Christianity is going to get OWNED!

**A Real Musician** · January 20th, 2004, 03:32 AM

Reprise!!!

**swark** · January 20th, 2004, 02:41 PM

this will probably be the largest thread ever...seeing how everybody wants the last word.......now I have it!!!!!! [img]graemlins/grrr.gif[/img]

**two drink minimum** · January 20th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by pretty_in_punk:
HE LOOKS LIKE A DISGUSTING HORNY DOG TRYING TO HUMP A LEG....

In the avatar, or just generally?

**ExtraPerson** · January 20th, 2004, 04:25 PM

Ha ha. Bush will win over the deep south guaranteed. The "Terrorist Killer" probably has a lot of popularity with those overly patriotic bastards.

Ha ha, Backwater towns make me laugh.

**recoveringpunker** · January 20th, 2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by ExtraPerson:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by recoveringpunker:
I also read how Christianity has stated the Bible is "not Historicaly or Scientificly accurate", and is not intended to be so. I would like some proof of that. Both of Christianity saying so, and of the reasons why it is not historicaly or scientificaly correct. Please, no fighting out of opinions and personal ideaology, I want to know the proof in which you have to make such "factual" sounding statements.

Here's some proof. The Bible was not meant to be read fundamentally(literally). Take for example, the creation stories: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, The Tower of Babel, etc. These are not historically accurate stories because they are just that: stories. These stories were created to try to help believers to understand what is inexplicable (i.e. the creation of man, and different languages). Obviously, how can earth and all evolution and everything take place over the course of seven days. Also, Revelation, the last book in the Bible. Also not meant to be read literally. You will probably get pretty confused and scared if you read that book of the Bible literally. That book was based off of a dream that John had.
Just trying to help clear some things up a bit.<hr /></blockquote>Well if we read what I wrote, and then read your reply, it is exactly what I asked NOT to get. Your opion. I don't know you, but just in case you don't know, your opinion is not fact or proof no matter how highly you think of yourself.

I have read the Bible, and Revelation is not scary. It is written in symbolism. You cannot compare Revelation to Genesis. Genesis is a story, true. But if I told you the (sorry to borrow Mike) Story of my life, it would be a story aswell. A true story. I am not going to argue what is true or not, just that you cannot rule something false by calling it a story.

Ever seen Tao of Steve? Good movie, funny, you should see it. That is for whoever brought Tao.

**A Real Musician** · January 20th, 2004, 08:39 PM

I don't quite know what you want recoveringpunker. You want proof that the bible was never intended to be historically or scientifically accurate, right?

Look at the context in which it is written. If you were to tell us the story of your life, you would be doing so to inform us. If however you were telling us your life story for another reason(for example, to make us feel either sorry or jealous for you), the story loses some of its truthfullness. Looking at the context in which the stories of the Bible were written, they were never written to be historical documents. Some of the writers of these stories, including the stories of Jesus death, etc., were not even there at the time of the actual event. That pretty much shows that were not trying to write something historical.

The intent of a novel is to entertain.
The intent of a biography is to inform.
The intent of propoganda is to convince.
The intent of the Bible is to convert.

Simple as that. Nowhere in here will you find an opinion. Try and tell me that a novel is meant to be taken literally.

**two drink minimum** · January 20th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Tao of Steve is good. But "Recovering Punker," if he can't post his opinion than perhaps you can't either. Go ahead and leave if you have that attitude.

**ExtraPerson** · January 20th, 2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by recoveringpunker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ExtraPerson:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by recoveringpunker:
I also read how Christianity has stated the Bible is "not Historicaly or Scientificly accurate", and is not intended to be so. I would like some proof of that. Both of Christianity saying so, and of the reasons why it is not historicaly or scientificaly correct. Please, no fighting out of opinions and personal ideaology, I want to know the proof in which you have to make such "factual" sounding statements.

Here's some proof. The Bible was not meant to be read fundamentally(literally). Take for example, the creation stories: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, The Tower of Babel, etc. These are not historically accurate stories because they are just that: stories. These stories were created to try to help believers to understand what is inexplicable (i.e. the creation of man, and different languages). Obviously, how can earth and all evolution and everything take place over the course of seven days. Also, Revelation, the last book in the Bible. Also not meant to be read literally. You will probably get pretty confused and scared if you read that book of the Bible literally. That book was based off of a dream that John had.
Just trying to help clear some things up a bit.<hr /></blockquote>Well if we read what I wrote, and then read your reply, it is exactly what I asked NOT to get. Your opion. I don't know you, but just in case you don't know, your opinion is not fact or proof no matter how highly you think of yourself.

I have read the Bible, and Revelation is not scary. It is written in symbolism. You cannot compare Revelation to Genesis. Genesis is a story, true. But if I told you the (sorry to borrow Mike) Story of my life, it would be a story aswell. A true story. I am not going to argue what is true or not, just that you cannot rule something false by calling it a story.

Ever seen Tao of Steve? Good movie, funny, you should see it. That is for whoever brought Tao.<hr /></blockquote>Ok my friend, where is the opinion there. The only part I see is the part about Revelation being scary to those that read it LITERALLY. It is taught by the CHURCH, that the Bible is not meant to be read fundamentally. By saying that the creation stories, are simply stories, I mean that they are historically false. The Church tells us that. No Adam, no Eve, just something to help explain why we are here. I don't understand what you want. You asked for proof, I gave it to you, and you call it opinion. You don't seem to know what you're asking for either.