(February 20, 2015 at 11:47 am)dennyg Wrote:(February 20, 2015 at 11:10 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How exactly do you decide what the 'sane' stuff is? Because I'd wager every non-literalist Christian would say "I don't believe the insane stuff", and yet would have vastly differing views.
The only thing that can't be scientifically or archaeologically vouched for that I believe is Jesus' resurrection. A lot of the Bible is early civilized man attempting to explain things way out of their league
(February 20, 2015 at 11:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: And better yet, if it's littered with insanity, why trust the sane stuff at all?
Because a lot of it has been found to be historically accurate
Exactly what sources lead you to believe that the text is historically accurate? The text and archaeology directly contradict to at least 450 BCE ("Return from Babylon" in the text).
As for the events in the NT; You mention the resurrection, can you tell us how many people witnessed this, where they were and when?
One claim attached to the crucifixion is a solar eclipse, as the orbit of the Moon is a known quantity could you tell us exactly which eclipse the crucifixion coincided with?
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?-Esquilax
Evolution - Adapt or be eaten.
