• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Costco labels bibles "Fiction"

Religion is fiction, but since some people dont agree with that, and that hurts sales, it has its own section. Fiction is still technically an accurate term.
 
Religion is fiction, but since some people dont agree with that, and that hurts sales, it has its own section. Fiction is still technically an accurate term.

Why would you try to define that for someone else?
 
Why would you try to define that for someone else?

Well, let's not scurry around this: "faith and spirituality" is a compromise. An acceptable one, in my opinion, but a compromise nonetheless. "Fiction" is offensive to the faithful, but faithful is the key word here, because you just can't call it non-fiction.
 
Well, let's not scurry around this: "faith and spirituality" is a compromise. An acceptable one, in my opinion, but a compromise nonetheless. "Fiction" is offensive to the faithful, but faithful is the key word here, because you just can't call it non-fiction.

My point is why should I define what it is to them. Put it under religious, then there is no debate. I can sit here and decide if the religious section is fiction or non-fiction myself.

Furthermore, if the store owner wants to put it under fiction, then fine. That is his call.
 
My point is why should I define what it is to them. Put it under religious, then there is no debate. I can sit here and decide if the religious section is fiction or non-fiction myself.

Furthermore, if the store owner wants to put it under fiction, then fine. That is his call.

Yes, and the owner would suffer the consequences of antagonising a large number of potential customers. The Bible is not fiction, it is history. That's what it is intended to be. To say otherwise is to needlessly insult a lot of people, and that would be a sorry, low class thing to do.
 
What a bunch of nonsense.

We Christians don't believe the Bible to be true because of where it sits in a book rack.

If anything, these subtle attacks on the veracity of the Bible, and those who believe it to be true bolster (my) belief.

Nothing proves the Bible more than the behavior of those who go against it's instruction.

So please ... put it in the "too dumb to think" section, which is exactly what they WANT to do; and the outcome will be to create more Christians! An unstoppable faith, really.

(which is why we end up staring death in the face throughout history, we're annoying, and unstoppable, and I'm loving every minute of it Jerry)

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Now clearly, this isn't persecution. It's just nonsense. But still, these words from Jesus show that we EXPECT to be insulted - so labeling the Bible "fiction" should be no surprise and no Christian should react negatively to it!

Rather "rejoice"
 
Last edited:
Yes, and the owner would suffer the consequences of antagonising a large number of potential customers. The Bible is not fiction, it is history. That's what it is intended to be. To say otherwise is to needlessly insult a lot of people, and that would be a sorry, low class thing to do.

Well, no, history has to actually be supported by facts, and the bible doesn't qualify.

Look, if you just keep it to "faith" then no one can touch you. If you say, "That's my faith," there's nothing that anybody can challenge you on. You're immune.
 
Completely unnecessary the tact you are taking.

Usually I am very tactful (on a whole, not always though;) ) but the bible is one of those things I am not that tactful about. The bible has cost thousands upon thousands of lives and people treat it like it was a history book even though there is no evidence that the events written in it ever took place (some things might but most of them are without any evidence whatsoever).

If people use the book as a source of inspiration of how they personally want to live that is up to them but using it as a doctrine of how we all have to live is not OK IMHO.
 
Usually I am very tactful (on a whole, not always though;) ) but the bible is one of those things I am not that tactful about. The bible has cost thousands upon thousands of lives and people treat it like it was a history book even though there is no evidence that the events written in it ever took place (some things might but most of them are without any evidence whatsoever).

If people use the book as a source of inspiration of how they personally want to live that is up to them but using it as a doctrine of how we all have to live is not OK IMHO.

That isn't true.

Modern archeology has uncovered hundreds of historical proofs of the Bible.

Biblical archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The bible is literally the most intact ancient historical source we have!

(discount the miraculous events, if you want, which are .01% of the record)
 
Usually I am very tactful (on a whole, not always though;) ) but the bible is one of those things I am not that tactful about. The bible has cost thousands upon thousands of lives and people treat it like it was a history book even though there is no evidence that the events written in it ever took place (some things might but most of them are without any evidence whatsoever).

If people use the book as a source of inspiration of how they personally want to live that is up to them but using it as a doctrine of how we all have to live is not OK IMHO.

How someone uses the book doesn't define it either. I don't care how someone uses it. They can use it as a booster for all I care. It is a book. And it is in the realm of what is fact for me may not be for you...so it may be fiction and non-fiction in the same house. Trying to force the label I believe in on other people is just as bad as some of the events you are referring too when you say the bible has cost thousands of lives. Do you believe in the bible...no...bang, you are dead...next...do you? Yup, you live.
 
That isn't true.

Modern archeology has uncovered hundreds of historical proofs of the Bible.

Biblical archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The bible is literally the most intact ancient historical source we have!

