the translated text didn\'t have a word for pier. So if that is true then that would mean that Jesus was only getting off a boat, walking on a pier to get to land. Another example he gave was the word \'virgin\' 2000 years ago didn\'t mean the same as we know it now. (PM me if you want the whole story to that bit...way too long to explain here)
I think that one can\'t completely disagree with religion because there are good things that come out of it. Churches donate their time and money to help those in need. Muslims (the real ones, not the crazy Taliban kinds) and Christians promote brotherhood. Buddhists promote detachment from superfical aspects of life. I can go on and on about different religions, but I\'d bore you to tears. Also, religion/belief/ideas can step in where science can\'t.
However, science a study of the world and how it works. Numerous experiments are conducted to prove something. One can\'t simply deny the proof of something after it\'s been tested over and over. And I know creationists believe otherwise, but ever consider that maybe God planned for us to be primates first and got bored and evolved them into humans ergo Adam and Eve? After all, the argument is, God can do anything.
Well, that\'s my say for this argument. I\'m going to bed. Nighters.
