pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:
No, it`s because it contains the words from God and Jesus, along with his life. And that is defining to those who believe. That`s why we call it sacred and not just very important or very meaningful.
|
Ok and King Arthur contains the words of Arthur and Lancelot and Merlin, among a bunch of others. Why isn't that sacred?
|
Because its made up by man. And people believe New Testament are the words of son of God .A God or higher power is something people believed in ever since their brain was developed enough to think. It all comes own to fatih, after all (weather you believe God is made up by man or higher power really exists)
|
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.
|
Then why do you give a shit about the bible and not just create your own morals. Morals based on logic and practicallity, not based on fear of an asshole god who will send you to hell if you don't follow his rules? If you admit that a lot of the things in the bible are bullshit, why can't you believe the others are as well? Why do you need untruths to tell you what you should think, when you can observe the world with your own two eyes and ears?
There is also historical evidence for the existance of a King Arthur. I am sure he may have had some knight named Lacelot and an advisor named Merlin. SO no, the bible has jsut as much validity as King Arthur. I may be mistaken, but Robin Hood may have been based on a real band of robbers too, I'll have to look into that.
Edit: Also feeding a huge group with one fish and bread. I will admit one thing that I have gathered from the bible, Jesus had an amazing sleigh of hand.
Edit 2: You are also basically stating that people who don't believe in god have no morals. Yet I dare you to go to a prison, and tell me just how disproportionate the amount of people who believe in a god are vs those who don't.
