The bible is a historically reliable book

>the bible is a historically reliable book
How dumb do you have to be to believe that?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
onfaith.co/onfaith/2011/02/24/how-rare-are-godless-right-wingers-4/4159
divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_by_Religion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I forgive you for your sins but god won't, heretic.

It depends which part you are referring to.
It is a collection of multiple literary genres.
Only a fool would read the whole thing as a single genre unit.

Thank you dad

I'm talking about the gospels.

>I'm talking about the gospels.
Then why didn't you say that?

The Gospels and most ancient writings about specific people tend to express the essence of someone, not necessarily history as we think of it in 2018.
So no, it is not a reliable source of history in the contemporary sense. Some of the shit may be completely accurate, but that was never really the goal of ancient biographers.

Christian orthodoxy treated them as history for 2,000 years though.

Your point?

As dumb as the person who supports spiritual decay through homosexuality

dumb hetshitter

...

Basically this.

>lgbt flag
i can see where your opinion comes from

kek

Thank god (kek) I was born in East Germany. The official "most godless place on earth". If you ever ask yourself if not everything Communism does is bad - there you go. A few years ago when I joined a particular forum that was used by people all over Germany I was astonished by how many retarded people are out there actually believing in something as ridiculous as a higher being and rules made up by that being. It's hilarious that even on a site as based as Sup Forums there are so many religious cucks who talk about redpilling all day and yet think that being a moron is somehow spiritual.

>

>the (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Bible))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Being white doesn't mean you naturally believe in a made up fairy tale. You should really ponder on that. You can also be LGBT and still believe in the superiority of the white race. You can't believe in the superiority of the white race and believe in god tho'.

Is any book written by a leftist factually reliable in any way, shape or form?

I wouldn't mind if religion is just a cultural thing, but yeah, it's pretty dumb when they try to impose a bunch of rules.

not an argument.

the new testament authors were the leftists of their time

It's an excuse to sing together that heartless grim grums can approach with sincerity. It's fading because people are realizing they can gather for other kinds of songs, too. More accurate songs, or more blatantly fictional; either is more true than a burning bush.

Congrats to that deutchfag for praising a god for his place of birth and then continuing to shit on all religion.

Are words in parenthesis a mystery to you? It implies that I know the irony behind what I said. It appears you do not. Dolt.

Faggot OP doesn't know there are more historical references to Jesus of Nazareth than Alexander the Great
>Josephus
>Pliny the Younger
>Tacitus

Tl;Dr do your homework and/or kill yourself

>spiritual decay
People are far better off exploring their own spirituality than having some mega-corporate church sell them a canned version of it.

I don't deny Jesus was a historical figure, he just wasn't a magical man doing miracles

>leftist
Your fear doesn't appear to be rational.

>the new testament authors were the leftists of their time
The opposite is true. Saul, the glory-grabbing, self-proclaimed "apostle" never met Jesus, never knew who he was, never was one of the disciples. He was a right-wing conservatives who built this entire faith/grace thing so he didn't have to do any good works. Then he wrote half the New Testament, mostly to embellish himself. Scholars now regard Pauline Scripture as somewhat tainted.

>there are more historical references to Jesus of Nazareth
No, just the circular reference from the bible. The others were forged, faked or misinterpreted.

>1514053486732.png

Far too many trailing parentheses
Code's gonna blow up.

True, Paul was a dick. It's funny because christians say you just have to believe in jesus' resurrection, but believing in paul's hallucinations is just as necessary for the faith

I mean you have the fag flag, but if you adjust time block by 100 years everything fits perfectly.

>Thank you dad

tumblr pls go

You need to repent of the ways of the sinner. You can argue that the Bible is historically inaccurate, and that's fine. You hate the rules of the Bible? You're retarded.

You will find(or you might not since you're a retarded faggot) that most of the political research you do will leave you with the same conclusion you should have had if you had followed the values of Christianity. That is basic shit.

For example. 92% of new HIVs in 2015 were from young gay men from the age of 18 to 25. This is because gay men get drunk, do not have responsible sex because they think faggot sex is safe because "you don't get pregnant",and because of the fragility of the anus, this results in higher chance of STD and disease.

tldr: you're dying because you're tearing each others assholes apart, you can either do a ton of research to eventually figure this out, or just follow the Bible.

