The Bible
…glorifies a mass murdering sexual fiend (David).
Records several events that don’t match with historical, archaeological, scientific data and logical common sense.
Noahs Ark, Creation, Jesus causing a riot in the temple (I don’t remember who said this but “Early century Palastine is one of the most well documented time periods, a man starts a riot in the main temple and he doesn’t even get a mention but several other prohets and son of god wannabes do”). Jesus birth story, the killing of the babies don’t match the sensus time but something like 50 years.
The best answer to these is that God requires your trust. The story of David does not glorify him nor justify him, in fact, it shows how David suffered when he did not trust the Lord.
Regarding the pre-historic phenomena, just because we haven’t uncovered anything as proof positive doesn’t mean it’s not fact. In fact, several religions have similar creation and flood stories. Regarding the history of Jesus as it relates to the moneychangers, this event satisfies the criterion of multiple attestation (more than one source!), and scholars of the historical Jesus generally credit this event as genuine and associate it with Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.
I realised saying all this i should link to the supports but its been a while since i read these books. Maybe someone else knows? The king david one is in the bible or if you
prefer
Oh i forgot to mention approves of slavery. According to the bible i can keep a slave from a neighboring country (New Zealand perhaps?)
Does not approve of slavery, but acknowleges a reality of the time
The book was compiled by Rome and some texts were kept, others that they didn’t want, like say a woman writing and keeping a record were stricken only to be found again today.Sorry, this is wrong. The canon of the Bible were first chosen prior to 330AD. The only truth to this is that Rome was the venue because it
was the world.
The books were written by hand, then over time copies were written again and again, things could have changed mistakes could have been made. Perhaps they changed details on purpose. How would anyone really know? Perhaps during the compilation any parts that were far to outlandish like jesus using his powers as a child to play pranks on people like turning them into a goat would have been left out. I honestly don’t trust the Roman Empire at all…Roman empire had nothing to do with the canon. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius,
Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The
African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by
Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
…
Then comes the things that the church did that i can’t forgive and i think they should apologise for.
The crusades, the witch burning (trial by water and by fire which was ridiculous) and also the land stealing during the "apocolypse 1000 A.D
If most of that could be rectified i think i could finaly truely become a catholic.
uring the Early Middle Ages, the Church did not conduct witch trials. Canon law, in Canon Episcopi, followed the views of the church father Augustine of Hippo (AD 400) that belief in the existence of witchcraft was heresy, since according to Augustine “a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit”. The Council of Paderborn in 785 explicitly outlawed the very belief in witches, and Charlemagne later confirmed the law. The first medieval trials against witches date to the 13th century with the institution of the Inquisition, but they were a side issue, as the Church was concentrating on the persecution of heresy, and witchcraft, alleged or real, was treated as any other sort of heresy.