Let us begin with the Old Testament, before moving up to the New Testament. Post specifics, if able. This is hardly a thread to antagonize the Christcucks, but rather, is more of a side-project for myself, who likes to compile such information for convenience. :
>...by the 1960s it had become clear that the archaeological record did not, in fact, support the account of the conquest given in Joshua: the cities which the Bible records as having been destroyed by the Israelites were either uninhabited at the time, or, if destroyed, were destroyed at widely different times, not in one brief period. >Archeologist Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho to the middle of the 16th century, too early to match the usual dating of the Exodus to Pharaoh Ramses, on the basis of excavations. >The various books of the Bible clearly show evidence of rewriting and considerable editing. Most accept the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the final editing of the Biblical text may have been as late as the reign of Artaxerxes II (405–404 BCE). >According to Biblical scholar Thomas Thompson: "There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the Davidic legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. Stories are not enough." >None of the conquests of David nor Solomon are mentioned in contemporary histories. >Culturally, the Bronze Age collapse is otherwise a period of general cultural impoverishment of the whole Levantine region, making it difficult to consider the existence of any large territorial unit such as the Davidic kingdom
>Solomon's empire is said to have stretched from the Euphrates in the north to the Red Sea in the south; it would have required a large commitment of men and arms and a high level of organization to conquer, subdue, and govern this area. But there is little archaeological evidence of Jerusalem being a sufficiently large city in the 10th century BCE, and Judah seems to be sparsely settled in that time period. >There is a problem with the sources for this period of history (the United Monarchy). There are no contemporary independent documents: the Books of Samuel exhibits too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example, there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common) (2 Samuel 12:31), sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15). There is a gargantuan troop (2 Samuel 17:1), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and a reference to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 8th century BCE. >The historicity of the Book of Samuel is dubious, and many scholars regard it as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples (most scholars believe that the Israelites actually emerged Canaan in a relatively peaceful manner, themselves an offshoot from the Canaanites)
Cooper Sanders
>the bible is a history book >the bible is one thing rather than a catalogue >the ancients cared about historicities the way we do nowadays >ancient history was meticulous about accuracy like modern history is
You are not a biblical scholar in the slightest.
Michael Ramirez
>Christcucks think a book which can't even accurately record supposedly contemporary history can somehow be completely correct concerning the nature of divinity, cosmology and cosmogony, eschatology, transcendence, the future, and man's nature.
Gavin Powell
It's an allegory you retarded fedora
Charles Torres
>>ancient history was meticulous about accuracy like modern history is Read OP's posts. This isn't about the bible getting a couple of details wrong, this is about the central subject matter of half of the old testament missing from the historical record. Also, Jesus is supposed to be descended from David, so I'd say that the absence of evidence for David is a massive strike against Christianity.
Ryder Martin
>it's an allegory
And yet people believe in its message as literal truth. The problem with saying it is an allegory is that it creates the problem of the slippery slope: at what point does it cease to be allegorical?
Zachary Baker
>if we interpret this passage of the bible literally, it is false >no part of the bible is false >therefore, this passage is not meant to be taken literally Fuck off with this meme.
Bentley Perez
It really wasn't terribly long ago that the old testament narrative was taken as being literally true, then it devolved into having an element of fact, until we've at last arrived at completely allegorical.
Benjamin Morales
...
Evan Diaz
When you get to a different literary genre. Or do you call Genesis 3, Psalms 15, James 2, Sirach 38 and Leviticus 20 all the same literary genre?
Carter James
It might not be historicly inspired at all. youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U Dude is a bit of a prick, but his research seems detailed as fuck. Download his book on TPB or something, its good to look up something specific if you ever want to.
Like, the "jesus hates figs" part makes sense as a made up alligory story, to explain to people that temples and sacrifices are "out of season".
Jason Diaz
Even Jesus's supposed ancestor David is an allegory? kek
Colton Howard
you serious? we aren't talking about Psalms or Proverbs as though they're meant to be read as histories, this is Joshua and Samuel which are obviously intended to try to tell past historical events
Brody Williams
I hope whoever keeps posting this is just one guy who's overly proud of his trite post.
Robert Lee
Funny, how once it becomes inconvenient to espouse a certain passage as a literal truth, the Christcucks try to save face by rebranding whatever was at hand as 'allegory'. And the best part is, they continue to put stock in it.
