Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Does the bible belong in the Fiction section?

Yes59%59% - 75
No40%40% - 52
Total: 127
2007-02-21 13:44:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6791|SE London

Braddock wrote:

Religion = ignorance.
I disagree. Religion requires ignorance, since it is based on faith, which cannot exist without ignorance. Religion does not equal ignorance, it could all be right - the chances are infinitesimally small, but one of them could be right, probably not though.

Instead I think religion is an easy way out. Rather than trying to come up with logical explanations for things it is much easier to just sit there and say "God did it". Without this religiously induced scientific apathy perhaps mankind would have acheived a lot more.
2007-02-21 13:47:43
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6677
Well most of it is fiction, although some books (such as maccabees) are historical most is fiction created by Jewish Scholars to explain their history, lineage and religion.
2007-02-21 14:25:03
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6654|The Land of Scott Walker

Bertster7 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Religion = ignorance.
I disagree. Religion requires ignorance, since it is based on faith, which cannot exist without ignorance. Religion does not equal ignorance, it could all be right - the chances are infinitesimally small, but one of them could be right, probably not though.

Instead I think religion is an easy way out. Rather than trying to come up with logical explanations for things it is much easier to just sit there and say "God did it". Without this religiously induced scientific apathy perhaps mankind would have acheived a lot more.
Imho, faith requires ignorance only in the sense that we humans cannot possibly know everything about our origins or existence.  One could study a lifetime and still only be an expert in one aspect of our world.  If anyone claimed to grasp earthly knowledge in its entirety it would be the height of arrogance.  Faith can be based on logical probabilities, though the end result could not possibly be proven.  Also, two different people can look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusions.  Our origins are a good example.  Neither the religious person nor the atheist can “prove” that God does or does not exist.  They both look at the same universe and arrive at different conclusions which both require faith.     

Belief in a higher power does not automatically result in scientific apathy, though admittedly that is the case with some religious folks.  Many "religious" people throughout history have discovered breakthroughs in the scientific fields.  Their belief inspired them to explore what they believed was specifically designed and created by higher intelligence/power/God.
2007-02-21 15:15:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6791|SE London

Stingray24 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Religion = ignorance.
I disagree. Religion requires ignorance, since it is based on faith, which cannot exist without ignorance. Religion does not equal ignorance, it could all be right - the chances are infinitesimally small, but one of them could be right, probably not though.

Instead I think religion is an easy way out. Rather than trying to come up with logical explanations for things it is much easier to just sit there and say "God did it". Without this religiously induced scientific apathy perhaps mankind would have acheived a lot more.
Imho, faith requires ignorance only in the sense that we humans cannot possibly know everything about our origins or existence.  One could study a lifetime and still only be an expert in one aspect of our world.  If anyone claimed to grasp earthly knowledge in its entirety it would be the height of arrogance.  Faith can be based on logical probabilities, though the end result could not possibly be proven.  Also, two different people can look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusions.  Our origins are a good example.  Neither the religious person nor the atheist can “prove” that God does or does not exist.  They both look at the same universe and arrive at different conclusions which both require faith.
I would define Faith in the most relevant sense to be "belief without proof". Whilst no scientific theory can ever be conclusively proven, faith is not really relevant in that context, if there is enough logical evidence and the theory has stood up to scrutiny and practical tests, the element of faith is removed. Personally I think that most religions smack of arrogance, since they almost all point to the universe revolving around man, which it obviously doesn't.
     

Stingray24 wrote:

Belief in a higher power does not automatically result in scientific apathy, though admittedly that is the case with some religious folks.  Many "religious" people throughout history have discovered breakthroughs in the scientific fields.  Their belief inspired them to explore what they believed was specifically designed and created by higher intelligence/power/God.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying no one religious ever made important scientific discoveries, Newton was fiercely religious for example. But I feel I could say with some degree of confidence that religion has stood in the way of more scientific developments (Gallileo?) than it has contributed to and although one could argue that a high proportion of scientific discoveries have been made by people who are deeply religious or associated with the church, but I would attribute that to the fact that the vast majority of people, through the majority of history have been religious and priests or those closely linked to the church often had access to better education. This holds especially true for discoveries that contradict certain aspects of religion.

