Claudio,

>no deep study.. only supercial.. or in many cases.. only the part that is necessary to own one interests.. for instance.. the spiritism, takes the part about Jesus love.. But all the part that talk about "NO TALKS with dead people".. is completely ignored..

>The roman church ditto for virgin Mary.. She was very special.. Shes was a great woman.. But, she's dead.. And the bible is very clear about *talks* with dead people.. You can reach cleary that one at Deuteronomy book.. With no kind of specialist translating that.. Try by yourself, here is a simple address Deuteronomy 18.9-14.

Am I right that I hear you saying: That the roman catcholics never did do a throurough bible study and that their intepretation of the bible is not the correct one?

>>Therefore I disagree.

>To agree.. you'll need some hours studying that book

I possibly would have made diagram of interpretations, interelations and speculations that is so utterly complex that no sensible scientist is able to grasp it. And that after only studying the first few pages.

Again, the bible is no scientifical book. It does not even have one author. It does not have the consistency of beeing able to draw one conclusion. The bible is an old book, full with wise and not so wise lessons, morality and history. It has been written up to a few 1000 years ago.

The bible surpassed its goal in one sense as people are reading far too much into it. This explains the different flavours of christians, who tend to have their own imperfect intepretations of it.

I find it stunning that you (I always regarded you as a pragmatic person) actually believes there could be only one true and absolute intepretation of the bible. It to me smells again to the old struggles where one tries to convince that their truth is the absolute truth, so familiar in recent history.

>If you need a true evidence.. try to know the history about Isaiah book..

>on 1947 they found a new original copy done at the creation's time.. around 3.5thousand years ago..

>they compare all those translations maded through those years.. And guess what.. they are equals.. brand new same one.. Here is the point where a lot of people underestimate the job done by great historians..

>men.. I'll tell you.. you can even don't accept this one is for you.. I'll respect that.. But, underestimate the others inteligence.. It is for sure a great sin..

Not sure what you mean by this. There is a difference between intelligence, naivity, blindness and stubborness. The great sin, IMO, is to hold on to ancient traditions, laws and rules that causes so much pain for other humans without even knowing and understanding why they are there. And if one has lost its value because times have changed, why not ditch it?

Can anyone tell me why the pope is rejecting the use of condoms in africa while so much of them are infected with HIV? Just because of the blind and stupid believe that they all should practise abstinence, while we know that their culture and hormones will prevent them from doing that? This is a great sin IMO. I've talked to a well know priest in this neighbourhood who lived in rio de janero to build up small communities to help people in their misery. He totally disagrees with rome in their narrow minded approach to deceide what is best for people.

>some historic books translations are not done as an usual text.. they count words.. they use math.. division add.. on some situation they took months and months on a single paragraph.. a big crew is always involved on jobs like that.. Try to see on how they still do that at some european musseum..

I have heard differently. I've seen some dicussions on the TV where two experts were discussing how certain texts need to be interpretated because times have changed. There were a lot of uncertaincies and different intepretations and unanswered questions. I don't need to do the study myself (A throurough study takes many years, and since I do not believe in God, I do not see the point in doing so), since others have done it for me.

BTW, did you see a discovery documentary called "The true jesus" and the beginning of new testament? Totally based on a objective study.

I respect you having your religion and believes. I won't dare to say that you'll go to hell after life: I won't threaten you with hell. I won't force people to believe what I believe. I won't tell people what to do. I accept that anyone is free to tell about their religion, but within the limits of an open discussion. I'd expect anyone to do the same. Anything else I would regard fundamentalistic.

And I think we all agree that fundamentalism is the biggest enemy these days.

Walter,