How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

“How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?”

As the rest of two milliard Christians; my answer is 100% too .

But the homosexuals, their proponents and some of the rest of sinners, that have democratic right to speak up about their rights/privileges, call the Christian majority backward/illiterate people, because they are not accepted by the religion. There are hundreds of world wide known scientists that are/were Christians, you know.

Alas ... our opponents cannot accept Christian religion as they are advanced/ARAJADEM scientific people and more importantly; because they advocate for things that are considered by the religion as immoral. This is why they are trying to prolong this “discussion” and console themselves that God does not exist, until summoned by...

Please take into consideration the facts above Mos and Pepsi.

Everything you said was either a logical fallacy or otherwise does nothing to establish the probative value of the conclusions you wish to advance. Quite the accomplishment.

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Everything you said was either a logical fallacy or otherwise does nothing to establish the probative value of the conclusions you wish to advance. Quite the accomplishment.

Thank you for the word soup. I personally prefer madzoun abour. What gegev was saying is that most Christians are intelligent, useful and productive members of society who make worldly contributions.

That, of course, excludes the backwards, Zionist Xians who support and promote war and suffering for the greater good of Israel.

[Haykakan]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Nah thats where your wrong. The zionist xians you speak of think just like mr gegev and perhaps like you to. You see they are as racist and they think their religion and race are better then others thus it is ok to do whatever evile in its name. They to will boast of great contributions to society and they to are guilty of horrible acts vs humanity. See a common trend here or are you wearing the chrystian blinders tonight?

Thank you for the word soup. I personally prefer madzoun abour. What gegev was saying is that most Christians are intelligent, useful and productive members of society who make worldly contributions.

That, of course, excludes the backwards, Zionist Xians who support and promote war and suffering for the greater good of Israel.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

What gegev was saying is that most Christians are intelligent, useful and productive members of society who make worldly contributions.

No one said that they weren't.

[KanadaHye]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Nah thats where your wrong. The zionist xians you speak of think just like mr gegev and perhaps like you to. You see they are as racist and they think their religion and race are better then others thus it is ok to do whatever evile in its name. They to will boast of great contributions to society and they to are guilty of horrible acts vs humanity. See a common trend here or are you wearing the chrystian blinders tonight?

Nah, Zionist Xians typically live in America and sound something like this:

[ArmSurvival]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

In order to claim Jesus as being J3wish and J3ws having believed to be descendants of Abraham, the politics of the day deemed Jesus a descendant of Abraham (which doesn't make much logical sense if he was really born to a virgin now does it?)

There's more chance of him being a descendant of Abraham than being born of a virgin. The J ewish claim is ever-so-slightly less absurd than the Christian one. You're not veering in the right direction if you're trying to show us that religion and specifically Christianity doesn't have a touch of lunacy to it.

And many Christians circumcise. Even if it was just a J ewish and Muslim practice it still proves my original point that religion often compels normal people to do stupid and cruel things.

They are usually poor people who get used by the wealthy who claim that the family they leave behind will receive royalties for taking their own life. Similar to those who join the military. In one case death is inevitable while in the other, it's possible.

While its true that many poor people do it for promises of money for their families after they die, there are many cases of middle and upper class people becoming jihadists as well. Many of the Wahabbi psychos coming out of Saudi Arabia are college educated.

Religion can be corrupted just like any other institution. You can put your money in an ethical bank or a fraudulent bank. That doesn't make the concept of banking corrupt. It just means that the institution has been taken over by corruption.

Just to make sure we're on the same page: Religion is not just belief in god, that's called Deism. Theism (religion) is the belief that god tells you what to do. You can make some logical arguments for Deism, but there has never been a logical argument for Theism. You can believe in Theism if you want but you cannot claim there is a logical basis for it. Its as far from logic as you can get.

