The Bible: Truth or Fiction?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
There is a lot more than "snippets" and "it is safer to believe" is not any kind of rational thinking.
I guess it was safer for Chamberlain to believe that Hitler would not continue his aggression.
In fact "safer to believe" is exactly the same kind of wish fulfillment thinking that leads to fanatical religious beliefs.
I am disappointed to see a product of the modern educational system reason out of some sort of personal fearful prejudice.
Obviously the ELCA does a better job of Christian Education than the Den Danske Folkekirke or perhaps the latter was having a down period.
And what about the other 99.9%. And let me ask you...have you read the bible?Talking burning bush?
Dude walking on water?
Adam and Eve being punished for eating an apple and being curious, something God gave them (curiosity)?
Ya, all non-fiction, completely.
....especially the burning talking bush.
its has a lot of truth but it is also used to deceive and after the roman emperor Constantine did fit with it what he saw its really hard to know for sure what has been changed or manipulated. its basic principles are very good and honest but its whole use for social control is not a good look.
and also it doesn't hold much weight in the real world either as we clearly has ignores "Gods" laws and took it upon ourselves to create an enormous system of law on our own
and also it doesn't hold much weight in the real world either as we clearly has ignores "Gods" laws and took it upon ourselves to create an enormous system of law on our own
Which one, Alex or Jesus? The fact that that Jesus was mentioned in official Roman records, although CM tried to deny it, is a good start. You obviously gave up reading CM's famous religion thread, or you would have seen the rather long discussion on this exact fact. Have another Gammel Dansk. I hear it nearing the end of lunch in Denmark.
The Ten Commandments were good start, a little flowery, a little repetitive and maybe a little political, but not a bad start. as with most good laws they grow and change with contemporary thinking but the essential message remains the same.
I'm not sure about the burning bush thing, but something says in the back of my mind says there some study of it's truth. I do know there is good historical grounds to believe the 10 plagues of Egypt did happen/could happen along with the parting of the Red/Reed Sea.
Next stop: Creationism. Next you are going to claim that there are no more evidence of Darwin than of Noah.
Have you ever heard me support Creationism or deny Darwin? You really need some good sleep or an update on your meds.
You must have missed my rant on Kitzmiller vs Dover in Pennsylvania.
I guess when you can't deal with the issues on the table you go looking for another one.
Personally I am a firm believer in evolution. Now orthodox Darwinism has been shown to have been flawed, but some still cling to it. But now even Dawkins seems to have abandoned orthodox Darwinism. Maybe this is the right place to discuss how scientific orthodoxy has stopped social and scientific progress from time to time.
Are you in a position to discuss with us punctuated equilibrium, the evolution of genes and memes, catastrophism etc vs. traditional Darwinism or do you take these things on faith?
Will you at least agree that the study of evolution is a historical science, not a traditional experimental science?
Your claim that there are no more historical sources for the existance of Alexander the Great than of Jesus puts you in the realm of religious fanatics. Maybe there are room for you on Sarah Palin's bus.
No that is just fact.
Do your homework my name-calling friend...post something of substance...it would be nice for a change.
DM you are definitely having a bad ay as none of what you say is true as Alexander was not my claim, and being a religious fanatic is just nuts.
Again you obviously didn't read much of CM's thread or you would have seen a number of my post claiming the opposite. You really are become a lazy SOB. First a deluge of C&P and nothing important to say and now you don't even read threads on subjects you're pontificating on.
I am sorry, my honourable friend; It was the right honourable rld that made that claim. I apologize, you are not a religious nut, only a monarchial nut. LOL
PS: It appears that the swedish king is on the skids. He held a news conference yeasterday where he denied having visited strip clubs (using the line: that depends on how you define strip clubs). Swedish commentators are calling him a lier, and someone is promising pictures.
Being raised a good catholic, it's clear you read the wrong version. Apparently the King James version mentioned unicorns many time.