Intelligent design and Creationism are examples of warped science which uses religious doctrine as a basis for scientific, well, I suppose essentially it's just propaganda, flying in the face of conventional science which has stood up to immense scrutiny and has led to countless discoveries about biology. That is not to say that Darwinian evloution is exactly right, but it has been proven to be a pretty accurate model.
2007-02-21 15:17:01
commandochristian
Honda - The Power of Dreams
+293|6622|Michigan, USA

Homeschtar wrote:

Although I don't believe in that stuff, I don't think it should be in the fiction section any more than it should be in the non-fiction section. It should be in a 'Religion' section.
Winner.
2007-02-21 15:45:37
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6499|Éire
I think I might make up a concept of an omnipotent being who is responsible for creating all that we know in this world and write a large book all about the belief system this 'Lord' believes we as humans should have. I think I might make up some cool crazy stories about a large ship and a flood and maybe claim menstruating women should be shunned, just to keep the readers interested as they're going through it. Should I be allowed to put it in the non fiction section if it were published.

If not, why not?
2007-02-21 17:27:30
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6894|United States of America

Bertster7 wrote:

Instead I think religion is an easy way out. Rather than trying to come up with logical explanations for things it is much easier to just sit there and say "God did it". Without this religiously induced scientific apathy perhaps mankind would have acheived a lot more.
How many people still say, "God created thunder and lightning" or things of that nature. The only "God did it" thing I would agree with would be that God created the universe, but not in any set amount of time according to the Bible. I acknowledge, along with many other Christian-ish people, that earth is not 6,000 years old. I acknowledge the existence of evolution, as do many others. The MAJORITY of religous people do not reject science, but do embrace it.
2007-02-21 17:49:14
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6654|The Land of Scott Walker

Braddock wrote:

I think I might make up a concept of an omnipotent being who is responsible for creating all that we know in this world and write a large book all about the belief system this 'Lord' believes we as humans should have. I think I might make up some cool crazy stories about a large ship and a flood and maybe claim menstruating women should be shunned, just to keep the readers interested as they're going through it. Should I be allowed to put it in the non fiction section if it were published.

If not, why not?
FYI, the Bible was not written by one person and contains historical information.  Check out the variety of authors sometime, its pretty interesting. 

To answer your question, no.  Fiction for your creation.  Why?  Because you just said you made it up.
2007-02-21 17:53:43
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,978|6841|949

I think it should be in the Philisophy section, not in non-fiction or fiction.

As in, a thought, a concept of being, a general world view.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-02-21 17:53:56)

2007-02-21 17:55:40
XX-ifrit-XX
Member
+3|6576|Somerset, England
More like self help me thinks.
2007-02-21 17:56:11
Roger Lesboules
Ah ben tabarnak!
+316|6786|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

gene_pool wrote:

Yes. Fiction is the area where books go if there story is made up isnt it?
Yes...they should put bible in the fiction section....along with the September 11 "Terrorist (Bush) Attack"
2007-02-21 18:06:26
BolvisOculus
Spagett!
+167|6828|Manitowoc, WI

DesertFox423 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Instead I think religion is an easy way out. Rather than trying to come up with logical explanations for things it is much easier to just sit there and say "God did it". Without this religiously induced scientific apathy perhaps mankind would have acheived a lot more.
How many people still say, "God created thunder and lightning" or things of that nature. The only "God did it" thing I would agree with would be that God created the universe, but not in any set amount of time according to the Bible. I acknowledge, along with many other Christian-ish people, that earth is not 6,000 years old. I acknowledge the existence of evolution, as do many others. The MAJORITY of religous people do not reject science, but do embrace it.
I think South Park put it perfectly when they said "Can't science be the answer to how and now why?" talking about how science doesn't disprove God, it could just possibly be how.
2007-02-21 18:07:26
Backupwayback
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
+73|6509
Fiction or atleast religion section
2007-02-21 18:57:01
Ubersturmbannfuhrer
I am a fucking homosexual
+211|6815|Parainen, Finland
It is better that I don´t post my theory about that big book, but I have to say fiction!!!!!

I actually read it a couple of years ago....Jesus Christ...
2007-02-21 19:08:40
ThaReaper
Banned
+410|6849
Athiest 4tw... God doesn't exist.
2007-02-21 19:30:57
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6894|United States of America

thareaper254 wrote:

Athiest 4tw... God doesn't exist.
Good for you; however, that's not really at all relevant.

Last edited by DesertFox423 (2007-02-21 19:34:14)

2007-02-21 19:53:41
ThaReaper
Banned
+410|6849
How can you prove God is real. Gods were made up characters, they don't exist. Just my opinion. If there was a god it would be a spirit or something. I don't know, I just think people believe too much in religion when science is more believable.
2007-02-21 19:58:46
BolvisOculus
Spagett!
+167|6828|Manitowoc, WI

thareaper254 wrote:

How can you prove God is real. Gods were made up characters, they don't exist. Just my opinion. If there was a god it would be a spirit or something. I don't know, I just think people believe too much in religion when science is more believable.
Ahem *looks at previous post*
2007-02-22 06:26:19
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6499|Éire

Stingray24 wrote:

FYI, the Bible was not written by one person and contains historical information.  Check out the variety of authors sometime, its pretty interesting.
I'll get a gang of my mates to help me write it then so. And by the way the DaVinci code contains certain historical facts but it's still fiction.

