Chris Weimer

Jeez, Phil. This seems like an exercise in futility. Now I must know how your "philosopher" colleagues must feel.

False. By every accepted definition of literature, historical writings are included in them. Why are you now removing them so? False dichotomy. It's not either "history" or "literature".

I expect better coming from a so-called philosopher.

You're being too vague to mean anything worthwhile. Moreover, you must not be reading the right materials. Maybe you should shy away from Michael Hoffman and catch up on the JBL.

I'm saying you're wrong.

Well, jeez, I dunno, there's just a whole journal devoted to feminist studies in religion...The Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion.

Oi. I don't think you quite understand exactly what you're saying...

Wow. Where did you get your degree from, again? I could have sworn the "burden of evidence" lies with the person making the argument. I mean, heck, what do I know? I'm no "philosopher".

So let me see - you make an argument, and when someone asks you to provide evidence for your statement, you say, "I'm busy", all the while abusing logic by introducing several logical fallacies.

And to top it off, you only answer questions one at a time? Now I know why I stay away from philosophers. This is a lost cause.

PhilosopherJay

Okay, so your objection is that I distinguished 'history' from 'literature' in the statement, "The problem is the Jesus character lies at the crossroads of history and literature." You feel that we are dealing only with literature when we deal with the Jesus and that history is only a subcategory of literature.

If this is a false dichotomy, would you therefore agree that universities should put history departments inside departments that study literature? Are they not also making a false dichotomy where they have separate departments that teach history and literature?

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Is the history of the emergence of the Zoroastrian "religion"
as an integral part of a centralised theocracy under the (supreme and
absolute dictatorial) rule of Ardashir, one hundred years before the Council
of Nicaea, also considered a "conspiracy theory"?

Did Constantine invent christianity? is a theory of political history
which does not ask whether Ardashir invented Zoroastrianism,
and it is not about conspiracy, but all about the abuse (or otherwise)
of absolute military and political power.

mountainman

The "Jesus Spectrum" will not be understandable unless the
"Apollonius Spectrum" is completely analysed with the same
rigor and scholarship that has been hitherto devoted to the
former.

The Eusebian treatise AGAINST is the linch-pin between
the two purportedly separate and disparate spectrums. To date
Apollonius has remained buried by Eusebian literary calumny, and
has yet to more historically and less theologically assessed.

Steve Weiss

The bible is fiction, pure and simple, and engaging in discussion based upon what it says (or some particular version of it says) is an exercise in futility. Fiction is fiction, and no debate is necessary.

Chris Weimer

What?

spin

Fiction seems to be completely the wrong word to describe what we are dealing with. Fiction is a term which involves intentional creation of a literary artifice which is not meant to represent reality in any direct sense. What makes you think that the bible is intentionally not representing reality?

The bible is a heterodox collection of ancient writings. To understand these writings one needs to develop a familiarity with them. If you refuse to deal with them, you cannot hope to be able to understand them enough to make such pronouncements as "engaging in discussion based upon what [the bible] says (or some particular version of it says) is an exercise in futility".

I don't believe the bible is generally fiction. It is a collection of traditions, whose connection with reality is generally unclear, though I can't see glaring signs that the writers intended to write material not meant to represent reality in any direct sense.

At the same time I don't think one need place any belief in the text. In fact I doubt if there is very much reality in the text, though I don't think that was intentional.


spin

Steve Weiss

Fiction is a nonfactual account of fantasy dealing with imaginary people in a context of nonhistorical events. There is no truth in the biblical stories, which are myths meant to manipulate and deceive. I would put the bible into the same category as "Lord of the Rings," though we at least know who the author was in the later case. Nonfiction, on the other hand, is factually verifiable and deals with real people and real events.

There is not one story in the Old Testament which is verifiable. None of the authors of these fantastic stories are known in either the Old or the New versions, with perhaps the exception of a few letters from Paul in the New Testament.

