Many accounts of the Bible? What does that mean? Some versions are personal journals. Hardly. Average people could not read or write. These stories were made up by people in power to help control the masses. The uneducated masses.
Try looking at the Bible without the Christian veil. Can you be subjective?
And humans created language and invented words. We did this long before any of the Abrahamic religions controlled populations. Their idea of god was not some guy with supernatural power. So when "god" spoke to them they were listening to the wind.
"Average people could not read or write. These stories were made up by people in power to help control the masses. The uneducated masses." That is factually incorrect. Much of the New Testament was written by the disciple Paul, who was a doctor before meeting Jesus. Contrary to popular belief, Ancient Rome had a relatively high literacy rate. The majority of historians accept the Bible, both Old and New Testament, as being a historically accurate document. The only parts they don't believe to be historically accurate are the miracles and account of creation.
"Try looking at the Bible without the Christian veil. Can you be subjective?" You mean objective.
"And humans created language and invented words. We did this long before any of the Abrahamic religions controlled populations. Their idea of god was not some guy with supernatural power. So when "god" spoke to them they were listening to the wind." Now look who's being narrow-minded.
No, they don't. Historians do not agree on the idea of the Bible being historically accurate. Your bible teacher misled you. Theologians are not experts on its accuracy.
Subjective/Objective - Forgive me, it has been an exhausting couple of weeks.
Yes, they do. https://www.thetrumpet.com/1912-archaeology-proves-bible-history-accurate
You're assuming that it wasn't God who gave us language in the first place. You're assuming that the goal of every Abrahamic religion is control. That seems pretty narrow-minded to me.
That is hardly an unbiased resource. I believe there are arguments for both agreement and disagreement. But one religious publication claiming it is accurate does not negate that the overall community does not believe it to be historically accurate. And even if one entry happens to be accurate, it does not make the entirety of it an accurate detail of events. We are story tellers. We make up stories based in reality. This doesn't make them an accurate detail. Even movies based on real people are romanticized.
I never said the goal of every Abrahamic religion was control. You interpreted my comment as you wanted, not as I intended. Communication is funny that way.
Do you know what stained glass is for? While it is a pretty, symbolic of the light from the heavens, it is intended to tell bible stories. However the public is told how to interpret the pictures.
Have you ever taken philosophy? Don't answer that, I don't actually care. But you dont seem to be much of a thinker.
"You are discussing a fraction of humanity's belief system." Pretty big fraction. Roughly a third of the world's population is Christian. It would be more if there weren't countries where it was illegal to be Christian.
"That is hardly an unbiased resource." And every secular source is unbiased towards religion? "And even if one entry happens to be accurate, it does not make the entirety of it an accurate detail of events. We are story tellers. We make up stories based in reality." Many of the books in the New Testament aren't even stories. They're letters. Most of the third chapter of Genesis is just genealogy. Just because it's a story, doesn't mean it's untrue.
"We did this long before any of the Abrahamic religions controlled populations." How else is that meant to be interpreted?
"However the public is told how to interpret the pictures." Yeah, because they're intended to be interpreted a certain way. Just like you said that I interpreted what you said the wrong way.
"Have you ever taken philosophy? Don't answer that, I don't actually care. But you dont seem to be much of a thinker." That's not an argument, that's ad hominem.
Is it normal Not Religious？
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Many accounts of the Bible? What does that mean? Some versions are personal journals. Hardly. Average people could not read or write. These stories were made up by people in power to help control the masses. The uneducated masses.
Try looking at the Bible without the Christian veil. Can you be subjective?
And humans created language and invented words. We did this long before any of the Abrahamic religions controlled populations. Their idea of god was not some guy with supernatural power. So when "god" spoke to them they were listening to the wind.
--
Inkmaster
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Average people could not read or write. These stories were made up by people in power to help control the masses. The uneducated masses." That is factually incorrect. Much of the New Testament was written by the disciple Paul, who was a doctor before meeting Jesus. Contrary to popular belief, Ancient Rome had a relatively high literacy rate. The majority of historians accept the Bible, both Old and New Testament, as being a historically accurate document. The only parts they don't believe to be historically accurate are the miracles and account of creation.
"Try looking at the Bible without the Christian veil. Can you be subjective?" You mean objective.
"And humans created language and invented words. We did this long before any of the Abrahamic religions controlled populations. Their idea of god was not some guy with supernatural power. So when "god" spoke to them they were listening to the wind." Now look who's being narrow-minded.
--
howaminotmyself
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, they don't. Historians do not agree on the idea of the Bible being historically accurate. Your bible teacher misled you. Theologians are not experts on its accuracy.
Subjective/Objective - Forgive me, it has been an exhausting couple of weeks.
What about what I said was narrow?
--
Inkmaster
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, they do. https://www.thetrumpet.com/1912-archaeology-proves-bible-history-accurate
You're assuming that it wasn't God who gave us language in the first place. You're assuming that the goal of every Abrahamic religion is control. That seems pretty narrow-minded to me.
--
howaminotmyself
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That is hardly an unbiased resource. I believe there are arguments for both agreement and disagreement. But one religious publication claiming it is accurate does not negate that the overall community does not believe it to be historically accurate. And even if one entry happens to be accurate, it does not make the entirety of it an accurate detail of events. We are story tellers. We make up stories based in reality. This doesn't make them an accurate detail. Even movies based on real people are romanticized.
I never said the goal of every Abrahamic religion was control. You interpreted my comment as you wanted, not as I intended. Communication is funny that way.
Do you know what stained glass is for? While it is a pretty, symbolic of the light from the heavens, it is intended to tell bible stories. However the public is told how to interpret the pictures.
Have you ever taken philosophy? Don't answer that, I don't actually care. But you dont seem to be much of a thinker.
--
Inkmaster
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"You are discussing a fraction of humanity's belief system." Pretty big fraction. Roughly a third of the world's population is Christian. It would be more if there weren't countries where it was illegal to be Christian.
"That is hardly an unbiased resource." And every secular source is unbiased towards religion? "And even if one entry happens to be accurate, it does not make the entirety of it an accurate detail of events. We are story tellers. We make up stories based in reality." Many of the books in the New Testament aren't even stories. They're letters. Most of the third chapter of Genesis is just genealogy. Just because it's a story, doesn't mean it's untrue.
"We did this long before any of the Abrahamic religions controlled populations." How else is that meant to be interpreted?
"However the public is told how to interpret the pictures." Yeah, because they're intended to be interpreted a certain way. Just like you said that I interpreted what you said the wrong way.
"Have you ever taken philosophy? Don't answer that, I don't actually care. But you dont seem to be much of a thinker." That's not an argument, that's ad hominem.
--
howaminotmyself
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
What exactly is your point here?