Do you not then need to accept the fact that the bible itself was influenced by institutions?

@kasz

"No offense... but i'd take the presense, serenity and fullness of feeling gods presense over church doctrine anyday."

But you see, christians will tell you it might be the wrong god.

What if it's the wise lord Ahura Madza from zoroastrianism? What is it's Melek Ta'us of the Yezidi people? What is it's Zues?!

Or Satan?

Of course. For instance, we Protestants don't have the same biblical canon in comparison to Roman Catholics.

When you read the Bible, it all makes a whole with its harmony. When I find something that looks like it doesn't "fit", I question myself if that was mistranslated and do some research (it's not the first time that I've found different translations that make a difference). However, those are "little issues" in comparison to the whole, as I said before. Those "little issues" in the text doesn't affect the final meaning of the doctrine, in most of the cases.

What affects the meaning is how the people explain the text, not the text itself.

I have to take Kasz:s side on this one. Jesus:s teachings about god was, that god is in everyone, a philosophy of life. When institutionised, the philosophy, that was "god" was taken away and replaced as a character that punishes everyone who disagrees.

Kasz is 100% accurate.  Christianity was very diverse before the Romans centralized the religion.

Marcionism

Marcionism rejects the entire Hebrew Bible, and declared that the God of the Hebrew Bible was a lesser demiurge, who had created the earth, but was the source of evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Monarchianism

Emphasize God as being one person and the only ruler of his kingdom. The term "Monarchians" or "Monarchists" was given to Christians who defended the "monarchy" of God in a reaction against the Logos theology of Justin Martyr and the apologists, who had spoken of Jesus as a "second god.

http://.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism

Adoptionism

Belief that Jesus was born merely human and that he became divine later in his life. By these accounts, Jesus earned the title Christ through his sinless devotion to the will of God, thereby becoming the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

Please don't think that I'm being cocky or arrogant, but do you have proofs on that? I mean, do you have any original text thay might prove that the Bible, especially the New Testament, is all changed?

Otherwise, the Bible doesn't support your point of view on Christianism, since more than just a philosophy of life it is defined as a path of truth that leads to eternal life. As I said, Christianity has been institutionalized, indeed, but the Bible text remains there for us to read and learn, besides what some institutions say.

I think that I reply it all. I don't want to argue with such a hairy man... You scare me!

@Baroque_dude: Asking for proof or evidence isn't cocky or anything like that by any means.

I believe the philosophy part is the current understanding among exegetics at the moment.

Asking for original text for the bible is a little harder thing to do, since it's mostly been destroyed and/or lost when time has passed. Some texts however have been found (they aren't necessarily "original" text of the bible). What should be understood is, that bible is collection of jewish folklores that have been put together later on and edited to fit the book as whole.

You should be afraid of me, for i'm the god. You might ask for proof, and i have the proof. Last night i wrote on a toilet paper "bdbdbd is the god" and to the other side "this toilet paper speaks the truth".

That argument is over a whole different set of posts.  

I've reviewed the posts.  I still have the same problem with what you've said.  

How did you not contradict yourself when you made the statements I refer to in the edit?  

"Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that." ("that" referring to my post "And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?")

vs. 

"- highwaystar101 indeed quoted the Pope.
"- The Pope said that both elements in discussion, here, are compatible.
"- I criticized what the Pope said.
"That's it."
("That's it" excluding the possibility that you could have been talking about the Pope condoning "believing IN evolution" instead of evolution theory merely not being contradictory to Christian teaching (i.e. 'the two are compatible').)

So, please explain where I went wrong in the above.  

You know, although the above response works, I have a more direct one.   
--"And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?"
--"Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that."
--"He didn't say that the Pope said that the ideas in those theories were something Christians could put faith in, just that the theories did not contradict Christianity."
--
"- highwaystar101 indeed quoted the Pope.
"- The Pope said that both elements in discussion, here, are compatible.
"- I criticized what the Pope said.
"That's it."

What did that have to do with anything?  You didn't address my point at all.  Do you or do you not still claim the Pope said it's OK to "believe in evolution"?  

(The key here is your phrase "both elements in discussion":  does that mean Christianity and "believing in evolution", or Christianity and "thinking that evolution is true but not subscribing to some kind of faith revolving around evolution"?

(And if the second, then you are factually incorrect when you claim that you criticized what the Pope said.  You only criticized the first viewpoint and criticized the Pope.)

Look, you're "spinning around your vertical axis". You're arguing alone and you're messing things up.

I tell you again, nor highstarway101, nor Rath, nor Manus Justus, nor WessleWoogle, nor bdbdbd, nor Kasz216, nor others are discussing "that" (to call some way something that doesn't exist) with me, because although being in desagreement with my posts, they understood what I said.

I explained in detail WHY I disagree with what the Pope said (with that alleged statement, no matter if he said that or not, I disagree with that statement and I said why) and WHY I disagree with the papacy. Period.

You're just arguing with a monster that you created. I try to be kind to everyone and I don't want to get angry with you, but your posts are starting to seem a bad taste joke to me. Do you want me to go crazy or what?

I'm sorry if you feel that my words are harsh, but I want you to understand (in case this isnt's a joke of yours), ok?

So ... you're saying that you were just explaining why you disagree with a statement, regardless of whether the Pope (or indeed anyone) actually said it?

I don't think I'm the one arguing alone.  

Look, all I want at this point is whether or not you still claim the Pope said that statement you argued against, and this last post of yours seems to indicate that you don't even CARE, which implies that the answer is "no".