...

>Sodomite flag
Learn how to make posts that are on topic

>Earth is 6000 years old

dropped. btw, to the christcucks on here, why the fuck are you even on here?
you do know if you actually believed in jesus, you should be happy about multiculturalism
and immigration because it's a chance to bring more people to jesus and to try and to defend
your "white" culture is actually satanic because it's a worldly view, this world isnt supposed to
be paradise after all!

there's nothing more cringey than seeing larpers in their own religion. at least the muslims are
following their prophet by blowing people up, while christcucks keep a jew serving religion as
part of their culture.

>Only a fool would read the whole thing as a single genre unit.

Don't tell that to us. Tell it to christians publishers that print it as one book. While you are at it, tell them to not print the Old Testament since it's only "for jews". That's what Sup Forums christians keep saying over and over again.

>>Josephus
>>Pliny the Younger
>>Tacitus

According to them, when was Jesus born? What was the date of his death? Answer the question.

>OP said why believe it is a historical reference
user refers to times, people and events of OT.
>OP "I meant the New Testament"
I bring up historians that document the central figure of NT, along with key events such as the census and execution of Christ
>OP I meant he didn't use magic
How many times are you going to move the goalposts FaggotFagAnon?

>All of his miracles are pretty hard to timestamp
Walking on water
Btfo a storm
Raising Lazarus
Feeding the multitudes
Ascension to Heaven

>Meanwhile he did some pretty based shit
Btfo kikes in the temple
Called lawyers out for being cunts
Created massive cultural reform

>Josephus
>Pliny the Younger
>Tacitus
None of these people ever met Jesus. They wrote -->about his followers

My faggotry doesn't make your religion any more true

Political views also don't matter, everybody should realize the bible is silly

I worship Moloch ;)

That's true, christianity is inherently anti-racist, they just have to deal with that.

>user refers to times, people and events of OT.
Some events of the bible really happened, but that doesn't make the bible historically reliable. There are many myths associated with other historical figures, and they aren't all of sudden true just because of that.

>All of his miracles are pretty hard to timestamp
You would expect a lot of people writing about them, but you can only read about them in the bible. You can see they are just made up

>Political views also don't matter

Then why are faggots always the degenerates who think it's okay to spread HIV intentionally?

>You hate the rules of the Bible?
You're confused about what the bible is. Nobody hates it any more than they hate the koran. Nobody hates the rules, but they were written for a different time. For example, the bible has a prohibition on pork and shellfish. That's because they could not tell when pork was infested with trichinosis, or when oysters carried vibriosis. Now we have refrigeration and it's a ridiculous dietary prohibition. In fact, the settlers at Jamestown nearly starved to death because they refused to eat the plentiful mussels and oysters in the bay.

Where are you from, user?

>That's true, christianity is inherently anti-racist, they just have to deal with that
The bible also says something like "when you build your farm remember to leave the outter spaces fetilized so you help out your neighbors". Think about it, you can not let your neighbors live with you, that's how most of Sup Forums thinks, niggers need to go back, muslims need to go back, they need to help their countries they can't stay here, I'm not a racist because of that. Only radical virgins that can't get laid want all minorities dead

Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such asJosephusandRomansources such asTacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as thePauline Lettersand theSynoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other; for example, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process
>Josephus
Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books18and20.
There are three references to the name 'Jesus' in Book 20, Chapter 9: "Jesus, who was called Christ" (i.e. ' Messiah'); "Jesus, son of Damneus", a Jewish High Priest (both in Paragraph 1); and "Jesus, son of Gamaliel", another Jewish High Priest (in Paragraph 4).
>Tacitus
TheRoman historianTacitus, in hisAnnals(writtenca.AD 115),book 15, chapter 44., describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He says that their founder was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus), that he was executed under Pontius Pilate, and that the movement of his followers, initially checked, then broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.
>Pliny the Younger
"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
>Tl;Dr
Fuck off

Plenty of people hate the rules. Actually, much of the left is full of atheists because by denying the bible they can justify doing all kinds of harmful behavior such as adultery, sex before marriage (and out of wedlock children), and making "progress" for "women's rights."

