• abbiistabbii@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 days ago

    The idea of Americans believing the bible actually took place in the USA is the most American thing I can imagine.

    Also, counterpoint: The Bible actually took place in Scotland, specifically in an around the Forth. Here are my arguments:

    • The Forth has more than seven tributries, including (but not limited to) The Leven, The Esk, The Water of Leith, the Almond, The Avon, and The Carron.
    • Scotland was actually, provably, occupied by the Romans and still has Roman remains.
    • Splitting the sea at the Inchgarvie Narrows makes more sense than splitting the Red sea.
    • The Islands of the Forth are full of Hermitages, and Inchcolm has a Abbey, why? BECAUSE THEY KNEW!!!
    • The Temple was built on a mount and surrounded by walls? St Margaret’s Chapel is on a mount surrounded by walls. Ergo; Edinburgh Castle is the actual site of The Temple!
    • America has had no Presidents called “David”, but Scotland has had two.

    COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT!

  • BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    ·
    3 days ago

    And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in the stars and stripes, and laid Him in the bed of the truck, because there was no room for them in the holiday inn.

  • fonix232@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yeah.

    And Moses split the Gulf of California to deliver his people to the promised land… Baja California.

  • Polyphilic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    What do leftists have to so with the Bible?

    Also 2000 years ago river systems were different.

    This is real dumb

  • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 days ago

    Okay, the first problem is that the Bible does not say that Nile has 7 tributaries.

    It says that (a different river, likely Euphrates), will get smashed into 7.

    The second problem is everything else.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 days ago

    Obviously the answer is Jesus was in North America, Joseph Smith was right, and Matthew Mark Luke and John were a bit confused.

    • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Thank Leif Erickson for bringing Christianity back to Europe and the Middle East, then going back in time and having his father Eric the Red build the first church in Greenland

  • xistera@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 days ago

    Kinda related: The mormons believe that the garden of Eden was where Independence, Missouri is now… and everything resettled in the Middle East after the flood.

  • imadethis@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    The fuck is a tributary? Because there are way more rivers than just those seven that drain to the mississippi. Wikipedia even says that tributaries include streams, and good lord I know even the tiniest of rivers will have many streams feeding it. Declaring a certain size of river/water body to be a tributary is just fucking around with numbers to prove your point.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      It is a question of major tributaries. Depending how one defines “major”, about any number is possible. You can probably claim the Mississippi has one major tributary: the Missouri. Or you can claim it has hundreds, of your “major” definition is “mapped running water”.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Christianity loses basically all of its real historical support if you remove the Roman context. But that’s kind of on brand for evangelicals who seem to think that “faith” is only pure when the conjecture defies all logic, reason and is in conflict with any external information.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Christianity loses basically all of its real historical support if you remove the Roman context.

      Given how much of the ancient world we know about because preserved Roman texts mentioned it, that’s not surprising.