LT
Ross, I agree that some books are very different, like James, for example.
BUT, if J.K Rowling would take action to prevent me passing off 'Harry Potter and the Dildo of Doom' as her work... why doesn't god defend his name from all the terrible things people have said he says?
If Microsoft willl prevent a GUI'd version of Linux being sold as Lindows because they don't like 'their name being taken in vain', why doesn't god have the same level of concern about damage done to his 'brand'?
If someone sells a Cola that is packaged like Coca-Cola, they'll get sued. 'Coke' is almost the generic name for the drink, yet other makes can only use the term 'Cola', or they get their asses sued.
'Message delivery' is very very inconsistant and slap-dash, there's no quality control, the beand is diminished and =under attack... what god needs is an international company providing a portfolio of services - a call centre, logistics, marketing, a legal department. Without it he's never going to break out of the dead-end centuries of mismanagement have landed Christianity in.
Think about it; If Chritianity were a soft drink, which would it be? Tizer? Irnbrew?
I think the Bible is a work of literature stemming from a historical account of a people. It has all the flaws one would expect of such a work. It contains some very wise words. But, so does Shakespeare.
Putting 'Holy' before 'Bible' no more makes the Bible divinely inspired than would sticking 'Holy' in front of Shakespeare. The claims of Holiness are what is BS though; taken as a secular document it has its place.
El blanko:
"IMO" should not really be applied to archeology, as many here appear to consider that area of exploration and knowledge as absolute evidence that the word contained within the Bible is either correct or incorrect.
No, 'exploration and knowledge' in any subject area do not provide 'absolute evidence'. Colombus found Haiti; he knew the world wasn't flat, he went exploring BUT he thought he was in CHINA! We can have a discussion about what can and cannot be considered 'absolute proof', but your definiton is not one I accept, and I feel other would agree.
But, in reality, you are right. IMO is the essence of many of the archeological findings. The record in many instances stand incomplete.
Yup, very incomplete... like evidence for the Flood for example... there isn't any and you can't get more incomplete than that. Like the utter and total lack of evidence of a moving camp of thousands of people spending 40 years moving around 'the Wilderness'? Of course, the Bible is an old book recounting the story of the people, it's not a work of pure fiction, so the fact that some of the story is attested to is not surprising. But that is different from assuming that all those areas of the Bible that are not backed up by such evidence are merely awaiting the discovery of something.
Of course, if you're not a literalist who believes in the inspired and infallaible nature of the Bible, this won;t worry you.
The greatest victory over the material universe, is that Jesus Christ does exist in the hearts of many individuals across the globe and proves to be true in the spirit of love that is generated there within.
If they have free will and it makes them happy, hoo-ray for them. Doesn't mean Jesus actually exists. Santa Claus also exists in the hearts of many individuals (just because they are short doesn't mean they aren't individuals) across the globe and proves to be true in the spirit of love that is generated there within.
The "New Testament" is a historical record unto itself.
One could say that about Lord of the Rings; maybe I misunderstand you... and is it really neccesary to use unto; it makes my wrath wax
The spread of Christianity can be traced back to ancient Rome. Plenty of evidence there then!
Yup, just like there's plenty evidence for the spread of Islam and Mormonism. Not proof that either is 'true' though.