Historically accurate =/= historically valuable

The later parts of the bible concerning the early kings of judea is actually pretty accurate and used as a source by historians. Only retard creationists the entire timeline literall and only retard gaytheists dismiss the entire text even tho actual academics do not. Please kys asap desu.

I'm more surprised about people going around talking about how great communism is desu

Nice reply, case in point on possessed by a demon
Religion =/= spirituality but that's the going assumption or propagandists view I've come to learn, plus using one comment to judge a whole forum is proof you're just noise

No disagreement from me, I agree that religions are a spiritual trap, but so are degenerative events that can never add quality to life, only further pervert it for pleasure

I'm a virgin though

Lisboa

And plenty of people love the rules, that's why they are christians in the first place. It's not about truth, it's about supporting their political views. They believe women should be submissive, so it's convenient for them to use the bible.

Most modern radtrads are like that. They don't believe there is overwhelming evidence for the bible, deep down they know that there isn't.

>Historically accurate =/= historically valuable
Never said otherwise, what a strawman.

The part about jesus doing magic is discarded by historians, making your faith useless.

maybe it's a semendemon ;)

>Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus and Roman sources such as Tacitus.
How can they be historical sources if they never met Jesus, never saw him, never heard or saw any written words about Jesus other than the bible? The Josephus writings were falsified by dishonest Christians.

Historian Dr. Richard Carrier notes "...in all probability Tacitus never actually referred to Christ at all, and the famous passage now in the manuscripts originally referenced a Jewish rebel group formed by Chrestus a decade later, unconnected to Christianity, and Christian scribes subsequently 'improved' the passage by inserting a line about Christ[5]."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

>I worship Moloch ;)
Throwing babies into the fire is alright with you, chhyyyek
Right, right, you were taught heterosexual people are "breeders" by your shit eating friends. That just comedy!
By sheer assumption I'm going to guess you're the source of CP and gore that forums get spammed with because "you do it for the children" but said in a sinister tone.

Actually it's sumecuck logic. Genesis is based on the kumarbi epic, which in turn is rippee off from the sumerian enuma elis.

yeah, I for one think its stupid to ask people who actually lived in those times.

Clearly you get accurate historical knowledge from people who are living 2,000 years later and merely guessing and formulating theories about what those people lived.

I mean, we all know they would NEVER ever change history or tell lies. 50% of ancient UK was black. Roman Emperors were black, Vikings were black muslims. Thats all just facts we know now thanks to people living today. Haha historical accounts from ancient people? WORTHLESS

You completely failed to answer my question. Typical.

These threads always go the same exact way. Sup Forums christians mumble stuff about Tacitus and Josephus, people that never met Jesus and were born decades after Jesus supposedly died. Then they will start name dropping historians that agree with them, with no evidence whatsoever. Last and certainly least, they will tell you to just trust them, their historians and the Bible. The end.

I knew it was you! Qt Portuguese Chirst Killer

Dr. Richard Carrier never knew or met Tacitus. Why should we trust anything he has to say about Tacitus? We should just assume everything he says is in bad faith, because that's what historians do.

Can you not read the post I was replying to? The guy said "Nobody hates the rules" which is false. Athiests and sodomite scum like yourself deny it just so you can justify taking loads up the ass and spreading STDs. Yes, I'm sure right wingers are more attracted to the bible for it's right-wing leanings, but you do not know got certain if "radtrads" actually believe it deep down or not, that's an assumption that you're making with no real way of measuring it's validity.

Also it's not a "belief" that women are submissive or faggots and premarital sex are harmful is not a belief it's knowing.

I didnt strawman you in the slightest. You implied there is no historical merit in the bible whatsoever when this is clearly false. Just because the timeline is all fucky in parts does not mean other parts lose their value. For example Shoshenq's raid on jerusalem around 1000BC is referenced in the bible and its timeline is far from inacurate when compared to the egyptian account of the same event. Also the chronology of judean kings is pretty spot on. You're the faggot strawmanning a perfectly valid argument, namely that latter parts of the old testament and new testament are historically accurate. Sure you can be an obtuse fuck and say that because miracles/magic are mentioned in it therefore it should be dismissed, but there was a pontius pilates who was prefect and there was a john the baptist who annointed a guy called jesus and there was a cruxificion because he was leading a controversial messianic cult.

