Continuation

In the last post I talked about the religion book's bias towards the French Revolution. It was brought to my attention that I am basically too focused on the past. I would like to state that the last post has almost nothing to do with the past (other than background information). Th point I am trying to make is that the religion book is teaching us biased history (in other words flawed history). The phrase "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind.

What I am saying overall is this; if the religion book teaches one false thing, its logical to assume that there are more false pieces of information in its pages. It has little to do with the past, and more to do with what we the students are getting out of it (present and future).