vlad321 said:
Why is it made up, yet the bible isn't? I can also say the EXACT SAME thing about the New Testament, it's all made up. Whatever defense you apply to the bible right there, I can apply to king Arthur as well. Also, ever since a brain was developed people have desired to find patterns, and understanding, of how nature acts. Given the primitive nature of people at that point, the only thing they could imagine is a higher diety. Now that we can actually observe and create pretty good models for many things in nature, we no longer need such an ignorant way of describing the world. |
What exaclty is false about New Testament? Did you even read it? Stories like Jesus's resurection, I can see why peole find it doubtfull but the point of the New Testament are the teachings of christ and the morals of Christianity. Some stories in the Bible usually have a moral message, but they dont nececarly have to be true. Its the moral message that comes out of it that matters. Stuff like ''walking on water'' or ''truning water into wine'' are just symbolics and dont really matter if they are true or not. Its the God's word that matters. There is also historical evidence for the existance of Christ. As far as i know there is no evidence for Lancelot and Merlin, is there? So Bible holds a lot more historical credit and value than King Arthur. The Bible was also written by the very people Christ considerd his brothers, the peolle who witnessed his whole life.