If you gonna dismiss antique sources because they posted memes about magic and gods, then start with herodotus who literally said poseidon was responsible for crushing the persians fleet at the battle of salamis. The standards you're setting are higher than those used by academic historians themselves. Fuck off faggot.

>Actually, much of the left is full of atheists because by denying the bible they can justify doing all kinds of harmful behavior such as adultery, sex before marriage (and out of wedlock children), and making "progress" for "women's rights."
Wrong on so many levels.
First, atheists don't want creation myths taught in public schools as science, because it's not science.
Second, there are millions of right-wing conservatives who are atheists but smart enough to keep their mouths shut about it.
Third, atheists are far more likely to stay married in monogamous relationships than theists.
Fourth, the religious Dugger brothers apparently didn't mind diddling their sisters outside of marriage
Finally, women have their civil and human rights respected should not in any way threaten your well-being unless you still live in your mom's basement, women won't even speak you, and you just want to punish/torture them out of spite/revenge.

These fag posters have been shilling the place up as of late, sage and move on.

Let them go be degenerates by themselves.

>Dr. Richard Carrier never knew or met Tacitus.
You should research the Socratic Dilemma.

>I was astonished by how many retarded people are out there actually believing in something as ridiculous as a higher being and rules made up by that being.

>wtf where did all these religious people come from everyone was atheist before now

No shit. Just Noah's Flood myth is sufficient enough to know it's not. Especially cuz history goes back so much farther than 4000 years.
That was the biggest problem for me as a creationist.

But you can use other methods to show the Bible is clearly fallible. For example my favorite contradiction is the death of Judas and what he did with the money he earned for betraying the big J. Huge contradiction between Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19.

>Third, atheists are far more likely to stay married in monogamous relationships than theists.

LOL
fucking what
how and why
gonna need a source for this claim

IT WAS A METAPHOR

Carrier is an anomaly then in the field then. There are indeed signs some parts of the josephus account was doctored later on but the tacitus account is widely held as authentic by historians. Tacitus literally hated christians and painted them in a less than favorable light, there is no motive he lied nor is there any physical evidence his account was forged. It's just that christfags twisted josephus account in his jewish annals to make it sound like jesus was more than just a jewish heretic preacher and that there was more merit to his claims. The forgers did that by adding extra sentences to the original authentic passages by referring to him explicitly as somehow divine in nature, something which josephus actually never said or hinted at.

Kek
FOR WHAT?

This is propaganda. Yahwehists were the ones who killed babies, it's even in the bible.

>yeah, I for one think its stupid to ask people who actually lived in those times.
This is crazy logic. I believe in them when they are reliable and when there are multiple sources, not when they are talking about their fairy tales.

>I mean, we all know they would NEVER ever change history or tell lies. 50% of ancient UK was black. Roman Emperors were black, Vikings were black muslims.
Who believes that exactly? Hollywood and bbc aren't history either

Oh, hello britanon, I remember you. How are you doing?

Here's the thing: There are reasons to not believe in the bible despite what you feel about its rules. There aren't reasons to believe in the bible, so you can only delude yourself if you want it to be true in the first place.

>is not a belief it's knowing.
Yeah, whatever you say

>You implied there is no historical merit in the bible whatsoever
No, I didn't.

>Throwing babies into the fire is alright with you,
The tribe of Abraham did it before they switched to animal sacrifices. Then one day, when the animal sacrifices stop working, Abraham takes his son up the mountain
(1) to sacrifice him
(2) to please his gods

We always return to the old ways during times of trouble.

>Second, there are millions of right-wing conservatives who are atheists but smart enough to keep their mouths shut about it.

Prove it.

>Third, atheists are far more likely to stay married in monogamous relationships than theists.

I want proof on this right now.

And no, it's not false. The left justifies homosexuality and promiscuity all the time by attacking the bible's validity.

>Finally, women have their civil and human rights respected should not in any way threaten your well-being unless you still live in your mom's basement, women won't even speak you, and you just want to punish/torture them out of spite/revenge.

