really? why don't you hop on over to the "what defines marriage?" thread and see who's dishing it out.
The Bible is Bullshit
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
really? why don't you hop on over to the "what defines marriage?" thread and see who's dishing it out.
Lori is referring to her abomination against her god which she feels is perfectly acceptable despite the fact that the bible, which she believes, states she has sinned and will burn in hell.
She completely ignores the verses.
I'd rather stick to the topic, daydreamer.
The Bible isn't one book, it is many books bound together.
Religion aside, some of them are literary works of genius.
eg
Psalms
Song of Solomon
You may think it's bullshit, but you've got to accept that it is one of mankind's masterpieces.
Religion aside, some of them are literary works of genius.
eg
Psalms
Song of Solomon
You may think it's bullshit, but you've got to accept that it is one of mankind's masterpieces.
Last edited:
Btw I entirely disagree with this post.
Real inconsistent I'll start.
1Really basic inconsistancies: The bible is told from the perspective of a fantasy or a story book, so inconsistencies are not existing in it. It's told from a perspective of time become all, and leaves all intellectual perspectives absolutely open. As far as I know, intellectually, it could be read as a holy grail of sorts, so any points respect to it you'd like to argue aganist are yours for the grabbing. Many believe a christian is learned through reading it, so some people that are christians are individually valiating their positions through this.
2There is one messiah: Jesus christ. Although other messiahs are lead room to be believed, aka, John and moses, many more are given the feel if not actuality of absolusion. meaning jesus isn't the only messiah and the bible makes this feel absolute. (marry for instance, even a complete revision due to this inconsistancy, or better the belief in these messiahs.)
3Moses spread what is refered to actually as the ten commandments, and is given a high seat in it.
4The flood was supposed to occur, according to some, and could also be considered for whatever reasons as a pre-historical falsity, or a factual accounting of the truth, since it's time period an falsification can be considered to account for it.
The bible isn't BS and these are all very good reasons... particularly the bit about there being a flood that is true and that it could be factually accounted for as being true due to a simple refrence or position.
Many theists base their positions of absolusion on its belief and just in general btw so that it's given the position of being pre-rational. Some images such as the flood could also be looked upon as historicially signifigant (same thing as platos signifigance pertaining to a historicial reasoning investigation per say the issue of the bible takes the same rational accountinizion otherwise youths that have their parents as staunch believers whom have their believes attacked never have them actually attacked and the youths benefit by prospering in terms of smarts and grow to spread the word and the message through the bible itself.)
All of these are very good reasons to completely ignore your topic, and better, reasons to have you searching for your tale end instead of your forehead or your own face - which you can't seem to see in the op quite so well.
Thought you might enjoy this post, and I hope to not get a response (unless you intend to give an actual post in response to this one. It isn't illogicial what I've posted either. Purely factual presumpsions.
If you consier each thing I've said i'm sure you'll take back the entire OP.)