Reply to Re: Monarchs and Popes are stupid.
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Skorn's absolutely correct in his statement though. Not only has the Bible been purposely tampered with more times than the original Star Wars trilogy, it also has a lot of translation mistakes from when it was first translated from Hebrew, such as the word "Gods" being translated into "God". This makes the Bible a rather questionable source of information, at least when it comes to the whole truth about things.
Also, about that UFO example you used earlier, Meta. Of course you don't have to believe in every UFO case ever if you believe in one, but you DO need to take them all into account. Didn't I say to use common sense in my earlier post? I'm pretty sure I did. You need to take every UFO case in history into account, then use common sense to first figure out which ones were hoaxes, then which of the non-hoaxes are actually more likely to be unidentifiable flying objects, and finally what this unidentifiable flying object could've been. Just like in a murder case. You don't have to believe in every piece of supposed evidence, but you can't just debunk it without taking it into account at all. Now, since there is still debate on whether Jesus even existed, we can't really debunk none of it, so therefore one ancient text is as reliable as the other. Of course, common sense applies here too. If I find one ancient text that says "Jesus lived in the year 4000 BC in southern Norway and got eaten by a T-Rex", of course I'm not gonna believe it, since there is no mention anywhere of Jesus living in the year 4000, him travelling to Norway or a T-Rex eating him anywhere else. But I'd obviously have to study things to know that, before I can debunk it with common sense (Do note that this is a not-so-slightly exaggerated example). However, if many of the lost texts say Jesus didn't die on the cross and even the Bible somewhat supports this theory (this isn't an example, btw. This actually is in many of the lost books and the Bible), it's common sense to believe this at least just as much as it is to believe he did die on the cross. It's the same amount of proof against each other, so therefore they both deserve to be believed equally.
Also, about that UFO example you used earlier, Meta. Of course you don't have to believe in every UFO case ever if you believe in one, but you DO need to take them all into account. Didn't I say to use common sense in my earlier post? I'm pretty sure I did. You need to take every UFO case in history into account, then use common sense to first figure out which ones were hoaxes, then which of the non-hoaxes are actually more likely to be unidentifiable flying objects, and finally what this unidentifiable flying object could've been. Just like in a murder case. You don't have to believe in every piece of supposed evidence, but you can't just debunk it without taking it into account at all. Now, since there is still debate on whether Jesus even existed, we can't really debunk none of it, so therefore one ancient text is as reliable as the other. Of course, common sense applies here too. If I find one ancient text that says "Jesus lived in the year 4000 BC in southern Norway and got eaten by a T-Rex", of course I'm not gonna believe it, since there is no mention anywhere of Jesus living in the year 4000, him travelling to Norway or a T-Rex eating him anywhere else. But I'd obviously have to study things to know that, before I can debunk it with common sense (Do note that this is a not-so-slightly exaggerated example). However, if many of the lost texts say Jesus didn't die on the cross and even the Bible somewhat supports this theory (this isn't an example, btw. This actually is in many of the lost books and the Bible), it's common sense to believe this at least just as much as it is to believe he did die on the cross. It's the same amount of proof against each other, so therefore they both deserve to be believed equally.