Looks like you're not from around here. By "women's rights" and "progress" I mean movement's that pass legislation and spread misinformation to persuade women to stray away from being mothers and to be more like men. Like the "77 cents to every man's dollar" bullshit or the people who enact gender quotas in workplaces.

muh richard carrier .. dawkins had everything from him

youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ

I have a physical copy of Encylopaedia Brittannia which lists the "Hittites" as "a mythological people found only in the bible".
Guess which one was wrong.

>>Johnny Tremain is a historically reliable book
>How dumb do you have to be to believe that?
What's your point?

Great, did you have a good Christmas and New Year?

>Tacitus literally hated christians and painted them in a less than favorable light,
Even so, if you read what he wrote, he wrote about the followers, about the religion, but nothing he wrote suggested that Jesus was real. He was simply recording current events for his time. If I write that Santa Claus was reported to be at Macy's that doesn't mean Santa is real. The Romans were good accountants and records-keepers. Which makes it extremely odd that zero Roman records exist about Jesus during the time Jesus was alive.

The problem is that theists are desperate to rationalize their irrational beliefs and no treachery is beneath them.

the bible?

Yes, had a comfy time with friends and family. The bad part is that I might have gained like 2kgs.

And you?

>historians write about events after they occurred
wow, I guess that's the entire field entirely debunked. History BTFO!

>several decades after he died
That's literally as good as it gets for most antique sources

You gonna dismiss cassius dio and pliny as well for writing about the history of ancient rome centuries later after the fact? Perfect contemporary accounts during antiquity were rare as fuck. Even top tier physical evidence like stelae and stone carvings were typically erected decades after the fact. Does not mean what they are chronicling should be dismissed. If anything, the fact that they're only a few decades apart is pretty great for the time and would still be considered excellent primary sources because the timegap is so small.

>only tacitus and josephus
That's clearly a lie. They are just the most famous because they are well-recognises historians. You have many more accounts than that.

Not sure if you're the faggot who posted that wiki link earlier to debunk josephus(which it actually doesnt, kek) but further down the page it lists other corroborating non-christian sources and there are quite a few.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Suetonius, Pliny, Thallus, even fucking butthurt rabbi refer to jesus as a historical entity so please fucking kys with your gaytheist memes. Jesus is almost as likely as socrates to have existed, and historically speaking it makes a lot more fucking sense that he fucking did. Now you have every right to attack his alleged divinity, but to pretend that it's self-evident he didnt historically exist is intellectually dishonest. Especially when the consensus among peer-reviewed mainstream historians is that he fucking did. There is no need to tip your fedora so hard.

So wait whatever I say? Does the endocrine system of women not produce estrogen? Are the effects of estrogen not of risk adversive? Are men not on average taller than women of the same ethnicity? Are homosexuals not the population with the highest rates of HIV? Is the anus actually very resistant to STDs? Anal sex is actually very healthy to the colon and adjacent organs and tissue? Are women with multiple sexual partners not more likely to divorce? Are women with multiple sexual partners not more likely to have children out of wedlock?

It's not a belief. Faggot.

>Prove it.
OK
onfaith.co/onfaith/2011/02/24/how-rare-are-godless-right-wingers-4/4159

>I want proof on this right now.
Sure.
divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_by_Religion

>The left justifies homosexuality and promiscuity all the time by attacking the bible's validity.
I understand the left's argument much better apparently.
The left and the right both want their rights, freedoms and liberties protected by Constitutional law. No one wants their rights, freedoms or liberties stripped away by biblical law.
The government has no valid authority to prevent two eligible (not already married, not incest, etc. ) consenting adults from getting a marriage license. The church only provides a ceremony that is not a legal marriage. So there's no "bible validity", to attack.

> I mean movement's that pass legislation and spread misinformation to persuade women to stray away from being mothers
In an economy where it's every man for himself, the women have to work too. If they are punished economically for getting married or having children, they'll do less of it. It's real live economic determinism in action. One day when you get to high school, I'm sure you'll learn about these things.

>gay people make the world a better place
see how easy it is to shitpost. get a life looser.

Pretty good. Hogmanay was great. Aside from that, I’ve mainly just been going to the gym and studying.

this is heresy

do you have to have an anime picfile for every single fucking response in the thread.