Mention of real places and real people in the bible text make the bible, in some of its parts, semi-historical fiction. The film "Forest Gump" is similar in design, except that we know that Gump did not meet various U.S. Presidents as shown in some scenes of the movie, and we don't take the story seriously. Tales of miracles and of a god supporting his chosen people is nonsense of a propagandist stripe because it is intended to deceive and manipulate. One would have to be hugely gullible to be taken in by stories of Adam and Eve, Moses getting the commandments from god on Mount Sinai, David and Golliath, Sampson and his long hair, the walls of Jerico tumbling down due to foot stamping, Jonah living in a whale, all the plants and animals of the world being housed and maintained for an extended period of time in a handmade arc built by a few non-boatbuilders, burning bushes that are not consumed, the angel of death passing over the Hebrews who identified themselves by placing sheep's blood on their doorposts, people rising from the dead, walking on water, etc. etc. What kind of an adult mentality could accept these tall tales as worthy of consideration? Imagination on paper is what the bible is.

If not fiction, what would you identify the bible as? Not only is the bible fictional, it is presumed to be sacred, the very words of a deity. That just compounds the nonsensical nature of these writings. If an alien visting this planet were to hand over it's sacred text for serious consideration that was identical to the bible, we would wonder at his sanity for believing in it. And rightfully so.

spin

You are mixing too much up into this soup.

Truth is a funny term to use here. Truth can easily be found in fiction and various other literary forms. I think you want to say that the bible is fiction, but you haven't demonstrated the claim as yet.

Here you are mindreading, which is further complicated by the fact that the minds you claim to be reading are no longer with us to be able to corroborate your claim.

That's interesting, why would you put it there exactly?

Is a pastoral letter fictional, or non-fictional? What about a book of philosophy? How about a shopping list? Or a description of the temple? What about a collection of traditions?

Does that necessarily make them "fiction"?

While you assume your conclusions, you won't be able to get very far.

You haven't established any fiction yet.

What about a film that shows Judy Garland meeting President Kennedy or LBJ?

I don't agree. There is nothing nonsensical about tales of miracles or of a god supporting his chosen people. It may be propagandistic, though it may not. And I doubt that much of it was intended to deceive or manipulate. Pre-scientific societies used pre-scientific means of dealing with the world, such as gods intervening in the world. Nearly all societies evince the same cultural manifestations.

Perhaps one would have to be hugely gullible today, given the centuries of scientific developments behind our knowledge, but for the people who wrote and read the literature in antiquity, I think you are probably wrong.

If I understand correctly a whopping percentage of the American population accepts these tall tales, so why don't you find out what kind of adult mentality.

I said "The bible is a heterodox collection of ancient writings" and "I don't believe the bible is generally fiction. It is a collection of traditions, whose connection with reality is generally unclear, though I can't see glaring signs that the writers intended to write material not meant to represent reality in any direct sense."

You're back to repeating what you need to demonstrate.

I wouldn't know. It's all text to me and I treat it as text -- literary traditions.

This doesn't add any argumentation to your claim.


spin

Steve Weiss

"You are mixing too much into this soup" means what? That is very vague.

Even in ancient times fiction was still fiction and nonsense was still nonsense. Since when was a person's hair length the key to his strength? Did only modern people stop to think how impossible it would be to flood the entire world and to capture, transport, feed and redistribute all of the plants and animals in the world? Did anyone question how and why bodies of water would part for the Hebrews and close on the Egyptians? Did anyone ever explain how a person turned into a pile of salt? Did anyone wonder how someone was supposed to be able to walk on water? Really now, some basic intelligence existed even 2000 years ago.

It is not I who have to prove that a book is fiction as I do not claim that it is factual. Unverified stories of a fantastic nature are presumed to be fictional unless reliably verified, and that is impossible in the case of the alleged bible stories. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence, and none is presented in the bible. One accepts these stories purely on faith and in contradiction to reason and experience. Additionally, there are no known authors of these bible stories to investigate as these stories are of anonymous origin. Had even a generally reliable historian written such unbelievable stories, they would still be unbelievable.

So you think that miracles are believable and that the majority who believe them makes them credible? What wouldn't you believe in then? Are fact and fiction interchangeable for you, or you just go with the majority opinion? Truth by opinion poll? Traditions are neither true nor false, so I don't see your point in bringing that up as support for the veracity of the bible. The same would apply to the other examples that you gave. Every claim is subject to verification, correctness should not be presumed. There are all kinds of stories that we can be entertained by that are within the Western tradition, but they are not factual. Factuality must be demonstrated, not my challenging of it. Unsupported, ridiculous stories are of no cognitive weight, especially if they are taken literally.