bardicverse said:
Careful now, you're backing your knowledge on the topic based off of what? What a bunch of fans of the Crow-turned-athiest post on their blogs? Its a modern thought, what you state, but it is backed by no evidence whatsoever beyond opinion. All the Anne Rice fans who fell in love with Interview With a Vampire would surely agree with you, but attacking a structure of a religion or faith without solid documented fact that proves otherwise to circa de 33 AD is not making you out to be anything beyond either A - ignorant or B - intolerant. That said, I will concur that there are some misinterpretations throughout Biblical translation, such as the one line in which it says "Do not keep company with with sorcerers and fortune-tellers", as it was in the Greek version "poisoners and assassins". It is common of neo-Athiesm to claim the Bible to be nothing more than a storybook, but again, people do such with no fact, only contempt with the faiths associated with it. It's sort of like attacking MGS4 as being the worst game ever without ever having even touched a PS3.
|
Other side of the fence is no better as far as coherent arguing goes. If you've ever talked to someone about religion while not believing in God or what the Bible says then their argument is just rediculous. It's just a bunch of bible passages being regurgitated back at me without anything to back them up beyond that. Both sides have no evidence, because obviously if we had evidence the choice would be real damn simple.
...