Jump to content

The bible is a work of fiction


Youngin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 421
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Arguments against and for religion are pointless. Those who are religious are blind and those who aren't religious are blind. We're all blind. Until you bring me physical evidence that the events depicted in the Bible actually happened, they cannot be proved nor disproved in my mind. I choose to worry about things more relevant to life than a book that's supposed to tell me how to live. I've developed my own morals and punishments for my sins through my own life experiences without the help of the Bible and I feel "blessed". I live a good life, but with nobody's help other than my family's. Besides, "rules" that were said to be the "way" thousands of years ago certainly aren't as applicable to my present life than they were when they were first written. A lot has changed.

Edited by Falcanuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguments against and for religion are pointless. Those who are religious are blind and those who aren't religious are blind. We're all blind. Until you bring me physical evidence that the events depicted in the Bible actually happened, they cannot be proved nor disproved in my mind. I choose to worry about things more relevant to life than a book that's supposed to tell me how to live. I've developed my own morals and punishments for my sins through my own life experiences without the help of the Bible and I feel "blessed". I live a good life, but with nobody's help other than my family's. Besides, "rules" that were said to be the "way" thousands of years ago certainly aren't as applicable to my present life than they were when they were first written. A lot has changed.

So the answer is "no."

Cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I argue something that I so clearly pointed out is stupid to argue? lol get a grip dude.

EDITED: my apologies, Falcanuck -- I thought you were NJDirtyBird7. My question was directed at the numerous fallacious posts he made in response to your initial post. I assumed in your first response that you were him without looking to check first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I was hoping you'd have something other than fallacy of composition, ad hominem and guilt by association so we'd have something to discuss. As it is, your "points" such as they are amount to fallacious slanders and therefore may be dismissed.

Hence, "cool."

I am not arguing anything. I am stating fact. It is ignorant to think otherwise. If you honestly think that - without substantial evidence as proof - all of the Bible's stories are true then you are terribly naive. This is why I stay away from religion as a whole. It thrives off belief in entities that may or may not exist. I'd never put my faith into something that may not be there when I need it most. I like concrete, physical things that I can see with my own two eyes to look for guidance from (ie. Family). Although, I do not dismiss people who are religious nor do I think any differently of them as again I have no evidence to disprove their beliefs. It's all subjective. If you are comfortable dedicating your life to Jesus Christ, a man you have never met and may have never walked the earth for all you know, then by all means do it. I couldn't care less.

Both sides of this real or fiction argument have no evidence to prove the other wrong, hence "pointless".

Edited by Falcanuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fibonacci

Incredible people believe this sh*t.

tiss tiss you call this crap. and I call it a work.

I will tell you something that is truly unbelievable........know the truth about how Columbus never stepped foot in a north america, never discovered it. Yet it is sadly preached that he found America.

anyhow pick your path, your way, what you believe. but do not call another way to add 2+2, crap.

putting another down is just your self being upset with yourself. It is a means into trying to make yourself feel better.

and to all your pictures of hitler etc. you should really not let this bother you. there is always a bad sheep that rises from Buddha to Atheist to Christian to etc.

It is up to you to read the book and find out the truth and if you listen then you will find the truth. and then you'll spot those in wolves in sheep clothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is up to you to read the book and find out the truth and if you listen then you will find the truth. and then you'll spot those in wolves in sheep clothing.

I'll agree with this part of your post. Benny Hinn, however, is a fake phony baloney.

Now to me. I tried to be a christian many times and even talked the talk and walked the walk for a while. The problem was that when I really looked at what I believed, it wasn't what equates to Christianity.

I am not against the Bible nor do I think it's historically accurate in any way. What I have come to believe and as ease with is that it's entirely a metaphor for how a society should live, how an individual should conduct themselves and maybe even Jesus is a metaphor for our conscience.

I don't pretend to have the right answer nor do I feel the need to tear anyone down who believes otherwise. Is there really a god? Heck if I know but it's just not that big of a deal to me really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not against the Bible nor do I think it's historically accurate in any way. What I have come to believe and as ease with is that it's entirely a metaphor for how a society should live, how an individual should conduct themselves and maybe even Jesus is a metaphor for our conscience.

