quicksand Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 though i am gonna hafta side with you guys on this one. Well, stick around here. I've learned considerable amount about the bible since coming to the site by not taking tradition for granted, or by faith. Don't take our word for it, investigate for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 there is this though. i found it interesting. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...7_noahsark.html 1. Mt. Ararat is a tradition. The Bible says "The Mountains of Ararat" the whole mountain region. 2. The Noah story is based on a much older Sumerian story. In the Sumerian story, it is Noah's son who travels to the mountains after Noah and his ark) lands on what is now the island of Bahrain (it was considered Paradise back then and is also the site of Nunhersag's garden aka Garden of Eden). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 though i am gonna hafta side with you guys on this one. Well, stick around here. I've learned considerable amount about the bible since coming to the site by not taking tradition for granted, or by faith. Don't take our word for it, investigate for yourself. oh i know more about the bible then most christians by all the christian forums ive been to, searching for theological debate XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 oh i know more about the bible then most christians by all the christian forums ive been to, searching for theological debate XD Christains don't read their Bibles, which is a lot of the reason they are still Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted August 8, 2006 Author Share Posted August 8, 2006 *sigh* look this is all a logical falacy. if a book is trying to make out a person as a god and perfect, then it would not put him in a bad light in any way. if it does there is an obvious misinterpretation on the part of either the reader, or the scribe. What is good, bad and perfect is all subjective. These traits attributed to this fictional character were good at the time. It's really that simple. we are to assume that the bible would view jesus in a perfect, admirable, pure, and ethical in every way... way because that is the way the bible says he was, being god and all that. so logically if a part of the bible said anything that was contradictory to these things when it was read in a literal way, then there would be something deeper behind the message or it diddnt mean specifically what it said. Just because you assume fictional Jesus is supposed to be this way doesn't mean that the authors of this character wanted him this way. You believe in a Jesus that is not in the Bible. They took his positives, slapped them together, and voila! a new FrankenJesus was created! well its more that reverand athiestar is wrong in saying that he was an asshole. The fictional character of Jesus, based on what is written in the Bible, whatever the version, is an asshole. This is my opinion based on my own personal, subjective morality. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but this doesn't change my opinion of the character. next we can say that jesus was indeed an asshole. that is besides the point. the book itself is trying to portray him as god and perfect. therefor it would not include in it anythign that would be contradictory to that. The book is trying to portray him like the authors wanted him. Their idea of good, but certainly not perfect. As for a being a god, no that's an extrabiblical allegation that was forced on the Jesus character later on. The Bible portrays Jesus not as a god, but merely as the son of one. Big difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Christains don't read their Bibles, which is a lot of the reason they are still Christians. Taph, I differ to beg. So I will. There are Christians and there are Christians. For the former, they say they are cause the've been to wedding (That's why I am Christian too. Been to several weddings. he he.) And for the later there are Christians. who do readd the Bible, but reads it and shoehorns it what they read and a priori (for whatever reason) are motivated to tow the pary line because that's what they've been taught. Usually to hang onto their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts