No, I know most of biblical events is literal history. I know some of it allegorical. Of course that is what a person with a fully functional brain can do, recognize when something is actual history and when it a fable with some basis in reality.
What would you say if you met Him?
- Thread starter Ayodhya
- Start date
No, I know most of biblical events is literal history. I know some of it allegorical. Of course that is what a person with a fully functional brain can do, recognize when something is actual history and when it a fable with some basis in reality.
This is when it just becomes hilarious. You talk about most of the Bible being literal history (there is no such thing in a religious context) whilst also maintaining that all the supernatural aspects of the Jesus story are part of that 'literal history', such as miracles, resurrection, ascention etc.
The most likely scenario for me, and most secular judgement is that the story of Jesus may have been based on a real person, but that later became unimportant, since after his death, people embellished his story and told blatant irrational lies to get more followers of this new religious sect. And it worked. How else would they get so many followers if they hadn't had the supernatural and miracle aspects? It reveals the Bible for what it really is... full of lies, pandering to hunger for superstition. If Christianity didn't perpetuate these myths and lies, another sect would have taken over. Simple as that.
No religious doctrine is a reliable source of history. History is without bias.
The most likely scenario for me, and most secular judgement is that the story of Jesus may have been based on a real person, but that later became unimportant, since after his death, people embellished his story and told blatant irrational lies to get more followers of this new religious sect. And it worked. How else would they get so many followers if they hadn't had the supernatural and miracle aspects? It reveals the Bible for what it really is... full of lies, pandering to hunger for superstition. If Christianity didn't perpetuate these myths and lies, another sect would have taken over. Simple as that.
No religious doctrine is a reliable source of history. History is without bias.
Please. Enlighten us all. Become the definitive source of what's allegorical and what's "literal history" in the mythical text you call the bible. I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation.
I think, by the end of that thread, we'll find that the "most" and "more" statements above are actually backwards.
Holy Lord, let me be the God for sometime, take rest while I clear up the mess.
"What would you say if you met Him? "
Are you some sadistic maniac? you son of a bitch!
Are you some sadistic maniac? you son of a bitch!
Well, as far as I know you were not there and did not bear to said events. So in the end your opinion is worth a fart in the wind. Then again the people who wrote about them were there and did witness them and recorded them. So I am to belive your fart in the wind over the account of an eye witness....hmmm, not likely.
You're forgetting perhaps the most important factor in that. Man has always been cynical and questioning. He are distrustful little bastards when something sounds too good to be true. "You mean your god heals the blind, raises the dead, and casts out demons and if we just ask forgiveness we are admitted into paradise when we die and you want no money? Yeeahhh Righhhhht." And before you jump on that remember the Catholic Church did not make tithing mandatory until it was ran by the Romans.
History always has bias jackhole. The winner gets to rewrite everything and the loser gets revisionist history. There is no nuetrality in any human endeavor to record history.
I would think that obvious, but if you can't tell then that is your problem. But as a guideline. I normally say most of it upto and including the flood is Allegorical as is Soddom and Gammorrah. We know Joseph/Imhotep is factual. As is Moses, David, Elijah, Solomon, and many others becuase they are in the histories of other nations around them. It is just a matter of cross referencing and infering.
Well, if you could actually construct a meaningful sentence people might lend credit to your argument, but I doubt it.
Last edited:
I would say keep me away from Godless-nah jk. Then i would say ahem, did you think those people killing on earth were gonna stop when they got up here?LOL
no wait, i would say=
Ethyl Ethy let me squeeze you in my arms
Ethyl Ethy come and freeze me with your charms
no wait, i would say=
Ethyl Ethy let me squeeze you in my arms
Ethyl Ethy come and freeze me with your charms
Last edited:
Please. Show us the evidence. What makes Joseph, Moses, David, et al factual and Noah, Abraham, Lott, et al allegorical? What qualifies the line of demarcation? What archaeological evidence is there to support those you call "facts?"
The reality is, there simply is no factual basis for these figures. Particularly Moses and the Joseph/Imhotep connection is pure speculation.
The fascinating thing in these types of constructions is where the various adherents of christianity draw their lines of superstition. For some, the Flood is myth but Sodom and Gamorah were fact. For others, the Old Testament is allegorical and the magic and sorcery of christian gods in the New Testament is fact.
I've yet to see find anyone that agrees fully with anyone else in the superstition camp.
Right. All you guys would tell God to fuck off to his face. Did you ever even tell your dad or principle to fuck off? How about a cop? So now your telling the all powerful creator of the universe who can destroy you with a thought to shove it?
You weren't there either, so your point of view! smells like shit!
But I am not the contradicting eyewitness accounts.
When it doesn't have any bearing on his judgment of us?
From the opening post:
He hasn't his expressed his thoughts too well but I think you get the idea.
What would you say if you met Him?
hmmm...you are a sexy beast! Yeah baby!
hmmm...you are a sexy beast! Yeah baby!