(discount the miraculous events, if you want, which are .01% of the record)

There are plenty of fictional novels about New York City. That does not make them history books. History books contain factual information collected through research. The bible claims to be a story told to someone who then wrote it down.
 
Well, no, history has to actually be supported by facts, and the bible doesn't qualify.

Look, if you just keep it to "faith" then no one can touch you. If you say, "That's my faith," there's nothing that anybody can challenge you on. You're immune.

Pointlessly and needlessly argumentative. We get that there is disbelief here, but the Bible is the authority and is so acknowledged by the multitudes. It's sophomoric to go around tweeking noses.
 
Pointlessly and needlessly argumentative. We get that there is disbelief here, but the Bible is the authority and is so acknowledged by the multitudes. It's sophomoric to go around tweeking noses.

Who acknowledges it as such? Considering all the stories in the bible that are scientifically disproven(day and night, not to mention plants, before there was a sun) or at odds with archeological findings, it would be much more accurate to say that the bible is at odds with the authorities on history. It certainly is not the authority as you claim.
 
Pointlessly and needlessly argumentative. We get that there is disbelief here, but the Bible is the authority and is so acknowledged by the multitudes. It's sophomoric to go around tweeking noses.

Which is again why they had to make a seperate section for it, because they care about making money. But since we are on a debate forum, we are debating whether they would be justified in labeling it fiction.
 
Who acknowledges it as such? Considering all the stories in the bible that are scientifically disproven(day and night, not to mention plants, before there was a sun) or at odds with archeological findings, it would be much more accurate to say that the bible is at odds with the authorities on history. It certainly is not the authority as you claim.

It is interesting though that Genesis, while the sun and moon are out of order, it is otherwise rather prescient as a belief system formed several thousand years ago. From empty nothingness to an explosion of light into the darkness, to the formation of a planet from a formless mass, to the establishment of the oceans, to life starting in the oceans and multiplying and then spreading to the land, with man as the late comer to the entire process.

All of this has been confirmed by science only thousands of years after that order of creation was written in Genesis.
 
There are plenty of fictional novels about New York City. That does not make them history books. History books contain factual information collected through research. The bible claims to be a story told to someone who then wrote it down.

That to is nonsense though. I have to assume you haven't read the Bible.

It contains 66 individual books written by ~44 people over 1500 years.

There is history, poetry, philosophy, and prophecy.

Nowhere does the Bible 'claim to be a story'. Read it, so you know what you're talking about, and THEN dismiss it if you choose.

So many people today throw around these preposterous assertions, refusing to actually read the book(s) itself.

The first 2 verses in Luke are a good explanation for the creation of many of the books in the Bible.

Dawkins 'critique' of the Bible is truly nonsensical; but because the population is so lazy and dumbed down, they glom onto these 'memes', rather than do (fun!) research. It's literally the same thing as people critiquing Shakespeare, but having never read it.

James and Ecclesiastes are two of the greatest writings know to man.

1 / 2 Kings and 1 / 2 Chronicles are historical pieces much of which has been confirmed by archeology.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting though that Genesis, while the sun and moon are out of order, it is otherwise rather prescient as a belief system formed several thousand years ago. From empty nothingness to an explosion of light into the darkness, to the formation of a planet from a formless mass, to the establishment of the oceans, to life starting in the oceans and multiplying and then spreading to the land, with man as the late comer to the entire process.

All of this has been confirmed by science only thousands of years after that order of creation was written in Genesis.

It is actually very typical of creation myths from the Mesopotamian area of that time period.
 
It is actually very typical of creation myths from the Mesopotamian area of that time period.

Cite one.

Because I've read what we have pieced together of Enuma Elish and the Astrahasis and it's totally different.

They are more akin to Greek conceptions where god's of various elements 'create' things. God's giving birth to gods of 'air' and 'water' etc.

There is no other narrative whereby a God outside of space-time brings the universe into existence vaguely correlating to modern scientific framework.

The Bible is unique. Only by relying on something like Zeitgeist in lieu of actual reading can you assert otherwise.

(or Bill Maher, etc)

"Ancient creation myths" are preposterous. Read them.
 
Last edited:
Pointlessly and needlessly argumentative. We get that there is disbelief here, but the Bible is the authority and is so acknowledged by the multitudes. It's sophomoric to go around tweeking noses.

It's not pointlessly and needlessly argumentative because the difference between faith, mythology and history are not different only by virtue of semantics. They're very, very different things. And the bible is the authority on Christian faith, not history.
 
It is actually very typical of creation myths from the Mesopotamian area of that time period.

Indeed. I am sure it was handed down for a long time before it was written down. Does that make it less interesting?
 
On the bright side, at least no one will get decapitated over this.

I often find it ironic how easily this is ignored, especially as these threads always generate endless comment on how inherently bad and violent Christianity is. Say the same thing about islam (which i don't even agree with, these same people usually go into hysterical fits
 
Back
Top Bottom