The bible isn't meant to be critiqued that way. It's meant to be believed. Full stop.The bible supplies no evidence whatsoever, be it circumstantial or otherwise!
Why? You dont apply the same standard for any other material you read, why the special exemption for the bible?The bible isn't meant to be critiqued that way. It's meant to be believed. Full stop.
I don't want to just believe. I want to KNOW FOR SURE. Evidence through and THROUGH.The bible isn't meant to be critiqued that way. It's meant to be believed. Full stop.
I like this theory...This is just a matter of discussion. I don't believe in God or gods or whatever supernatural/superhuman beings or forces. As well as others, all creation stories whether the Bible ones or else are all just stories to me and are only good for fun-reading and entertainment purposes.
I stumbled upon an alternative version to the genesis Adam and eve creation story and I found quite interesting. A Tanzanian was arguing that it was not Adam who was created first. Actually, Adam is a modification of another female who was created together with eve. That at first God created two females. But he realised his mistake, since he wanted them to multiply and fill the newly created earth but two females cannot reproduce. So, he made Adam sleep, modified his genitals and his reproduction organs, and also tinkered with his physique to eventually come forth with the male version of eve!
Evidence, you ask? The subdued breasts on all human males. If you look at down there on all male humans, there is that line that looks like a stitch that runs from the back of the scrotum, all the way to the underside tip of the penis! That's the scar that was left behind after the surgery! Females do not have that. There is no evidence that a rib was removed from one side of Adam, is there? Females have 12 pairs of ribs, that's 24 pieces. But, so do the males!
Bible, I am waiting for your rebuttal. So, over to you!
Why? You dont apply the same standard for any other material you read, why the special exemption for the bible?
Because the bible is a religious book, not a scientific manual.I don't want to just believe. I want to KNOW FOR SURE. Evidence through and THROUGH.
So you believe all of them, and everything they say as being true?You're right.
That's why I read the Koran, bible, Gita, Torah, vedis, etc.
She is just ducking. The shrewd ones always do that. Of course she doesn't read anything else apart from the bible! The claim was preemptive because she knew from experience what questions were to follow!So you believe all of them, and everything they say as being true?
I wouldnt doubt that @Aviator has read (or tried to) them all. But you are right in that my follow up questions would have shown the paradox of their belief systemShe is just ducking. The shrewd ones always do that. Of course she doesn't read anything else apart from the bible! The claim was preemptive because she knew from experience what questions were to follow!
Yes and no.So you believe all of them, and everything they say as being true?
If you speak of context then that means there are other factors you consider when it comes to believe them. This negates your earlier statement that you would just believe a book just because it is religious.Yes and no.
See, the holy books are true in their own context. And false in a different context. I check what is applicable to me.
Don't you think god could have done a better job of rendering his story so it doesn't have so many loose ends?The bible isn't meant to be critiqued that way. It's meant to be believed. Full stop.