For Track and XC runners
AudienceOfOne wrote:I had that in my sig on here for awhile, and I agree with it.CT Track wrote:Another humorous quote I found
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ" - Gandhi.
AudienceOfOne wrote:Yea, I know that. It would be very hard to prove any documents from 2000 years ago to be absolutely valid. Personally I believe that the Bible is absolutely valid. But you can't compare Jesus to santa for many reasons, and that is one of them.whenhen wrote:Admin Audience: You can't argue for the absolute validity of the bible.
Sour Worms/ Fake Audience: You can't argue that the bible is inherently wrong except for a few minor exceptions.
The point is, is that it was written when very few people believed in Christianity, and so it is the only account of the life of Jesus. The people he preached to were primarily peasants, and thus unable to record either a great miracle or a sham.
AudienceOfOne wrote:Yea, I know that. It would be very hard to prove any documents from 2000 years ago to be absolutely valid. Personally I believe that the Bible is absolutely valid. But you can't compare Jesus to santa for many reasons, and that is one of them.whenhen wrote:Admin Audience: You can't argue for the absolute validity of the bible.
Sour Worms/ Fake Audience: You can't argue that the bible is inherently wrong except for a few minor exceptions.
The point is, is that it was written when very few people believed in Christianity, and so it is the only account of the life of Jesus. The people he preached to were primarily peasants, and thus unable to record either a great miracle or a sham.
But you cannot prove it wrong either, at least not most of it.CT Track wrote:The Bible has many similarities to books such as the Iliad or the Odyssey. They all provide "some" historical content, but the truth is stretched entirely.
Odysseus did not fight a real cyclops and Abraham did not talk to a burning bush.
FinishingKick wrote:But you cannot prove it wrong either, at least not most of it.CT Track wrote:The Bible has many similarities to books such as the Iliad or the Odyssey. They all provide "some" historical content, but the truth is stretched entirely.
Odysseus did not fight a real cyclops and Abraham did not talk to a burning bush.
FinishingKick wrote:But you cannot prove it wrong either, at least not most of it.CT Track wrote:The Bible has many similarities to books such as the Iliad or the Odyssey. They all provide "some" historical content, but the truth is stretched entirely.
Odysseus did not fight a real cyclops and Abraham did not talk to a burning bush.
So what was Jesus for? Matter of fact, what was any theology in the Bible for?AudeinceOfOne wrote:Except science has proved there is no reason for god. God was a way to explain the unexplained, and now there is nothing we need to attribute to god now.
FinishingKick wrote:But you cannot prove it wrong either, at least not most of it.CT Track wrote:The Bible has many similarities to books such as the Iliad or the Odyssey. They all provide "some" historical content, but the truth is stretched entirely.
Odysseus did not fight a real cyclops and Abraham did not talk to a burning bush.
runner_dude wrote:FinishingKick wrote:But you cannot prove it wrong either, at least not most of it.CT Track wrote:The Bible has many similarities to books such as the Iliad or the Odyssey. They all provide "some" historical content, but the truth is stretched entirely.
Odysseus did not fight a real cyclops and Abraham did not talk to a burning bush.
It's quite plausible that Abraham talked to a burning bush, it's the fact that it talked back that is harder to believe.
+1BA_Sadie. wrote:runner_dude wrote:FinishingKick wrote:But you cannot prove it wrong either, at least not most of it.CT Track wrote:The Bible has many similarities to books such as the Iliad or the Odyssey. They all provide "some" historical content, but the truth is stretched entirely.
Odysseus did not fight a real cyclops and Abraham did not talk to a burning bush.
It's quite plausible that Abraham talked to a burning bush, it's the fact that it talked back that is harder to believe.
geeze louisssss it was moses. haha.
The Bible. But I basically agree with what you're saying.FinishingKick wrote:Who said the bush talked back? And by saying you can't prove it wrong I'm just saying that this is a useless argument.
Haha, not sure if magic mushrooms could have survived in an ancient egyptian climate...Pinthin wrote:Wouldn't it be great if some guy just ate some shrooms and started talking to fiery foliage?? Then wrote it in a book about his grand adventure??
haha sorry this was pointless.
I mean that it was God talking, not just a random bush. And if you can't prove God does not exist, the fact that you try to make a claim that he does not shows that you are trying to impose your belief on other people. Isn't that what you get mad at Christians for?AudienceOfOne wrote:The Bible. But I basically agree with what you're saying.FinishingKick wrote:Who said the bush talked back? And by saying you can't prove it wrong I'm just saying that this is a useless argument.
AudienceOfOne wrote:Haha, not sure if magic mushrooms could have survived in an ancient egyptian climate...Pinthin wrote:Wouldn't it be great if some guy just ate some shrooms and started talking to fiery foliage?? Then wrote it in a book about his grand adventure??
haha sorry this was pointless.
|
|
|
Home
