RE: Will The Internet Kill Religion?
April 16, 2014 at 8:03 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2014 at 8:08 pm by Brian37.)
(April 15, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote:(April 15, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote: So? Superman movies have depicted real cities like New York and San Francisco. Godzilla movies have depicted Tokyo. The original book Peter Pan mentions the city of London.
Some dumbass movie maker a couple years ago made a movie about Abe Lincoln being a vampire slayer.
In antiquity both in politics and in religion, both polytheism and monotheism, the writings were often peppered with real people and places to lend the legends and bullshit stories credibility. No real place or person you read about in or outside a holy book will ever make magic or invisible beings real. Otherwise if that were the case then the Oracle in the Oedipus Rex play was a real prophet because the play mentioned real places.
Why the dumbfounded look?
If I read the Egyptian book of the dead or Rosetta Stone, and go beyond simply writing an anthropology book that simply says "This is when these people lived and this is what they believed", and write a book that argued that the sun god was a real god, because of the Egyptian book of the dead or Rosetta Stone, would my book of apology for a sun god make a sun god real?
If I go beyond writing anthropology book about the Reg Vedas and write an apology book arguing for their gods does writing that book make those god's real?
I am fine with historians and anthropologists writing books about human history. But no Jew, or Muslim or Christian who is arguing for a god as if it was real is credible. They are not arguing for a real thing, they are merely marketing a invisible fictional sky parent to sucker the reader into buying that bullshit.
There is a huge difference between a historian, anthropologist and a con artist salesman. ALL APOLOGISTS are con artists. Or did I not make that clear enough for you?
The bottom line is the bible is a book of myth. If someone wants to write a book about it from a historical or anthropology aspect fine. But once they start arguing that the god of that book is real, that is a con at that point. Some apologists truly believe the bullshit they sell, others know it is bullshit but don't care.