Stingray24 wrote:

To answer your question, no.  Fiction for your creation.  Why?  Because you just said you made it up.
I see, so if I hadn't mentioned that it would've went into the non-fiction section? How do you know the various authors of the bible never said it was only a laugh when they were writing it? They could very well have, we'd never know would we?
2007-02-22 07:16:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6791|SE London

DesertFox423 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Instead I think religion is an easy way out. Rather than trying to come up with logical explanations for things it is much easier to just sit there and say "God did it". Without this religiously induced scientific apathy perhaps mankind would have acheived a lot more.
How many people still say, "God created thunder and lightning" or things of that nature. The only "God did it" thing I would agree with would be that God created the universe, but not in any set amount of time according to the Bible. I acknowledge, along with many other Christian-ish people, that earth is not 6,000 years old. I acknowledge the existence of evolution, as do many others. The MAJORITY of religous people do not reject science, but do embrace it.
Actually I doubt that is the case. Probably in 1st world environments, but they don't make up the majority of the worlds religious population. In any case this "MAJORITY" of religious people embracing science (msot specifically science that is contradictory to biblical dogma) is a recent occurrence, times have changed drastically, for the better regarding religion and the growth and acceptance of secularism.
2007-02-22 11:27:36
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6654|The Land of Scott Walker

Braddock wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

FYI, the Bible was not written by one person and contains historical information.  Check out the variety of authors sometime, its pretty interesting.
I'll get a gang of my mates to help me write it then so. And by the way the DaVinci code contains certain historical facts but it's still fiction.

Stingray24 wrote:

To answer your question, no.  Fiction for your creation.  Why?  Because you just said you made it up.
I see, so if I hadn't mentioned that it would've went into the non-fiction section? How do you know the various authors of the bible never said it was only a laugh when they were writing it? They could very well have, we'd never know would we?
You have friends that cover several hundred years and span different walks of life?  Impressive.
2007-02-22 14:24:06
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6499|Éire

Stingray24 wrote:

You have friends that cover several hundred years and span different walks of life?  Impressive.
I don't but our book will contain just as much bullshit despite the fact.
2007-02-22 14:59:18
topal63
. . .
+533|6927
The BIBLE is mythical in aspect & detail - it is an exaggeration / distortion of events for effect (even utter fabrication at times); that speaks to humans in psychological terms they can understand... It is a collection of stories / traditions about people... it isn't a calculus textbook; it is not about bacteria growth rates in a warm dish. It is a collection of stories and traditions that speaks to the psychology of men / women.

The ignorance part belongs solely to man. The Bible, like all myths, is not devoid of "truth."

It is one thing to have an errant and ignorant superstitious belief that: disease is caused by demons; the devil; God; transcendent entities.

It is another to consider the meaning of the stories, why did people share these stories? Is there a relationship of God (transcendent realities - possible - yet actually unknown) to community; to the self... to the struggles we face in existence.

You could say for example: David (a mere boy) killing Goliath with a slingshot is absurd. A literalist might take that absurdity for being a fact... and then ruminate upon some theologic sophistry and an assumed necessary connection to the myth of Jesus (through the branch of Jesse, father of David, etc)...

But, the story might have been told for other reasons to convey a meaning (not a literal happenstance). That of the heroic journey that you, me, anyone, David must faith in life - we all might face are own unique "Goliath"; and some have; or you can; face the struggle without fear. Or, it could mean that personal responsibility is important even to children; and instill this value early. It was common in the past that the rites of passage; for young men passing into adulthood to be quite severe; and occur early in life (much earlier than now). David is made part of the greater society, based upon his personal commitment to the moment - he exhibits the tenacity the Society extols. He is part of something greater; society; the moment he picks up the first stone.

Does the bible belong in the Fiction section
So that is a NO...

Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-22 15:18:36)

2007-02-22 15:12:15
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6499|Éire

topal63 wrote:

The BIBLE is mythical in aspect & detail - it is an exaggeration / distortion of events for effect (even utter fabrication at times); that speaks to humans in psychological terms they can understand... It is a collection of stories / traditions about people... it isn't a calculus textbook; it is not about bacteria growth rates in a warm dish. It is a collection of stories and traditions that speaks to the psychology of men / women.
That's a fair comment. The Greeks had ancient myths that played a similar role in society. Sigmund Freud said that many of mankind's deepest psychological concepts could be seen conveyed in Greek mythology e.g. the Oedipus complex.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard