Yes, like that has any bearing on anything. Some nutcase claimed to be the son of god and they bought into his bullshit and re wrote their holy book. The Romans didn't mess about, they saw him for what he was and nailed the **** up.
Its one of the best dramas that has been on TV - take the time to watch it and you will love it. "I wipe my ass with your feelings" is one of so many great quotes by Tony Soprano
The Old and New are completely different, no re-writing of anything. The Old is Hebrew/Jewish and contains their laws, the New is Christian.
I know........Maybe re-write is the wrong word. Convert maybe a better description. Its not a remake like a movie, but a complete change of ideology based on one mans bullshit.
What Baby boy J is sayin is that it is 2 separate entities hence having individual names. They contain different details, like a Thompsons Directory and a Yellow Pages. Some similarities due to natural crossover in topic of interest but fundamentally two different collections of data. One got private numbers, the other got businesses. Yeah they both contain numbers..but not the same info.
Another way of looking at it would be that a carpenter's son (not a prince, or a general, or a rich man's son) made such an impression with a message of peace and love in a violent world, that he changed the course of human history. As for the Roman's, I take it you don't know why it's called the Roman Catholic church?
It's interesting to see how many buildings to celebrate a faith in a god, have lightning conductors to protect it from the same god's acts. Oh ye of little faith.
It isn't though. The Old is Jewish Law, the New is Christian 'stories' [for want of a better word] about Jesus, who wasn't around when the Old was written. Anyway, I only got involved to answer 'how can the bible have an Old Testament and a New'. As I've said there's a very good reason, they were written in different periods of history. You don't have to give it credence but you can't just make stuff up either I'm not looking for yet another debate on religion matey, so I will leave you to it.
What have I made up? That they wrote a book, followed its teachings, then some guy came along, did something different, so they wrote a new book and started following that instead? Whats made up? If you can source the books origins, then you know its written by man, therefore its 100% bullshit.
The asylum's have a fair few people plagued by voices in their head. Some people refine it and make a living out of passing messages from beyond the grave. Maybe they should be more respected.
Sorry mate, as I said I'm not taking this any further. If religion bashing is your thing, and it seems it is, and fills some purpose in your life, carry on ... but not with me
Wtf has this country come to when this crap is shown at breakfast time? Good morning dickheads. Piers embarrassed himself there imo, totally unprepared and found wanting against a guy who any decent person should be able to shred in under 2 minutes.
The easiest way to think of it is that they're basically the Star Wars trilogy for the religious. Judaism is the original, A New Hope, Christianity is The Empire Strikes Back and Islam is Return of the Jedi. They're sequels, not rewrites. As for Susanna Reid or Lucy Verasamy, why not both? Bit of variety. To get back to the original point in the ****ing thread though, I think that the only way to decide between them is a fight to the death. Morgan and Robinson are both loathsome pieces of **** with twisted views, so we may as well get something out of it. You can hardly have someone that worked for the Mail and The Sun criticising someone for being a racist, can you?
