You've managed to skirt around each question without giving any names, dates etc. And fair enough... I didn't really expect any. There's some interesting texts on the topic available, Bart D. Ehrman's book 'Misquoting Jesus' is a good one. See what I mean about the lack of any certainty? That's what I'm getting at.
The editing of the texts is a particularly interesting issue, given that scripts were reproduced by hand and often changed along the way, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident, sometimes out of spite, sometimes out of laziness. It's a great topic! I have some theology under my belt, but I'm not an expert by any stretch. I'm up for discussion rather than argument. Good stuff.
The last time someone picked on me for being vague (go back a page or two) I posted a rather long account of Germany's development into the 20th century and the direct and indirect causes of WW1 and WW2. Just because I don't feel like writing 10 pages to answer a question doesn't mean I don't have evidence to support my opinions. If you'd like, I could do one of those again.
Yeah, the editing is rather interesting. There are quite a few scrolls in Hebrew, Greek and Latin still surviving, but we have no idea if they are "original" or copied from others. Dan's post basically elaborates on this. Still, they predate the more heavily edited Roman and European editions.
Chris, you will find noticeable changes in wording (and thus meaning) between 1800s and now in the Bible editions. Even moreso from 1800 to some of those scrolls I mentioned, again for the reasons Dan said.
Now, In England I knew a lesbian girl who was really disenfranchised with the church because she thought she would be persecuted. That kind of discrimination is just saddening. In America, I wouldn't blame Christianity for the anti-intellectual movement. I would blame the media and the government, but most of all the parents, for all of these failed to instruct the youth. Those religious psychos are the result, not the cause. The Papal decree about "safe sex" is asinine for sure, but that's not America. That's the Vatican, a group I have no good will towards.
Jdub: War is brutal, yes. But what business is it for us to be there in the first place? Oil? Certainly they aren't the terrorists, or else this "threat" would be less now that we occupy their countries. The administration saw an opportunity to crush a potential adversary, gain some resources, and strike out blindly to create a scapegoat for the enemy they can't reach. Liberal media or not (As I recall the media is still quite sensationalist, liberal or conservative, they're always dispicable). Nam was a mistake. The gulf was necessary. This war isn't.
Like fullnelson said, the public supported wars before Viet Nam. My opinion on that is that they did so because the wars before that were direct matters of real national security, opened with the consent of congress, and the support of the economy. These new wars are at the whim of the radicals in power, without congress, destroying our economy, and are unnecessary 'defense' at the expense of our freedoms (patriot act?). Remember the Viet Nam "conflict" and the Iraq "conflict". How subtly the headlines changed to "Iraq War".
sorry for a fragmented, multi-addressed post.
Edit: And really, the best fix for the middle east would have been NOT to arm the Taliban and their buddies in the 70s. Let the USSR crush them and enforce their totalitarian, socialist atheism and you wouldn't have guys like Hussein and Osama or enemies like Iran