As for your example, banks don't claim they are the ultimate truth. Banks don't claim that if you don't believe in banking then you will be tortured after death. Banking doesn't create an entire system of what you can eat, who you can sleep with, what you're allowed to think about, and that if you disobey any of these rules that you are subject to punishment from banking authorities. Banking and religion are totally different ballgames. Its a shame that religion, lacking any evidence for its claims, only has a moral system of threats to lean on.

If there is no written record (which nobody would believe anyways since we're discussinghistory vs. story in the Bible) then what evidence do you have that it's B.S.?

Its most likely BS because there has never been an example of a human civilization that is free from corruption. Therefore, unless we have evidence to the contrary (which we don't) we should not assume that native Americans were different than everyone else in history. Its BS until proven otherwise.

About your example: A handful of people living in the forest is not a civilization, thats just an extended family. I know many extended families that are free from corruption. One tribe is not representative of the way native Americans lived as a whole. Most native American peoples did not live on such a small scale therefore its almost a certainty there was corruption. Again, I'm not saying it was on the same level as other civilizations or that they deserved to be displaced or anything like that. I'm just saying your idealization of native societies vs. European ones is off the mark.

Are you referring to the Sephardic J3ws who came from Spain? I wonder how many people actually believe the Christopher Columbus story.... hrm.

This is your response to me saying that the mandate the Spanish (and other) colonists used to massacre and enslave native Americans was the bible. So two things:

1. If you're claiming the original Spanish settlers were Sephardic J ews then you must have some evidence that nobody else has yet found. Have you been excavating the shores of Hispaniola to find star of David medallions manufactured in medieval Spain?

2. The bible was used as a mandate by popes, powerful religious figures and aristocrats for centuries. No worm-like response has enough wiggle room to escape that point.

Their reason to do so was because they considered themselves the "elected" people, the people of the Sun who had been chosen by the gods to feed them and were responsible for the continuity of the world.

No matter which way you cut it the Aztec civilization had aspects of sadism and corruption, disproving your implication that native Americans were a bunch of friendly hippies who got corrupted by the white man (or as you claim Sephardic J ews). The Aztecs also massacred people for religious reasons, just one of the millions of examples of religion having a negative influence on a society.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

What gegev was saying is that most Christians are intelligent, useful and productive members of society who make worldly contributions.

You can say the same exact thing about non-believers. It doesn't prove that non-belief is correct. Those Christians could have been that way in spite of their belief, not because of it.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

It's a common syndrome from the ultra-liberal values in the West. They demean and ridicule Christians and Christianity - they see faith in Christianity as something backwards. This is a syndrome of the "aggressive secularism" and the "political correctness" of building a globalised, secular society. That's why we need to protect religious values in our society and protect the national faith of the Armenians, like we protect our identity.

Protecting positive values and the Armenian church is one thing. I agree with that. Saying those values must be tied to a celestial deity who is unproven is another thing. I disagree with that. I also disagree with the notion that Armenian identity must be tied to believing unprovable claims.

Throughout history Armenians have been highly factionalized. We all know Armenians have had multiple different Christian denominations (anyone remember the Paulician movement?). We have also had many different subcultures outside the Christian sphere from Paganism (which includes dozens if not hundreds of religions), Zoroastrianism, Animism, Agnosticism/Atheism, and others, even after centuries of Christian rule. So to say that an Armenian must be a Christian is at the very least historically inaccurate.

[gegev]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Nah thats where your wrong. The zionist xians you speak of think just like mr gegev and perhaps like you to. You see they are as racist and they think their religion and race are better then others thus it is ok to do whatever evile in its name. They to will boast of great contributions to society and they too are guilty of horrible acts vs humanity. See a common trend here or are you wearing the chrystian blinders tonight?

mr haykakan is too ARAJADEM for us to compete with.

Sorry for our backwardness. We are straight people, who are unable to understand that much science of yours. We; the two milliards are not that smart, I confess. Sorry once again; last time.

[Mos]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

mr haykakan is too ARAJADEM for us to compete with.

Sorry for our backwardness.

aper, srank sax@ iranc gitnakaneri tex en drel, astco chshmartutyun@ chen haskanum...menak anunner kpcnen....