>o-okay, so maybe Jericho didn't fall due to divine intervention after all, and King David never existed, but those parts were just allegories! My religion is just real, just not those parts!
Angel Foster
i don't know how a Messiah even makes sense without a King David
Carson Bell
Yes, and I'm saying that the allegorical stuff isn't the historical or legal stuff.
And for that matter, so what? Ancient historical records aren't perfect and there's always stuff lost to history along with the maxim "history is written by the winners" as an identifier of bias among ancients. Perhaps Sennacherib embellished any talents taken from Hezekiah and didn't personally record the smoting of his soldiers because he heard Israelites wanting Assyrian troops to be smoted and when they were, his pride and disbelief said "hey scribes make record of this and I will destroy your bloodlines."
Again, ancient records aren't perfect, accurate or even very good considering all the time passed and the little found.
Only recently has pic related become the more scientifically approved T Rex, prior to that they were all straight outta JP and before that they were lumbering tail draggers.
It matters to Christcucks, who believe the Bible was written under direct divine inspiration. Christians consider God to be perfect and omniscient: therefore, one wrong detail is enough to prove that the Bible was not actually divinely inspired, and is merely a a chronicle of the ethnic myths of a certain group of Semites with an addendum of Greek fanfictions and sequels which tried to expound on these older myths.
Justin Nelson
I agree with you, but if there is going to be a claim that these documents are inspired by the one true God I think we should expect the historical events that are very key to the theology to actually be true and not made from whole cloth
Brody Sanchez
What do think you divine inspiration is?
Austin Richardson
In your defense of the Christian Bible you concede that God - who, according to their own mythical narrative, dictated the books to the respective prophets/saints - purposefully allowed errors to be transcribed, which is anathema and heretical to Christian thought.
Idiot.
Noah Cox
See Want to know what you think it is as well.
I feel like it's a term that two parties talk about but neither use the same definition of. Hence no ground is made one way or the other.
Chase Gonzalez
Isn't there a documentary that purports to show that the Exodus actually happened, just centuries before everyone assumed it did?
Also, didn't they find the ruins of Sodom?
Connor Nelson
I don't think you understand what divine inspiration means either.
Juan Sullivan
>Also, didn't they find the ruins of Sodom? Who are they and where did they allegedly find them?
Robert Howard
not him but the Christian understanding is that the Holy Spirit essentially enters people and tells them what to write. a more direct translation is God breathed, stressing that the words in divinely inspired works are basically God's words
Juan Parker
I choose to believe that most of the conquests and events in the early books of the Bible are deeply prehistoric. I think they did happen, but the dates are wrong because they happened much longer ago than the common dating assumes.
Grayson Rogers
I remember hearing about it on /christian/ but I can't remember the name. I take it that it didn't make waves in archaeology though. Most of the 'evidence' I've seen has been afrocentrist tier.
Asher Adams
see
John White
I get that God is supposed to be all-wise, but I really question the wisdom of 'inspiring' people to write down events that read as history but aren't actually history to communicate a vague truth that would have been better explained specifically.
Brody Miller
yeah I agree. I'm trying to show that the intended meaning of divinely inspired or God breathed shows that the scripture should be infallible and therefore the Christian God is wrong beyond any doubt
Tyler Powell
>conquests of cities >pre-historic
Gavin Peterson
>he doesn't know about the Ice Age civilizations
Easton Parker
Citation? That sounds rather Protestant since Catholics, who actually ENCOURAGE this kind of questioning, believe Divine Inspiration pertains to the message the author wants to convey, and said message is on matters of faith and morals because God wanted that to get conveyed. Let's look at Exodus' plagues for example. Yes there is some historical whatzit that "oh it disproves it wholesale!" but what is the message about faith that, when taken with the entire context of Biblical history (that is, within the Bible itself) it asserts and affirms the power of YHWH as greater than all other gods, that He can single handedly crush an entire pantheon for the sake of the people He calls His. THAT is the inspiration. And later in other books, after God's power is well understood by His people, it goes on to the point of "I'm the only God that exists" when you get to... Elijah I think, having a contest with Baal priests to start setting precident that other Gods are not only weaker, but non-existent.
This is what Divine Inspiration is, the message wanting to be conveyed since as far as the authors were concerned, accuracy about X historical thing wasn't as important as God's Love for His People or the like.
Lucas Cox
...
Robert Perez
>it asserts and affirms the power of YHWH as greater than all other gods, that He can single handedly crush an entire pantheon for the sake of the people He calls His. THAT is the inspiration. it only affirms that power if it actually happened
Thomas Russell
But pure fiction can convey messages better than records of actual events can, since the author can tailor the events of a fictional narrative to fit his message. If the Bible was written to convey a message rather than record events, why should we believe its message rather than the message of other texts?
Jayden Price
Where do you get the idea that any of those words mean "free from error on ALL accounts" rather than "free from error on theological accounts but probably littered with historical and scientific innacuracies because that wasn't the point of the text to the people commiting it to writing?"
I'm not raging, I'm curious where you find that line of thinking.
what the fuck is the point of the message about Yahweh's power if the stories portraying them not only aren't true? What a weak god you have. He can inspire people to write fictional stories about his power but he can't actually put his power into action
Justin Hughes
>but probably littered with historical and scientific innacuracies because that wasn't the point of the text to the people commiting it to writing? how is Joshua not intended to be historical? How is Samuel not intended to be historical?
Charles Walker
> littered with historical and scientific inaccuracies Fabricating empires and origin stories is a pretty big inaccuracy. Most would call it an outright lie.
William Jackson
This.
Christcuck apologetics are ridiculous in how low they can get.
Eli Cooper
I think it's all quite true, really.
The stories of the Bible, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus... I think it's all pretty real.
After all, as others have pointed out, what's the good of the stories of the Old Testament if they're not historical? Jesus treats Moses and Adam and Abraham as all being real figures. If we can't believe God himself, who can we believe?
So I'll believe that they're all real, that the events of the Old Testament did happen, and I'll wait patiently for archaeology to prove me right. Come get me.
Jason Richardson
>The stories of the Bible, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus... I think it's all pretty real.
Opinion discarded.
Nicholas Moore
Because? If there are accounts of similar but smaller scale events like the plagues, could it not be the accounts spoken of but less embellished since accuracy was, as I said, less important than message? I've heard Exodus' plagues be attributed to volcanic activity causing: >red tide in the Nile (water to blood) >frogs to evacuate the water (frog infestation) >dead frogs causing increased insect populations (infestations of flies and other small insectoid vermin) >mass livestock death and human disease spread by the last last infestation (livestock death and boils) >volcanic hail (the hail of burning ice >grasshopper swarms migrating in search of food after the hail destroyed vegetation (locusts) >heavy ash clouds or the hansim (darkness) >Egyptian firstborn apparently had the privilege of low-lying beds while others slept higher up and volcanism-caused CO2 fogs killed everything close to the ground while Jews celebrating Passover were awake and standing/mass human sacrifice by the Egyptians who thought killing their first born would appease the gods/Cladosporium (the death of the first born of Egypt while Israel lived)
Now with how big the last one is, explanations are hard to make certain since lacks of records and existing ones focusing more on getting across the nature of God than the nature of the plagues, but as many same Christians believe, God can and does use ordinary means for extraordinary ends, and Volcanic Dominoes can be such an occurrence.
And if you say I'm just trying to justify my Bronze Age fairy tails, yeah and? Isn't that the point of discouse? Or is blind agreement only okay when it's against the Biblical narratives and traditions or something? Because as I've said, as a Catholic we WELCOME this kind of inquiry.
Isaiah Watson
archeology has already proven most of that wrong though. normally these types of posts irritate me but this just made me sad
Aaron Evans
It is, but as records go, the ones penning them made more of a point about God's place in them than man's place in them, thus they were pretty crap about historical accuracy down to minute details.
Mason Lewis
Examples? Because once we get into messages on spiritual truths or the like we jump into philosophy rather than history.
Austin Phillips
I'm sorry to have upset you. I'll still be here waiting.
Jason Morgan
"Some dude finds abandoned place and says it might have been Sodom" is not the same thing as "Archaeologist finds Sodom"
Hunter Sanders
but if God's place in them is in supposedly historical events that didn't happen then where's God's place in them? you're speaking nonsense. God took down Jericho's walls. Event didn't happen and somehow you hold onto this fabricated event because it speaks a theological truth about a God who can't perform the miracles He claims to do?
Charles Edwards
it's irrelevant if it can be explained by natural means. what matters is that it actually happned, which it probably didn't
Ryan Wilson
And why are they not true? Because archeology is imperfect and certain data is relatively lost to history?
And what do you actually want from God? Why do you believe God should suit you and what you want?
Juan Nelson
>minute details >the existence of entire empires is a minute detail k
Alexander James
I'm sorry, I don't really understand. What do you want examples of? My point is that the author of a fictional story has more room to deliver a clear-cut spiritual message than someone who records history, since the writer of fiction doesn't have to include anything in his story that conflicts with his message.
Easton Bell
One can interpret the Fall of Jericho as God being with his people in their seige and the walls coming down referring to standard victory. The point is "they won because God."
Hudson Murphy
I know you will be. You consider blind faith a virtue. Yet blind faith can lead you to so many different religions. so what value does blind faith have? so if blind faith is worthless to finding the correct path shouldn't we follow the evidence and not presume that we are correct from the start?
Tyler Wood
Why can't God use natural means? Can God not, as the Creator of everything, use the nature He created to reach an end in the material world that Man can observe?
Dylan Fisher
Yes one can interpret that. but you are stripping the actual story bare. it shows that because it is portraying God as actually doing that in reality. why can't your god produce actual miracles and have people write about them instead of having people fabricate miracles to show his glory?
Landon Lee
What really redpilled me on the Bible was when I learned about the existence of the Mesha stele.
At that point I pretty much began to look at the Bible like romance of the three kingdoms: as basically a fictional romance of actual historical events (except the early origin stories which are more blatantly bullshit).
Benjamin White
read again. I didn't say he couldn't. I said that comment on it possibly being explained by natural causes was irrelevant
Leo Rogers
I said down to minute details. This means everything from the lands controlled by an empire to the colors of the emperor's throne room.
Sebastian Lopez
or even the existence of said empire
Jaxson Sanchez
It's not a blind faith. It's a faith I gained over careful thought and study. It only seems blind to you because I try my hardest to be consistent in my belief.
If Christianity is right, then Jesus is right. Jesus treats Moses as a real person, as the giver of the Law and the great patriarch of the Hebrew people. Therefore I need to treat Moses as a real person.
You could say it's a following of faith into reason. I believe what I believe through faith, and then I use my reason to decide the things I additionally need to believe, because my faith is contingent upon them. Christianity requires the existence of Adam, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of all the Kings and the Prophets. So I believe in them. I believe they were real and I believe their existence will be borne out, in time. I believe eventually science will catch up to Scripture. But because I am a Christian I believe in the truth of all the things that Christianity is contingent upon. I can't do anything less.
Cooper White
Problem is that you haven't arrived at these conclusions by starting with a tabula rasa. You began with a foundation of Christian indoctrination and the assumption that "Jesus is right."
Leo Jackson
>I believe what I believe through faith, and then I use my reason to decide the things I additionally need to believe, because my faith is contingent upon them. uh... that's blind faith. you are saying you presuppose the truth of your religion and then use reason to decide additional things within that framework. you are ignoring the fundamental roots and assuming that they are a sound foundation. this is the same thing believers of other religions do
Colton Hill
>If Christianity is right
It isn't. The historical record shows it's all invented and at most, greatly exaggerated.
John Lee
>historical accuracy >of a myth
Look, I'm Catholic but we might as well start debating the accuracy of the Iliad.
Ryder Long
"I believe because it is impossible."
Kevin Allen
I was referring to > If the Bible was written to convey a message rather than record events, why should we believe its message rather than the message of other texts? As it sounded like you had examples.
And the message was a more important point, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also a record of events, just one that was more interested in the whole "Truths from/of the Holy God of the Universe" part rather than Iron Age Mesopotamian politics.
Scope, names, dates, all that was of moderate importance with pinpoint accuracy of low importance while the theological bits were of the greater importance. The Kingdom of Israel could've just been one or two dime-a-dozen cities of average size that tried picking on the bigger kids on the playground and won on occasion when the bigger kid didn't curbstomp them or just not care. Very Ancient Israel is probably still in Troy status of historically viable. And with ISIS blowing historical shit up every 10 minutes, relatively good records of it could be lost to history permanently by now of the near future.
Dominic Campbell
I'm sorry, maybe I'm spiritually blind, maybe I'm literally autistic, but I can't help thinking that your way of thinking is completely ridiculous. You can't just take a proposition as ambiguous and open to criticism as "Christianity is true" as an axiom and derive what you believe from that. It's a well-known logical principle that if something, when assumed to be true, produces a proposition that is false, the original proposition must be also false. Please talk to your priest or pastor about the basis for your faith, I'm sure he'll be able to tell you about some Christian thinkers that are actually reasonable and have a sane foundation for their beliefs.
Caleb Gonzalez
these myths are the very core of your belief though. How can Jesus be the Messiah if there is no King David? in the gospels Jesus refers to Abraham, Moses, David, and Noah as real people. this means that the man you believe to be an infallible God believed these myths to be true
Joshua Watson
>> If the Bible was written to convey a message rather than record events, why should we believe its message rather than the message of other texts? >As it sounded like you had examples. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text#Sacred_texts_of_various_religions Knock yourself out fampai.
Hunter Reed
Get redpilled on the ancient Finnish empire, user.
Leo Thompson
>I'm Catholic >I believe the bible is a myth Wew lad opinions coming in hot
Daniel Morris
Why does God need to be grandiose? Providence doesn't need to be something absurdly impossible.
Colton Richardson
This is a recent interpretation. The events of the old testament were seen as generally accurate for most of your church's history. Now that they're revealed to be completely absent of fact it's completely metaphorical?
Samuel Wilson
I didn't realize that a god that claims to have produced miracles actually doing said miracles was grandiose. and if God actually wants us to believe in him and knows that we could face eternal hellfire why would he NOT be grandiose to try to save as many people as he can?
Bentley Harris
What's your point here? I'm not sure if your in favor of it as a historical if embellished record or completley false nonsense that might as well discuss King Pisswhifle of the Sherbert Kingdom.
Also, Genesis is best read comparatively to other creation myths of the region of the Levant, North Africa, Greece and Mesopotamia.
Carson Lewis
This.
Saying the recorded events are merely "allegorical" or "metaphorical" is backpedaling.
Michael Diaz
How so? If ISIS blows up every non-Muslim thing they find, eventually there won't be any records at all one way or the other to study. If that's the case, then what?
Sebastian Myers
Oddly enough muslims do believe that the first religions were Islam and that the original documents are lost to time.
Are they wrong? What if we live in that reality?
Hopefully you can see why this line of reasoning quickly becomes absurd.
Isaac Reed
A bit of column A and a bit of column B. It's clear that Moabites, Babylonians, Assyrians, various non-Jewish Canaanites and other groups in the Bible existed, along with Ba'al worship, etc.
But the Biblical record is greatly embellished. This is clear when comparing the account of the Mesha stele (which itself may be propagandistic in some ways admittedly) with what the Bible says of the Hebrews' wars with the Moabites. IIRC the Bible makes it sound like Mesha retreated in the face of fierce Israeli resistance while the Mesha stele seems to indicate that Mesha was wholly victorious in numerous wars with the Hebrews.
to put it differently, I don't think everything in the bible is completely fabricated but the parts that are not fabricated are still greatly embellished. The Bible is largely propagandistic. Parts of it are pure fiction while other parts are romanticized history.
As another point, I don't think that the ancient Jews came from an outside exodus to the Levant. I think many of them were originally Canaanites who worshiped other deities and later converted/adopted Judaism.
Colton Peterson
>believers doing mental gymnastics in order to keep their ego intact Nothing new under the sun.
Cameron Sanchez
>He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” >Luke 16:31
Angel Lopez
That's not a recent interpretation. I'm fairly sure St. Augustine wrote something to the effect of "If these stories aren't true, it doesn't invalidate shit. They just happen to be true." All in doing is biting that bullet.
My faith is built on stronger stuff. I think it's pretty pathetic to depend on historical accuracy to guide belief regarding a transcendental realm. And besides, it's not some things Christ said that are the reason I worship him. It's the meaning of it all. The mystery of salvation, the writings that have come since then. Even if it were all false, I'd still believe. The ecstacy of St Theresa, and the apathia so prized in the east. Those things are worth believing in. Those things are worth striving for.
Some events in the Roman Empire, 2000 years ago? I can't be bothered when Christianity has so much more to offer than kids tales.
And EVEN THEN, I think the church is valuable as a social structure. There's a ton of reasons to follow Christ, beyond Jewish campfire stories.
Christian Baker
See, the problem with that is that ISIS would need to conquer the world in order to achieve such a feat. One of the issues with the bible is that there are no historical records from other places that can back up most of it's claims. If ISIS controlled all of the middle east and north Africa (destroying all non-muslim records in the process) then there would still be tons of records outside their sphere of influence that would be intact.
Daniel Taylor
But ISIS is only a problem in Syria. they ain't blowing up shit in Israel which is central to this thread. plus they aren't destroying everything. most of the artifacts they get their hands on get sold on the black market so they aren't actually lost and could eventually make their way into the hands of archeologists. it's not ideal but it's better than losing everything
Bentley Davis
>Even if it were all false, I'd still believe
Confirmed for being a retard.
>Those things are worth believing in
It's not worth anything if it isn't actually real.
>I think the church is valuable as a social structure
It has literally never been valuable as a social structure, and I will tell you that many others believe the church establishment was the cause for the fall of kingdoms and empires. Imagine that: people being tortured to death, states descending into anarchy and being split apart, and all for something that wasn't 'real'.
Albigensian Crusade, the Bosnian Crusade, the Baltic Crusades, the Thirty-Years-War and the Wars of Religion... Sure, "useful".
Oliver Peterson
>Even if it were all false, I'd still believe. Except if you know that it's false, you don't believe, and you can't believe. If it is false and you ignore the evidence, you're not behaving virtuously.
Nathaniel Roberts
>Even if it were all false, I'd still believe. You know what, good for you. but I actually care whether it is right. I can separate the truth from stories that I happen to enjoy. The bible is actually one of my favorite things to read. you don't have to be a church member to be part of a community. even though I personally don't like the idea, there are even atheist churches that are intended to give the aesthetics and community of church life without the added baggage of belief.
Adam Lopez
Actually I'm just talking about records of civilization, not so much theology unto itself. A lot of this thread is saying the theology should be discarded because of lacking archeology. And all I'm saying is "if archeology is THAT important to you, then your standards are on the way to never being fulfilled as psychos blow shit up purposefully." It's not like a poetry scroll lost to fire in the seige of a castle while other stuff is plundered for the conquerors' advancement, it's people deliberately blowing up ancient monuments and burning records because they think they want to jumpstart the end of the world. Remember when ISIS blew up a tomb that was said to be the prophet Jonah's? Well, good luck verifying it now. And I'm not even talking about if Jonah really was a Prophet of God or was inside a whale, I'm ONLY reffering to a historical Jonah as a Jewish guy who went to a city called Ninevah to preach his religion.
Nolan Torres
Those are some hot epistemological claims, son. You're right that knowledge is inherently antithetical to belief, though. That's why I think suspension of all belief is the right way to go about it. As for ignoring evidence being non-virtuous, I fail to see how that works.
>You know what, good for you. but I actually care whether it is right. That's fine. I wish you luck on your journey!
>Confirmed for being a retard. Damn, I love being a gangster.
>It has literally never been valuable as a social structure It saved the West from Islam. That alone, in my opinion, validates it's existence, although I'm sure you'll find fault with their role in Western culture's salvation as well.
Andrew Perry
So I'm not sure what your overall point is then. Are you saying it's possible that the evidence regarding the events in the old testament was possibly destroyed, therefore it's reasonable to believe that they are true?
Jace Fisher
Here we go. The Catholic position isn't backpedaling. It was the opinion of Augustine of Hippo, one of the foundational thinkers of the Church.
(quotation from St. Augustine of Hippo (354AD – 430AD) , one of the greatest Christian theologians, from his work De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis).)
>Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
>The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.
>Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
Joshua White
Later on he says (to my personal amusement):
>One must surely not think that in this passage of Holy Scripture there has been an omission of any one of the four elements that are generally supposed to make up the world just because there seems to be no mention of air in the account of sky, water, and earth.
Again, from De Genisi ad Litteram
Chase Bailey
This thread is more concerning the events in the bible described post-genesis. That includes the exodus story and the kings of Israel and all that shit. Now I don't know if Augustine believed in that personally but the Catholic church for most of its history certainly did.
