I was wondering when someone from my state of "Louisiana" would post on here.
Kitten, as much as it's nice to know that you disregard the portion of a "Hell" within the Bible, you simply cherry picked the rest and held it as truth of your own opinionated ideas.
In saying that, do you not realize how plagiarized/passed down and changed the Bible is? It's one thing to believe in a "God", but it's an entire other to follow a book which has already been shown time and time again to be full of contradictions and has the moral outlook that would make Hitler look kind hearted and generous.
The archeological statements you speak of in trying to defend your book is nothing more than simple findings that were written about from others far before the word "Christian" or "Catholic" or most importantly "Bible" was put into place as a word period.
Of course the writers would come closer to knowing certain historical events or locations the closer they got to their own time period. But just because someone wrote of a city called "Babylon" and we proved it existed, doesn't make them correct on everything they wrote. Also keep in mind that most of the cities throughout the Bible still are around today, so why wouldn't they have that part correct.
What about the cities they speak of in which there are no archeological evidence for and have more evidence pointing towards an Atlantis myth than being a real city? That would be called cherry picking scripture and it's already apparent that you do this, by your choice of excluding a hell.
Like I stated before....It's one thing to believe in a "God", but another to believe in the "Bible"....You need to truly do more research on the book you hold so dear to your belief.
Kitten, as much as it's nice to know that you disregard the portion of a "Hell" within the Bible, you simply cherry picked the rest and held it as truth of your own opinionated ideas.
In saying that, do you not realize how plagiarized/passed down and changed the Bible is? It's one thing to believe in a "God", but it's an entire other to follow a book which has already been shown time and time again to be full of contradictions and has the moral outlook that would make Hitler look kind hearted and generous.
The archeological statements you speak of in trying to defend your book is nothing more than simple findings that were written about from others far before the word "Christian" or "Catholic" or most importantly "Bible" was put into place as a word period.
Of course the writers would come closer to knowing certain historical events or locations the closer they got to their own time period. But just because someone wrote of a city called "Babylon" and we proved it existed, doesn't make them correct on everything they wrote. Also keep in mind that most of the cities throughout the Bible still are around today, so why wouldn't they have that part correct.
What about the cities they speak of in which there are no archeological evidence for and have more evidence pointing towards an Atlantis myth than being a real city? That would be called cherry picking scripture and it's already apparent that you do this, by your choice of excluding a hell.
Like I stated before....It's one thing to believe in a "God", but another to believe in the "Bible"....You need to truly do more research on the book you hold so dear to your belief.
Intelligence is the only true moral guide...
