• 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"

Grant said:
Scientists have held many false beliefs throughout the ages while history is seldom objective. Many different conclusions are drawn from the same event.
Click to expand...

Science is a learning proposition, it changes it's position as we learn more. Religion never changes it's position, even when it's demonstrably wrong. Guess which side I think is better.
 
phattonez said:
Except for Matthew and John, for example, yet you conveniently don't trust them.
Click to expand...

None of the gospels including those are contemporary eith the time of Jesus.

The earlist versions we know of were written many decades after the time of Jesus.
 
Cephus said:
Science is a learning proposition, it changes it's position as we learn more. Religion never changes it's position, even when it's demonstrably wrong. Guess which side I think is better.
Click to expand...

But religion does change, and we have seen that repeatedly throughout history.. Many just ignore the Old Testament because of some of the ridiculous preachings in there, and there have often been many breakaways and new denominations within the Christian Church. The same is true of Islam and many other religions.

Scientific theories also come and go.

There is no reason why science and religion can't live together. In fact both have often relied on faith.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That isn't proof that he existed just evidence that they believe the same stories...
Click to expand...

We can cast doubt on the history of many people in previous times but what is important is their teachings. Can we learn from them, can we understand better the string of thought between ancient man and ourselves to better understand our own humanity? If we want to debate whether Plato, for example, really existed rather than to read and debate what is claimed he has said, rather misses the point.
 
Grant said:
Oddly enough it is often those who attack Christians who are the first to defend Muslims, despite frequently claiming not to be religious.
Click to expand...
Muslims are minorities in first world countries and often get the short end of the stick. If I were a secular atheist in the Islamic world, I'd be the first to defend Christians.

Soupnazi630 said:
None of the gospels including those are contemporary eith the time of Jesus.

The earlist versions we know of were written many decades after the time of Jesus.
Click to expand...
For your viewing pleasure: http://jerichobrisance.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/new-testament-timeline-jerichobrisance1.png
 
brothern said:
Muslims are minorities in first world countries and often get the short end of the stick. If I were a secular atheist in the Islamic world, I'd be the first to defend Christians.
Click to expand...
In fact it is Muslims who are targeting and murdering non Muslims in the democracies and of course in Muslims countries everyone but Muslim men are open to danger. Where are Muslims getting "the short end of the stick"?
 
Grant said:
In fact it is Muslims who are targeting and murdering non Muslims in the democracies and of course in Muslims countries everyone but Muslim men are open to danger. Where are Muslims getting "the short end of the stick"?
Click to expand...
First, let me clarify. I am talking about the general population's attitudes or beliefs towards Muslims. Whether the general population has a favorable or unfavorable opinion towards a select group of people.

Where are Muslims getting "the short end of the stick"? Almost everywhere in the Western world. However, since we're (I'm assuming) both American consider this poll conducted by Zogby on the behalf of an Arab heritage group. The poll asks Americans if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of religious and ethnic groups.

The terms "Muslim" and "Arab" are dead last, meaning that Americans view these groups with the most suspicion and distrust out of anyone else.

I'm certain you've had that experience where it seems like everyone turns on you (in a game or high school, let's say?), and begins to treat you poorly or ostracize you? Now imagine you're a Arab student in an American school after 9/11, where people are constantly saying that "those Muslims are targeting and murdering non-Muslims!" I'd call the distrust, dislike and suspicion that that little kid is now facing the "short end of the stick."
 
brothern said:
First, let me clarify. I am talking about the general population's attitudes or beliefs towards Muslims. Whether the general population has a favorable or unfavorable opinion towards a select group of people. Where are Muslims getting "the short end of the stick"? Almost everywhere in the Western world. However, since we're (I'm assuming) both American consider this poll conducted by Zogby on the behalf of an Arab heritage group. The poll asks Americans if they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of religious and ethnic groups.
The terms "Muslim" and "Arab" are dead last, meaning that Americans view these groups with the most suspicion and distrust out of anyone else.
Click to expand...
Given their history that would make some sense, but trusting them less than other groups is quite different from getting 'the short end of the stick".
I'm certain you've had that experience where it seems like everyone turns on you (in a game or high school, let's say?), and begins to treat you poorly or ostracize you?
Click to expand...
No, but I was pretty big in school.
Now imagine you're a Arab student in an American school after 9/11, where people are constantly saying that "those Muslims are targeting and murdering non-Muslims!" I'd call the distrust, dislike and suspicion that that little kid is now facing the "short end of the stick."
Click to expand...
But Muslims are targeting and murdering non Muslims,. It's happening all over the world.
 
Cardinal said:
Oh no, a guy putting every animal onto a boat and riding out a storm for forty days is totally believable.
Click to expand...

How that is story is understood by believers differs. Most of them think of the story as an allegory. Immature Christians and atheists alike think it should be understood literally.
 
Cephus said:
None of which changes the fact that they have no good reason to believe what they believe. People who believe that reptilian aliens are running the government have all the proof they need too. They're still crazy.
Click to expand...

In your opinon. In the meantime, they are a big majority of the people by far, so who is really thinking abnormally?
 
