If the illustrators for Christianity make so many errors, why trust the authors either?
A while back I posted an argument, and as a picture I chose that of Adam and Eve missing with belly buttons, and the whole debate shifted in favor of the fact that the artist wasn't drawing them in person, he was just drawing his own idea of them, and neglected that fact, blah. Another err the artists of Christianity continually make is drawing Satan with horns and hooves, as if he were some Goat man. How could he be, if the rest of the angels were made in the shape of humans? It just says to mme, interpretators of the Bible are always using their own spin on things, and shouldn't be trusted.
You shouldn't trust the Bible
Side Score: 12
|
 |
For this reason, with proof...
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
The Satan picture, look at it really hard. Does it look familiar? It should, that's Pan. The care free half man half goat, who wandered through the forest playing his pan flute, causing no real harm. What this picture is, is slander. It's Christianity taking a stab at the Pagan gods depicting their most evil person as someone in another's religion. Also if this is not what Satan really looks like, then that means Satan on his own does not appear evil enough, to let people know he's the bad guy, so people drawing him have to go that extra mile to make him look abnormal. What these pictures tell me is that, the Christianity as we know, is bits and pieces of the original text, and everyone who has edited it so far has put in their own two cents about whatever they had to edit. Think about it, if humans interpreting the bible into pictures, could make these human errors, why couldn't they make them while writing the words of the bible perhaps? Maybe, the bible is just paraphrased of what was really said in those biblical times, with added sayings to make it sound cooler. No one's saying you shouldn't be religious and or love God, but I'm just saying the possibility of the bible being a crock of shit, exists and these incorrect pictures are proof of that. Side: You shouldn't trust the Bible
1
point
This is drawn, by Christians showing their depiction of Satan. Yet as you say he's beautiful, meaning the people in charge of showing the religion to the people, often put their own ideas in. If they could do something as bold as make Satan out to be Pan, how can you trust that anything the bible is authentic? Truly how can you? Side: You shouldn't trust the Bible
1
point
It's Christianity taking a stab at the Pagan gods depicting their most evil person as someone in another's religion. It is just artist imagination. it is individual person not religion fault. Also if this is not what Satan really looks like, then that means Satan on his own does not appear evil enough, to let people know he's the bad guy, so people drawing him have to go that extra mile to make him look abnormal. I dont think picture makes him evil or good. it is opinion. He bad in bible and we dont know what he look like. What these pictures tell me is that, the Christianity as we know, is bits and pieces of the original text, and everyone who has edited it so far has put in their own two cents about whatever they had to edit. It only a picture. it not adding to religion. religion was done when bible was done. the picture help us visualize. it dont edit religion cause religion in bible. Think about it, if humans interpreting the bible into pictures, could make these human errors, why couldn't they make them while writing the words of the bible perhaps? Maybe, the bible is just paraphrased of what was really said in those biblical times, with added sayings to make it sound cooler. That already happens. We have different version for certain group of people. these incorrect pictures are proof of that. C'est faux. Picture come after bible written not before. That not proof. I am sorry. I speak anglais bad. Je suis française. Side: For this reason, with proof...
1
point
It is just artist imagination. it is individual person not religion fault. It's a religious artist, he drew that for the religion he represents. This shows that the people transferring the knowledge of God to us, don't have to have a solid line to draw on, they can add whatever they want to it. The point I'm making is "If the artist can add whatever he wants, to a drawing of Satan, what's to say the people writing down Jesus' words didn't add whatever they want?" I dont think picture makes him evil or good. it is opinion. He bad in bible and we dont know what he look like. You may not, but the symbolism is to depict him as wretched, beast like, and the opposite of God's favorite animal, the sheep. He's a goat man, with a horrific smile, he's supposed to look evil, even though according to Lolzors he was actually beautiful. It only a picture. it not adding to religion. It's a religious picture. religion was done when bible was done. This art is done years later, and people demonstrate that with the bible as a guide they can still make errors, how does it not seem possible that the people writing the bible made errors, or just put in whatever they felt like? That already happens. We have different version for certain group of people. Then it's true that you can't trust the Bible. If two different witnesses are saying tow different stories for how a murder went down, you can't trust them. Picture come after bible written not before. That not proof. The pictures drawn by the religious people, made with errors even though there is a text to follow, are proof that humans can make mistakes, and can change public things to suit their purpose. That stands as proof of the possibility that the Bible was written, not verbatim of God and Jesus's words, but instead with things changed to suit the needs of the people writing it. Side: You shouldn't trust the Bible
1
point
while i do believe alot of the bible did actually happen, i don't think you should take it all as fact, just think of a game of Chinese whispers, a sentence passed down five people is usually different than it was to begin with, now imagine a story passed down five generations, they will have all added their own bits to spice it up and make it more exiting Side: You shouldn't trust the Bible
|
1
point
1
point
Although i always maintain objectivity in debating, I do personally find the bible unreasonable to believe because it was written by people, who could have (and you must admit it's possible) changed anything they want to suit their own petty causes, just like these artists did. However, if you read my argument on the other side, you'd see this is not a stab at religion, this is a very necessary analyzation of the bible alone. The bible is not religion, it's a text of religion, yet it is a text that can be wrong. It was not written by God, even religious people acknowledge this. It was written by men, and if we know how men are (which we do) with a desire for power, at a time where they were writing something that they knew could change the world, it only makes sense to question it's authenticity. For the purpose of this debate, God and religion is real. I only wish to bring attention to the obvious potential for people to fudge details for their own cause. Side: You shouldn't trust the Bible
|
