How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[Artashes]

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

Although once again I cannot(will not)at this time address in a straight forward blunt fashion(my style) this ?converstion? I feel compelled to say a few words.
In my opinion,neither side is anywhere close.
I don't have time to give an exact quote but will definitely get the message right.

--- I form the light and I make the dark.
--- I make good and I create evil.
--- I, the Lord do all these things.
--- let the heavens bow down in ---- RIGHTEOUSNESS ----

I expect nothing from the none believers.
Unfortunately I have come to expect even less from the believers(some rare exceptions).
In fact, from the believers I see more discord, misinformation , and self serving interests.
How sorry I am to say that.
The word rare has an exact and specific meaning.
The only two that are spoken of that did not die are --- Enoch and Elija.
In the case of Elija --- he performed a specific number of miracles. Elisa followed Elija and performed exactly twice as many miracles.
Before God personally came down and took Elija, Elija said --- I am not better than my fathers before me.
The story I told of Elija and Elisa are for the believers, the none believers are welcome by me to go have a beer and laugh your heads off.
To the non believers who tout "logic" --- there is a mathamaticle equation that if done correctly clearly shows that -- 1= 2
Damn, gotta go

[Haykakan]

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

Those who did the actual killing were muslims and used islam as a weapon against us. Islam to them justified our slaughter since we were not islamic people. It is too early to say if it worked or not because it is a part of an ongoing thing which may or may not end with the only armenian being in the museum. You can spin it any way you like but you cannot avoid the role religions play in human slaughter with thousends of years worth of evidence as proof-o but wait the religious folk don't care about things like proof, evidence, reason..it can be hard to keep this point in mind when talking to religious folk because they do have a head like the rest of us which i assume contains a brain which should be able to use reasoning..hey but all that is simply an assumption on my part i guess. On a side note you gota love how people attribute all good things to god and absolve him/her/it of all things bad-yeh he created everything on his one week vacation and although he is all powerfull and all good - he didnt have the power or the will to save millions of his followers from slaughter, rape, displacemtnt excess body hair... you people need to be constantly remided that this xxxx makes absolutely no sense and i am wondering why you cant figure this out and deal with it, why do you need to have a fairytail to create a alternative reality-i bet religious folk would make great mmo gamers since dwelling in alternate reality is their forte.

Hmmmmm... let's see who were the "Yegherni" planers and perpetrators (Satanists and "Atheists"). why do you blame God for it? and what was the plan? it was to keep only one Armenian as a sample in a museum. did the plan worked? thank God no!

[Siggie]

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. 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.

Stop building these strawmen or it starts to look like you need them or something...

For the second time now in the last handful of posts - NO ONE SAID BELIEVERS ARE STUPID, BACKWARDS, UNPRODUCTIVE, or anything else. Pardon the caps; I'm hoping it actually helps you all to READ it this time.

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

Gitnakani tex chem drel indzi; gitnakan em

Seriously though. You're being awfully quick to jump on and encourage this us vs. them kind of separation by confirming his false sense that those of us who don't believe think those who do are somehow deficient and that's totally not helpful. Why are you being unnecessarily divisive? What's do be gained by that?
This is why I loathe getting sucked into these discussions. It creates a polarity that I never encounter otherwise in my interactions with people elsewhere. It's really unfortunate and disheartening.

[Hyreniq]

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

Astco chstmartutyun urer yegherni jamanak? Yete artyok chsamartutyun liner apa nman baner chain lini bayts past pasta. Yete ches uzum past intunel uremn do aprumes ail askharum vor goutiun uni menak ko glkhum. Hey gegev have you seen what the lemmings do every few years? Just because there are many believers does not make the beliefe correct. Since athism and agnosticism are growing does that mean those ideas are becoming more correct to? This kind of logic never did make sense but such things do not seem to bother religious people atleast until that religion falls out of fashion. Every religion has its crazies-pagans had the same issues when chrystianity was first introduced to them but when it became more popular more people jumped on the bandwagon. I know it must be a frightening thing to jump off of a bandwagon and to land onto reality. Reality is not always pretty and does not promise you a thing but atleast you know its the real thing.

Hmmmmm... let's see who were the "Yegherni" planers and perpetrators (Satanists and "Atheists"). why do you blame God for it? and what was the plan? it was to keep only one Armenian as a sample in a museum. did the plan worked? thank God no!

[Haykakan]

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

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

Astco chstmartutyun urer yegherni jamanak? Yete artyok chsamartutyun liner apa nman baner chain lini bayts past pasta. Yete ches uzum past intunel uremn do aprumes ail askharum vor goutiun uni menak ko glkhum. Hey gegev have you seen what the lemmings do every few years? Just because there are many believers does not make the beliefe correct. Since athism and agnosticism are growing does that mean those ideas are becoming more correct to? This kind of logic never did make sense but such things do not seem to bother religious people atleast until that religion falls out of fashion. Every religion has its crazies-pagans had the same issues when chrystianity was first introduced to them but when it became more popular more people jumped on the bandwagon. I know it must be a frightening thing to jump off of a bandwagon and to land onto reality. Reality is not always pretty and does not promise you a thing but atleast you know its the real thing.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.