>He believes the Bible
>He believes Jesus Christ is a God
>He rather believes a single book which was written by a bunch of Jews than the thousand of year old stories of his ancestors
Even the faggot OP is more sane than those Christians

>thousand of year old stories
>believes in stories
>is based an wise
see, this is why paganism is just a laughing stock

>Global Flood
>Myth
Try again. There is evidence of a global flood.. all over the earth.

>zero roman records
What is suetonius? what is tacitus? what is pliny? what is trajan? Wow, I guess emperors and senators and equites dont count now.

You're guilty of presentism and expecting modern levels of bureaucracy and accounting. Roman censi of the times were far more vague and questionable than people expect. And even probably more heavily doctored. For example, the famous claudii family are suspects of going back in the roman senatorial family records to add their names further back than it originally went to give them more legitimacy. The very fact that we know that there was a roman citizen called pontius pilates appointed in palestine thanks to a census taken at the time is already fantastic enough in itself. Capite censi did not get recorded by name, simply counted hence the fucking name. And those were actual fucking roman citizens, just landless and irrelevant. Why the fuck would roman officials take special measures to record in details the existence of a crazy kike in a province that had only been annexed for 20-30 years at the time? He was a fucking nobody for what it's worth. That he managed to be influential enough for his cult to survive his death and catch the eye of near-contempories like tacitus is incredible enough.

>how dare you post anime on a website ingrained in anime

How in denial do you have to be to not believe it.

>>believes in stories
A story is not bound to be fictional. History is just a bunch of stories told by someone and it is to us to decide wether we trust those who tell us the stories.
I trust Aryans more than Jews, don't you?

no there isn't retard

there is no geological record whatsoever of a deluge event

The cute anime girls in op posts are there to hide him moving the goalposts every time he is proven wrong

>gaytheist

You again. The moron that doesn't understand how prefixes work and calls himself gay.

>the consensus among peer-reviewed mainstream historians

Thank you for proving me right. I'll say it again. Then they will start name dropping historians that agree with them, with no evidence whatsoever. Last and certainly least, they will tell you to just trust them, their historians and the Bible. The end.

>That's literally as good as it gets for most antique sources
>Jesus is almost as likely as socrates to have existed
>to pretend that it's self-evident he didnt historically exist is intellectually dishonest

You make two statements about how weak and uncertain ancient history is, then follow it by an arrogant statement saying that nobody is allowed to question ancient history. What a hypocrite you are.

>intellectually dishonest

Speaking of dishonesty, you should admit that our knowledge of ancient history is hazy at best. But you won't because it's against your self interest. You were stupid and became emotionally invested in ancient tales. You are completely biased.

>However, the Gospel Coalition also found that active, conservative Protestants are 35 percent less likely to divorce than non-religious persons while non-active, conservative Protestants are 10 percent less likely to divorce than non-religious persons.

>The coalition found that nominal Catholics are five percent less likely to divorce than non-religious persons, while Catholics who are actively practicing in their parishes are 31 percent less likely to get divorced than non-religious persons.

RELITURDS BTFO

Nice source by the way. Thanks. Next time learn to read, retard leftist. Get the fuck out of my face.

>No I didnt
Yeah you did in your fucking OP

>the bible is a historically reliable book
>How dumb do you have to be to believe that?
The reality is that the bible can be a historically reliable book, DEPENDING on which segments you're talking about. Maybe it was just because you wanted to make your post baity to get the thread going but if you were being honest, you'd have added that caveat. But you didnt and implied it simply has no real historical merit when it's really quite the opposite. The text contains both a lot of truth and a lot of bullshit, and no sane historian outright dismisses the bible as useless.

Such aaaaaas?

>History is just a bunch of stories told by someone
History is a science. It is taught in school, high school and college.

>it is to us to decide wether we trust those who tell us the stories.
How brain dead are you?
>muh holohoax
ok ok, that, any other fake history you know ot be false ?

pretty fucking dumb, which is why only Evangelicals take it literally

why don't you present us with some evidence for you claim?
>u first
no, you made the claim.

>average IQ of evangelicals 114
>average IQ of Germany 102