I hear people say the religious books are an accurate account of history. Who ever believes that, I would like to sell an ice bridge over the opening of a live volcano. If you study history close not one account is accurate they only present the perspective of the accounter. Simplest example is the Boston tea party was never about tea. The historians would say. The entire scam was about tax on molasses used to make rum. Just one example there are many others.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.All core books of all religions are a brew of cultural mythology, manufactured justifications for the religion, opinions of the writers, mixed with histiography.
On the issue of history. In the absence of videotapes showing events themselves and the things which led to those events, we never have 100 percent accurate history. Rather, what we have is histiography -- someone's interpretation of what occurred. Some depictions are much more accurate than others. Religious depictions are never objective or accurate.
wordywalt
Level 9
Dec 6, 2017
2
The Bible is so not accurately true, historically.
Castlepaloma
Level 8
Dec 6, 2017
1
And the Romans crucified through the wrists and not the palm of the hand. And they certainly would not have interrupted the flow of wealth into the Temple by calling attention to killing the son of God...puh, leeeeze!
farmboy2017
Level 7
Dec 6, 2017
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
The Sound Of A Good Book
23 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.