- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell... it would be even more self contradictory than Bible 1.0 for a start...
Yes I am. But its not intended as criticism so much as me wanting to get things sorted out in my own mind. For example, the whole thread assumes the existence of something called 'the Bible'. Yet the Christian Bible is a collection of books. Anything you say about it is not really about the content of individual books, but about the collection as a whole. ...[text shortened]... te it off'? Would it still be 'a work of fiction'? What could we say about it as a whole?
I have to say that I am personally comfortable calling the whole thing a work of fiction...
Maybe an anthology of fiction.
The fact that it has the odd bit in it that might be factually true doesn't stop it from being
fiction.
Harry Potter setts of for Hogwarts from King's Cross station which is real.... Harry Potter is
still fiction though.
The fact that some places and historical events in the bible might have happened, that doesn't
make the stories within, or the bible as a whole, cease to be a work of fiction.
At least that's my view.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're being overly pedantic and taking this too seriously. Perhaps you should start a new thread on what defines fiction from non-fiction.
Yes I am. But its not intended as criticism so much as me wanting to get things sorted out in my own mind. For example, the whole thread assumes the existence of something called 'the Bible'. Yet the Christian Bible is a collection of books. Anything you say about it is not really about the content of individual books, but about the collection as a whole. te it off'? Would it still be 'a work of fiction'? What could we say about it as a whole?
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy point is that the Bible as a whole is only to be considered 'a work' in as far as it is a collection of books. So if we took the Harry potter books and combined them with 3 science text books, would the whole collection be called 'a work of fiction'? Or are you claiming that every book in the Bible if considered on its own, deserves the title 'a work of fiction'?
The fact that some places and historical events in the bible might have happened, that doesn't
make the stories within, or the bible as a whole, cease to be a work of fiction.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, see, that's your problem, isn't it?
The fact that some places and historical events in the bible might have happened, that doesn't
make the stories within, or the bible as a whole, cease to be a work of fiction.
At least that's my view.
You have to call it fiction, otherwise it might upset your carefully crafted world-view.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs long as you can sleep at night, eh?
Yes I am. But its not intended as criticism so much as me wanting to get things sorted out in my own mind. For example, the whole thread assumes the existence of something called 'the Bible'. Yet the Christian Bible is a collection of books. Anything you say about it is not really about the content of individual books, but about the collection as a whole. ...[text shortened]... te it off'? Would it still be 'a work of fiction'? What could we say about it as a whole?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneNo you have it backwards... as well as completely wrong.
Well, see, that's your problem, isn't it?
You have to call it fiction, otherwise it might upset your carefully crafted world-view.
I base my worldview on the evidence. Period.
If the evidence indicates my present worldview is wrong then I change my worldview.
YOU on the other hand base your worldview on your touchy feely sense that the world
would be nicer if there was a god and no amount of evidence will ever convince you to
change your mind.
So it's extremely rich for you to accuse ME of bending facts to suite my worldview.
I call the bible fiction because all the evidence indicates that the stories in it are not true.
It's just that simple.
Given that you not only admit that there is no evidence to contradict that view point, but insist
that evidence CAN'T exist to contradict my viewpoint because otherwise you wouldn't be able
to believe based on faith, you cannot claim that I am not basing my worldview on the evidence.
Now you (misguidedly and mistakenly) claim that I should base my world view on faith.
But simply because I do not accept faith as a valid reason for believing anything does not mean
that I have "a carefully constructed worldview" that needs protecting or that I distort facts to
fit my world view.
In fact it means quite the opposite.
My worldview is extremely robust because it must, and does, withstand constant scrutiny and
testing. With any part that fails to stand up being discarded or revised.
Show me evidence my worldview is wrong and I will change it.
You cannot say the same.
You can't play "I'm rubber, your glue" with me... It just wont stick.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneWe are not the ones who think that there is an Armageddon coming, that Satan and the antichrist exist, or that
As long as you can sleep at night, eh?
there is a hell.
Why should we have any trouble sleeping?
It's crazy people like you who have all these imaginary boogie men to worry about that have any trouble sleeping.
(well at least with regards to these issues. There are plenty of real world problems to potentially keep people awake)
Originally posted by twhiteheadInaccurate history (eg Braveheart) = fiction
It isn't a single work, it is multiple works, some of which are historical (though often inaccurate), some are religious, some are allegorical. Now I guess most of those categories could be called 'fiction', but I still wouldn't call it 'a work of fiction'.
Religious stories = fiction
Allegory = (eg Anmal Farm) = fiction
Put them together in one opus and ..... it's not a work of fiction?
That does not make any sense.
btw
Any librarians here who know whether holy books are filed in fiction or non-fiction?
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneTo me there are three major styles in the bible.
Well, see, that's your problem, isn't it?
You have to call it fiction, otherwise it might upset your carefully crafted world-view.
1. The powers that be,(male), version of history from the time it was written, as in stuff like JC's sermonizing and being hung on a cross.
2. Stories of supernatural happenings or feats, some of which are clearly made up and some of which may just be tall stories taken from a more watered down version of the incident being described, as in stuff like JC walking on water, turning water into wine, returning from the dead,etc.
3. Pure allegory, as in Genesis, which I cannot logically comprehend by using the most well known uses of the words. I have to infer that certain words in Genesis dont mean what they say at all, but allude to some supernatural phenomenom, the translation of which has obviously been lost in antiquity.
This is just off the top of my head, but clearly some of the things in the bible are factual and some aren't. If it was all a work of fiction then I doubt it would've taken root in the minds of the masses.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Holy books are filled with all sorts of stuff. The Hindu Vedas cover just about every aspect of life, from physical health/medicine to various complexes breathing exercises and yogic practices.
Inaccurate history (eg Braveheart) = fiction
Religious stories = fiction
Allegory = (eg Anmal Farm) = fiction
Put them together in one opus and ..... it's not a work of fiction?
That does not make any sense.
btw
Any librarians here who know whether holy books are filed in fiction or non-fiction?
There is also stories of blue dudes, demi-gods with four arms, elephant headed human,etc.
A good librarian should say that holy books are filled with everything normal books are filled with except with the extra dimension of divination being added to the mix.
And then there'e poetry,art,math and many other valuable forms of human expression in holy books.