Sorry, Cappy, this is just straight ignorance. Look at the unbiased scholarship on the subject. Jesus lived. The Apostles lived. The Bible isn't ONLY history, or even PRIMARILY history.

But it is historical. Denying that puts you in very shady company, frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Cappy, this is just straight ignorance. Look at the unbiased scholarship on the subject. Jesus lived. The Apostles lived. The Bible isn't ONLY history, or even PRIMARILY history.

But it is historical. Denying that puts you in very shady company, frankly.

watch the atheist experience on you tube on bible inaccuracy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Cappy, this is just straight ignorance. Look at the unbiased scholarship on the subject. Jesus lived. The Apostles lived. The Bible isn't ONLY history, or even PRIMARILY history.

But it is historical. Denying that puts you in very shady company, frankly.

It is ignorant to dimiss his opinion dude. Have you met Jesus or the Apostles? Have you seen a picture of them? The answer is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

watch the atheist experience on you tube on bible inaccuracy

I'll take scholarship over a youtube video.

It is ignorant to dimiss his opinion dude. Have you met Jesus or the Apostles? Have you seen a picture of them? The answer is no.

Historians overwhelmingly agree on this issue. It's not even a real debate. It's the atheist version of Christian flat earthers.

That's why it's comical to me when people buy into such nonsense. Because several notable atheists consider Christians willfully ignorant because some of them don't believe in evolution. They say science deals with fact and faith deals with speculation and if you ignore science to hold to an ancient book's thoughts on scientific matters, you are a fool. But when it comes to the historicity of the people in the Bible, apparently scholarship goes out the window? Interesting, that.

P.S., "have I seen a picture of them?" Funny you should ask -- St. Luke actually wrote icons of Mary, so I have seen a picture of her. But perhaps you meant a photograph, in which case I ask, have you ever seen a photograph of Julius Caesar, or Plato or Aristotle?

Can we dismiss their historicity as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Cappy, this is just straight ignorance. Look at the unbiased scholarship on the subject. Jesus lived. The Apostles lived. The Bible isn't ONLY history, or even PRIMARILY history.

But it is historical. Denying that puts you in very shady company, frankly.

There is no overwhelming conclusive evidence that Jesus or the apostles existed or who they are claimed to be if in fact they did exist. If so there would be no need for faith. Everyone would believe it, especially those of us who truly wanted to believe it but came up lacking.

I respect your strong beliefs and your intelligence but I have to disagree with the assessment you make above...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is not a choice, or an argument, or a debate. He IS. Wheteher you believe it or not, HE IS. Even people who do not "believe in God" actually DO believe in a god... themselves. The phrases "I choose" or "I believe" simply deify oneself.

Completely false. If someone asks another what they believe and they say, "I believe in god" or "I choose to believe in Jesus" they are obviously not deifying themselves, they are simply answering a question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here watch the history channel who wrote the bible

Once again, there is scholarship on the subject. I'm not sure why we would need to go to television shows and youtube videos when historians have spoken on the matter.

There is no overwhelming conclusive evidence that Jesus or the apostles existed or who they are claimed to be if in fact they did exist. If so there would be no need for faith. Everyone would believe it, especially those of us who truly wanted to believe it but came up lacking.

I respect your strong beliefs and your intelligence but I have to disagree with the assessment you make above...

There is near conclusive evidence that they lived. Not sure what you mean by "and were who they are claimed to be." If you mean there is no "overwhelming conclusive evidence" that Jesus was the Son of God, sure, I'll accept that. That is an article of faith based on the historicity of the resurrection, which is debated among scholars.

If, rather, you mean that St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Andrew or St. Mark never lived, then you are on the wrong side of scholarship. If that's what you mean, saying that is every bit as bad as saying "there is no overwhelming, conclusive evidence to support common descent of species." It amounts to ignoring the evidence. And since I've directed you previously to books written by historians on the subject, I can only conclude that it's willfully so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...