It always amazes me how people will go back to ancient accounts of any number of things, Alexander the Great, The Greeks, The Romans, even cavemen, etc. and nobody questions any of it. The Bible? NO, people made that up for little morality guides!
The spiritual mirror is blinding.
39 comments
But nobody keeps telling me I'll burn in hell if I don't believe the writings of Alexander, et al. They don't tell me to live my life in fear of Alexander, et.al. and finally, nobody is waiting for Alexander to return and take them away!
There are factual, verifiable records and evidence of all things you mention, except the bible. The only thing the bible has to back itself up is itself. That simple fact gives it no credibility whatsoever.
Exhibit A: Verifiable, historically accepted events based upon real evidence.
Exhibit B(ible): Unfounded, historically questionable events based upon the rantings of an unknown number of writers over an unknown number of years.
Is it really so amazing that when looking for accurate accounts of history, the Bible isn't always regarded as an acceptable source?
"It always amazes me how people will go back to ancient accounts of any number of things, Alexander the Great, The Greeks, The Romans, even cavemen, etc. and nobody questions any of it."
At least not the parts that have evidence to support it. You'll note that historians tend to dismiss the demi-god qualities that are often attributed to Alexander and Caesar much like they dismiss the supernatural aspects of your Bible. Unfortunately, once you get rid of such things in the Bible there's not much left.
One hundred sixty years of literary, linguistic, historical and archaeological analysis has left the Bible's authenticity as history in shreds. There is more evidence to substantiate the Iliad than there is for your holy book.
Perhaps the spiritual mirror would not be so blinding if you did not spiritually masturbate so much.
That is what causes blindness, right?
It's because the Bible isn't a historical account of anything! Historical accounts do NOT spend the majority of their text talking about invisible entities and physically impossible events. We can fully accept the validiy of Greek manuscripts that are historical accounts, but we do not take information contained within their mythological tales as factual accounts. That is the key difference!
Uber-fail.
If someone gave me four supposedly inerrant accounts of Alexander the Great's miracles, and those accounts contradicted both one another and the historical record, then yes, I would question them.
"It always amazes me how people will go back to ancient accounts of any number of things, Alexander the Great, The Greeks, The Romans, even cavemen, etc. and nobody questions any of it. The Bible? NO, people made that up for little morality guides!"
We question ALL of it, and accept only that with supporting evidence.
No truer words have e'er been spoken.
There are many historical things in the Bible that are accepted. No one, for example, doubts the existence of King Ahab or Sargon II or some of the towns mentioned. Where the Bible loses credibility is when it starts claiming it speaks for God. The problem there is that charlatans have a lot of incentive for claiming they speak for God, and history is loaded with examples of charlatans who have done that.
If the historian, William Stearns Davis, says "Alexander the Great conquered Persia", most people wouldn't doubt that, because why lie? If Joseph Smith says "God told me you have to let me "marry" your daughters and sleep with them", that's a little harder for anyone but a fool to accept.
Well actually there are multiple historical sources for the existence and accomplishments of Alexander, the Romans, and the Greeks. Cavemen's existence is proven, however their behavior and lifestyles are speculative. The Bible is no more or less historical than the Quran, the Bahavad-Gita, the Talmud, or any other religious book meant to explain a religion's beliefs and myths. Simply put, it doesn't meet the standard of proof for historical accuracy and have other independent sources verifying its stories.PS Why do you care, your little cult is based on a 19th century idea that isn't in the Bible anyway?
Perhaps you should read some of the great classical Greek and Roman literature, you might learn something.
delenda est fundementalisus
Have no fear, I don't believe that Alexander, the Greeks, or the Romans were born of virgins, walked on water, or rose from the dead either.
But no one demands that we follow the beliefs or culture of Alexander, the Greeks, Romans, etc. No one is trying to murder us because we don't agree with those historical figures.
It's true, I believe in Odin, Zeus and Ra without question.
Oh wait, you mean we don't believe myths only the existence of civilizations based on physical evidence?
Well damn, I thought Zeus was pretty cool.
...even cavemen, etc.and nobody questions any of it.
I don't think there are any ancient accounts of cavemen.
Actually, no one questions that the Bible is an ancient account from a particular culture, either, so it's accepted exactly the same way other ancient accounts are accepted.
By the way, it's universally accepted that the other accounts were made up by people. If you want to claim otherwise for your book, you'd better have some solid evidence ready.
"Alexander the Great, The Greeks, The Romans, even cavemen, etc. and nobody questions any of it."
Alexander the great, big fucking deal then. He was Greek, they kept good records but y'know what? Throw those out. Now you have the Romans, Persians and Egyptians DOCUMENTING HIM and physical remnants of his empire.
Cavemen, yeah, lot of questions about them, especially since cave dwellers made up a small number of our people, they're important and known because they drew things on the walls of caves that survived as those drawings were on ROCK out of the rain and sun. Us surface dwellers,under tree or bush folk made shit too, but we only know what was BURIED with us.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
