Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Christianity liberal is people who can reject the Ten commandment , people who reject the commandment of Christ , and give rise to sin against God, and give a false understanding, and will lead people away from the saving grace of Lord Jesus and His purpose , as liberal is away from God as God through Jesus is sovereign
What?
Ah yes, liberals are the devil in your fairy tale.
In Christianity liberal is people who can reject the Ten commandment , people who reject the commandment of Christ , and give rise to sin against God, and give a false understanding, and will lead people away from the saving grace of Lord Jesus and His purpose , as liberal is away from God as God through Jesus is sovereign
Wow, since I'm a Christian but do none of those things, I guess I'm not a liberal. So much for all the tree hugging.
And other archaeologists will say it's a load of BS of course. I think there is a tremendous amount of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible as historical. Me and other Christians accept it as a holy book based on our faith that it came from God. I don't expect to see everything in the Bible proven, but many things have been.
The Book of Mormon is the focal point of attack for the OP. I don't know if I'm really qualified, but if nobody else will step up, I will do the requisite research and find out what evidence exists in support of the Book of Mormon. I really can't say if its as strong as Biblical evidence, but ancient America archaeology is nowhere close to as thorough as the archaeology of the Middle East. It's underdone, under-protected, under-funded and constantly seeing sites looted before the archaeologists even get to it. When it comes to ancient America, I think there is far far more unknowns than knowns -- which makes it awfully difficult to prove or disprove much of anything.
Not intending to bash anyone's religion here, but I've been reading an awful lot about the Mormon church these days, and it seems as if the claims and "sacred texts" presented by Joseph Smith have been entirely debunked. The preponderance of evidence indicates that his Book of Mormon was entirely made up or cribbed from other existing stories, like the actual bible and books like Pilgrim's Progress. None of the "historical record" in the Book of Mormon can be verified by scientific records/analysis. Further, anecdotes gathered indicate that he was a total con man and an adulterer. And the Mormon Church is also constantly revising the church's history.
So I just wonder how can someone belonging to that religion have any confidence in it? I just don't understand.
Now, for the record, I'm an atheist - I think all religions are really just magical thinking. But I do lend some weight to the Bible as a historical document. Much of the events can be verified by the historical/archeological record, even if it's not spot-on, and it does accurately represent the basics of the Hebrew culture in the Old Testament. Whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not, the Bible does have some actual and verifiable historical truth in it. The same can't really be said for the Book of Mormon.
So how do you have faith in something that seems to largely be the product of one man's imagination? I guess the same question could be asked of Scientologists too.
Just something I've been pondering lately.
If you dig further, You'll find that the Bible is even easier to debunk than anything else. All the Abrahamic religions believes YHWH to be the one and only "God" and Moses is to be respected. YHWH is just a "God" made up by a terrorist for the sole purpose of controlling through the use of fear and intimidation using terrorist tactics. The Bible is basically a terrorist manifesto.
And other archaeologists will say it's a load of BS of course. I think there is a tremendous amount of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible as historical.
You're correct in aspect - there is a ton of evidence (well - not a ton) supporting historical events as depicted in the Bible. But only CERTAIN events, and even the extra-biblical textual and archaeological evidence of these events have conflicting details with the Biblical account's version. The Bible told it's ideological version, while other peoples told their ideological version of the same event. Just see Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem, for one example.
But that same archaeology that you rally toward your blanket statement that "there is a tremendous amount of archaeological evidence supporting the Bible as historical" is a double-edged sword for it also flat-out contradicts many Biblical stories. The conquest of Joshua is one example, as the city was abandoned many hundreds of years prior to the Biblical accounts' version of the Israelite's entry. There were no walls to come crumbling down.
One must take into account all the evidence - not just the evidence that props up one's beliefs. Finding just one archaeological evidence of a Biblical story does not automatically make the entire Biblical account true.
This same token applies to the subject of this thread. Because of what I wrote above, you cannot totally debunk a Holy Book. I mean - what does that even mean? The Bible is not JUST a "Holy Book" such as the Bible - it is much, much more, which brings me to my next point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rider's Pantheon
The Bible is basically a terrorist manifesto.
The Bible is not just ONE thing. It is a library. A collection. Many different voices went into the composition of this library. The Book of Job - is that a manifesto of terrorism, when it's actually an examination of the Injustice of God? The Song of Songs - is that one, when it's actually erotic love poetry? Ecclesiastes - the book that tries to find meaning in life, and decides that one must ultimately enjoy one's brief stay on this earth?
I think you're generalizing your beliefs onto the Bible, I'm afraid. It can not be simply and summarily dismissed in the way that you have done so - even if it has been used in that way by some.
ANY holy book is just something someone came up with and wrote down. Joseph Smith may have been just as divinely inspired as Muhammed -- or they may both be snake-oil salesmen, who knows, I never met either one. Even if they WERE snake-oil salesmen, it's what you do with the books they wrote that matters.
Well just look at the Holy Book of Origin of Species. Despite being debunked more and more converts in the public school system every single day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
