RE: To those who believe Bible is not literal...
September 1, 2010 at 4:40 pm
(This post was last modified: September 1, 2010 at 4:42 pm by fr0d0.)
okay lets talk about facts: - I see no facts anna
-Christians killed, tortured and burnt people becouse they think bible was literal. - no people who were Christians do non Christian things sometimes
-God Sent or inspired people to write bible illiteral. - The bible is a book on the subject of religion and not science
-God could simply talk to the whole world. He doesn't even need to "inspire" someone so it wasn't the only way to communicate. - he couldn't, as that would be illogical
-If you send something that much important, and want people to obey your words it would be a wise thing to send it more clear. - but you can't because it would be illogical
My conclusion: God is a sick bastard who caused thousands of people die just to send something poetic. - with absolutely zero reason
Your conclusion: You are illogical. - You are not illogical, some of your points are.
"Your logic seemingly enables you to conclude stuff without proof."
You don't need a proof to refute something that is produced without proof. - You don't need it because it's impossible. That's why you can't logically conclude anything.
-Christians killed, tortured and burnt people becouse they think bible was literal. - no people who were Christians do non Christian things sometimes
-God Sent or inspired people to write bible illiteral. - The bible is a book on the subject of religion and not science
-God could simply talk to the whole world. He doesn't even need to "inspire" someone so it wasn't the only way to communicate. - he couldn't, as that would be illogical
-If you send something that much important, and want people to obey your words it would be a wise thing to send it more clear. - but you can't because it would be illogical
My conclusion: God is a sick bastard who caused thousands of people die just to send something poetic. - with absolutely zero reason
Your conclusion: You are illogical. - You are not illogical, some of your points are.
"Your logic seemingly enables you to conclude stuff without proof."
You don't need a proof to refute something that is produced without proof. - You don't need it because it's impossible. That's why you can't logically conclude anything.
