Exactly, and this is always where I get caught up in these sorts of talks (And where I did for a long while when I was trying to figure this all out (and eventually leading to my deconversion)), is that all of these people are still human. And humans haven't really changed since then. Propaganda, and fiction were still as strong of forces back then as they are now. People were still just as easily led into cults and lies. So how am supposed to trust these people who we have no idea who they are, if it can proved, anything. And the only thing thing telling me that this God is real is the thing written by people who have a vested interest in me believing this God is real.

Basically I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of something being written decades if not centuries after the fact by people who most likely weren't even there, for a reason that obviously wasn't accurate representation of the events as they happened, and then edited and curated after the fact, as something I should put my life in the hands of.

Fire, I don't understand this "manuscript evidence" you keep pointing too. As far as I understand it, it means the early versions of the bible before it was the "Bible" after all the various documents had been collated and combined.

But I don't understand how having multiple copies of something going back a few years, but all tracing back to documents that were written decades (if not centuries) after the events in questions, but nothing back to the ACTUAL event, can possibly lead to credence to the events being recorded faithfully. Like Mike said, just because something was faithfully copied doesn't mean the original document was right (see: The Onion)

If I'm misunderstanding, apologies, I haven't studied this stuff, I know enough to satisfy my mind, but that's about it.

Oh gods, I remember that. We should dig it up to see it if holds true.

Previous page.

Bigger

Well when Mr. Walter loves Ms. White, they fuck like jackrabbits on a cold winter night.

It's the circle of life.

Good job with that whole "not turning this thread political" thing guys. Thumbs up.

Holy shit this is amazing.

"Snowman" For Spork

We gotta get Hitler's Slinky song in there.

Honestly I wouldn't even say it's a comedy. It's absurdist, and bizarre. But a lot of the time it can be pretty freaking dark. There is a lot of humour in it, but I think calling it a "Comedy" is pinning it in a hole it doesn't deserve.

/currentlyrelisteningtoRestaurantAtTheEndOfTheUniverseforthehundredthtime

Alright, gotcha, my brain just wasn't connecting the idea of rules with archetypes.