RE: The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work
April 10, 2016 at 1:32 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2016 at 1:37 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
It's amazing to me that their leaders repeat that "archaeology and history back up the Bible" stuff, when almost every scholar out there (except the hardcore fundamentalist ones, of course, who start with the premise "the Bible MUST be true"), religious and nonreligious, acknowledges that a huge number of the major claims made in the Bible simply cannot be true.
Archaeology has demonstrated, for instance, that Jericho didn't even exist as more than a collection of village huts during the time when the Exodus and subsequent invasion of Canaan is alleged to have happened. In order to get it to agree, you'd have to move back the timeline more than 1000 years, which makes the Pharaohs mentioned in the story not-yet-born by... oh, 1000 years, as those attempting to resolve the issues presented by actual archaeology have proposed. (See the dissection of Bryant Wood's proposed Jericho "solution" at: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answ...ntwood.php )
That's not even to mention that, during the time the Hebrews supposedly fled from Egypt to their "promised land", Egypt literally owned all of that region. Egypt was fighting a war north of there (with the Hittite Empire) to maintain control of the region. That means the story is claiming, essentially, "They fled from the United States and went to Alaska."
These are things we know now because we have access to Egyptian and Hittite writings of the time, which the people who wrote the Bible stories simply didn't have. It's why the Bible describes events in cities that weren't even established until centuries after the stories claim they occurred (but centuries before the stories were actually written, such that they didn't know that Philistine town they mentioned wasn't always there). History and archaeology barely support a single story in the OT.
There's no evidence whatsoever that the Hebrews (or any other specific ethnicity) were in large-scale slavery in Egypt. They're mentioned in Egyptian carvings, but as already existing in Canaan. I'm sorry, lady, but the people who are telling you that the Bible is well-supported are lying to you. I wonder what motivation they could have for those lies?
Archaeology has demonstrated, for instance, that Jericho didn't even exist as more than a collection of village huts during the time when the Exodus and subsequent invasion of Canaan is alleged to have happened. In order to get it to agree, you'd have to move back the timeline more than 1000 years, which makes the Pharaohs mentioned in the story not-yet-born by... oh, 1000 years, as those attempting to resolve the issues presented by actual archaeology have proposed. (See the dissection of Bryant Wood's proposed Jericho "solution" at: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answ...ntwood.php )
That's not even to mention that, during the time the Hebrews supposedly fled from Egypt to their "promised land", Egypt literally owned all of that region. Egypt was fighting a war north of there (with the Hittite Empire) to maintain control of the region. That means the story is claiming, essentially, "They fled from the United States and went to Alaska."
These are things we know now because we have access to Egyptian and Hittite writings of the time, which the people who wrote the Bible stories simply didn't have. It's why the Bible describes events in cities that weren't even established until centuries after the stories claim they occurred (but centuries before the stories were actually written, such that they didn't know that Philistine town they mentioned wasn't always there). History and archaeology barely support a single story in the OT.
There's no evidence whatsoever that the Hebrews (or any other specific ethnicity) were in large-scale slavery in Egypt. They're mentioned in Egyptian carvings, but as already existing in Canaan. I'm sorry, lady, but the people who are telling you that the Bible is well-supported are lying to you. I wonder what motivation they could have for those lies?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
