no, i think the significance being made of the things you posted is propaganda. not important. this thread seems to be pretty enthusiastic in tone. if asked directly of course not, but that doesn't stop them from throwing the pretense of historical accuracy out there for anyone who will buy it. well yeah. it should be call the 'belief' channel. it's all about ratings. i'm not taking it seriously at all. i just like talking about this stuff.
Significance? You are the one that is trying to convince this forum that nothing in the Bible is historically accurate. I just gave you one example of "empirical evidence" that identifies a person in the Bible around the time he was supposed to be there. Oh please forgive me for being excited. I guess you need to jump all over other posters for being excited that Portland making a new bridge then? Just like when they describe an event happening in WW2, using a few people that may or may not have been there? That is used because it would be fucking boring if not used. You again are taking this way too seriously. Sure and they should say the same when a scientist is describing what could have happened a billion years ago, speaking like it was a matter of fact. Well that's good that you finally explained it. It seemed you were being totally serious.
i was actually quite interested in this discovery. if it's the one i'm thinking about the building turned out to be significantly older than the time of david, so although he may have occupited it and used it as a palace he couldn't have built it.
Yeah it definitely could have been built long before David. The description mentioned that King David used existing structure to build his palace. That wouldn't negate that David was there.
yeah that must be what i'm doing. i really slipped up when i said the bible becomes more historically accurate after the time of david. i was just responding to your comment that christians likely won't want to watch. not everything i say is an attack. jeez.
It's like he completely forgets what he said that you were responding to, so he has to start all over again, and they always start with getting unnecessarily defensive.
Liking has nothing to do with it. I am an atheist and thoroughly enjoyed reading the bible. Not very well written but what book that old is? It'got all the elements of great fiction. Both books are obvious works of fiction, modeled after actual events then greatly embellished on to make interesting so they will be read.
I love psalms. Yeah it's like poetry! I'm not a big fan of genesis. My favorite all time book is Matthew. It painted a picture of the one human I love more than myself.
Nope, I meant historical significance. The bible and christianity are a major part of our human history. The content is suspect but the book and religeon, and their impacts on our history and culture are very real and significant. The theology argement is a different subject alltogether IMO.
the bible stories HC will be showing have virtually nothing to do with the impact of christianity on historical events. you might as well say it would be interesting to see reenactments of stories in the koran because of 911.
I disagree. Christianity itself is based mainly on the stories of the bible. If the book gives you a blueprint for salvation; then it absolutely relates. And the Koran and 9-11 aren't tied in. Your analogy would be like the bible and the pilgrims landing at Plymouth relating.
it most certainly is not. it is based on the interpretive whims and ulterior motives of Catholicism and other sects.
think of it this way. if you knew nothing about christianity or structurally similar religious belief, and someone handed you the jewish OT all the books written about jesus in the first few centuries including all the many non-canonical writings, what do you honestly think you'd come up with?
For the past few days I have followed this thread. I found that the amount of attention some self proclaimed athiest or agnostic would spend hre to tar down the beliefs of others astonding. Simple logic would have me belive that because I do not believe in the Easter Bunny, the very fact would not compel me to animated dispute. I just dont care if that is how you want to spend your thoughts or time. You guys are above the average in all regards, and I give you all much credit wth few exceptions, and I guess I owe you an apology for thinking that your effort spent was unusual. Last night on OPB I caught part of a program that the honored guest wants to have christian religious teachings classified as hate speech. At frst I thought that they must be some extreme group,like NAMBLA, but no..they made reference to how gays and peds were being unjustly treated etc et etc I have sent a few hours reading today on the subject and have come to realize that this is not uncommon. The very foundation that once defined this country as a"Christan" nation is no longer fasionable, I understand that. Its not like its "Cool" to attack all religions, just this one. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/c...ing-in-canada-affirms-biblical-principle.html I found the above piece interesting, first lauding Canadian courts,then I read the first post after the article, sobering..