LowDown said:
How that is story is understood by believers differs. Most of them think of the story as an allegory. Immature Christians and atheists alike think it should be understood literally.
Click to expand...

Allegory, mythology and symbolism are the realm of art and storytelling. History deals with facts. Now, you could certainly use the bible as a historical device looking at its stories in terms of the cultural climate they were told in, but those stories cannot, certainly not by themselves, be considered historically accurate.
 
Redress said:
Well that is a very convenient worldview. ANy one who doubts what you want to believe is the one at fault. Unfortunately for you, in the real world, there is a word for things which do not match up with history and/or science. It is "fiction".
Click to expand...

Christians are the ones to interpret their own scriptures and beliefs for themselves. It would be presumptuous and disrespectful to say otherwise.
 
Cardinal said:


Allegory, mythology and symbolism are the realm of art and storytelling. History deals with facts. Now, you could certainly use the bible as a historical device looking at its stories in terms of the cultural climate they were told in, but those stories cannot, certainly not by themselves, be considered historically accurate.
Click to expand...

If history dealt with facts there would be little debate on the subject. History deals with interpretations, highlighting some facts while ignoring others until all is seen through a glass darkly..
 
LowDown said:
Christians are the ones to interpret their own scriptures and beliefs for themselves. It would be presumptuous and disrespectful to say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. This is a criticism that seems to apply only to Christians.
 
LowDown said:
How that is story is understood by believers differs. Most of them think of the story as an allegory. Immature Christians and atheists alike think it should be understood literally.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, there are many Christians who take the bible LITERALLY as being fact. So yes, if you were to take literally that some guy made an ark to hold every animal two by two, yes it is quite hard to believe.
 
LowDown said:
In your opinon. In the meantime, they are a big majority of the people by far, so who is really thinking abnormally?
Click to expand...

The majority can, and often is, wrong. You're just engaging in argumentum ad populum. Try again.
 
LowDown said:
Christians are the ones to interpret their own scriptures and beliefs for themselves. It would be presumptuous and disrespectful to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is simply silly. Christians seem to have NO problem intepreting Muslim scriptures and beliefs. Why is it Christians get upset when the same thing is done to them?

Basically you are making the case for Christianity (and frankly many other religions like Islam, Judaism, etc) being a made up religion.
 
LowDown said:
Christians are the ones to interpret their own scriptures and beliefs for themselves. It would be presumptuous and disrespectful to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

And no one said they where not free to believe anything they want. That does not make a book that is at odds with historical records, archeological findings, and basic science factual. Trying to suggest that the bible is the authority in those areas as you did is just silly.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well to be fair, there are many Christians who take the bible LITERALLY as being fact. So yes, if you were to take literally that some guy made an ark to hold every animal two by two, yes it is quite hard to believe.
Click to expand...

How many Christians take the Bible literally? Are you talking of the O.T. or the N.T. ? Are you a Christian?
 
Grant said:
If history dealt with facts there would be little debate on the subject. History deals with interpretations, highlighting some facts while ignoring others until all is seen through a glass darkly..
Click to expand...

Individuals make interpretations, history just deals with facts. It's why we can speak fairly confidently about the Roman Empire (really good record keeping) but are admittedly in the dark about much of the people who built Stonehenge. And it's because of that we view stories like The Iliad differently: because we know that there was actually a place that was Troy and that it sustained a prolonged siege by the Greeks over multiple years, resulting in it being razed to the ground. This would make the Iliad something almost approximating historical fiction since while 98% of the events in that story are pure mythology it's based on one thing that actually happened. Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf and going on to found Rome? Err...not so much.
 
TheNextEra said:
I'm sorry, but that is simply silly. Christians seem to have NO problem intepreting Muslim scriptures and beliefs. Why is it Christians get upset when the same thing is done to them?

Basically you are making the case for Christianity (and frankly many other religions like Islam, Judaism, etc) being a made up religion.
Click to expand...

Everyone has the right to study and criticize and religion while others have the right to respond. (With the possible exception of Islam).

How do you define a 'made-up' religion?
 
Grant said:
How many Christians take the Bible literally? Are you talking of the O.T. or the N.T. ? Are you a Christian?
Click to expand...

I was Roman Catholic growing up until I realized that there is no way for the bible to be taken as factual. And if you cannot take the bible factually, then there can be other parts in there that are also not to be taken factually. Either the bible is fact or fiction. Take your pick.
 
Cardinal said:
Individuals make interpretations, history just deals with facts. It's why we can speak fairly confidently about the Roman Empire (really good record keeping) but are admittedly in the dark about much of the people who built Stonehenge. And it's because of that we view stories like The Iliad differently: because we know that there was actually a place that was Troy and that it sustained a prolonged siege by the Greeks over multiple years, resulting in it being razed to the ground. This would make the Iliad something almost approximating historical fiction since while 98% of the events in that story are pure mythology it's based on one thing that actually happened. Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf and going on to found Rome? Err...not so much.
Click to expand...

It seems we agree.
 
apdst said:
Yes, a person named Jesus existed. Even the Muslims agree that Jesus existed.
Click to expand...

Many people named Jesus existed, still do. I know one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom