Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

Norwee · 2018-06-09 03:23:39

What do you think?

Kkay · 2018-06-09 03:24:07

it's.. perfect

BasicNet · 2018-06-09 03:28:53

u gonna burn in hell

Different55 · 2018-06-09 03:59:58

no, that's pointlessly antagonistic.

BasicNet, Onjit, mrjawapa, mutantdevle, N1KF

Onjit · 2018-06-09 04:24:39

"I dont believe in god and anyone who does is just an idiot and should be ridiculed as such"

mrjawapa, Different55, Yonanoke

BasicNet · 2018-06-09 04:30:51

Onjit wrote:

"I dont believe in god and anyone who does is just an idiot and should be ridiculed as such"

i advise you to be treated. You're mentally ill person. Only idiots can think like that.

EDIT - I dont believe in god, but i cant understand what the hell you think like that

Onjit

Bimps · 2018-06-09 05:03:59

BasicNet wrote:

Onjit wrote:
"I dont believe in god and anyone who does is just an idiot and should be ridiculed as such"
i advise you to be treated. You're mentally ill person. Only idiots can think like that.
EDIT - I dont believe in god, but i cant understand what the hell you think like that

sarcasm

Onjit · 2018-06-09 05:07:01

BasicNet wrote:

Onjit wrote:
"I dont believe in god and anyone who does is just an idiot and should be ridiculed as such"
i advise you to be treated. You're mentally ill person. Only idiots can think like that.
EDIT - I dont believe in god, but i cant understand what the hell you think like that

I put it in quotations in an attempt to indicate that it was a sarcastic jab at NorwegianBoy's /r/iamverysmart-esque grandstanding

Xfrogman43, mrjawapa, Yonanoke

some woman · 2018-06-09 05:10:56

I'm 90% sure this is flame bait, but either way it should be moved to Debates.

Tomahawk · 2018-06-09 11:05:44

It depends on whether you think having fewer Christians in the world would make it a better place.

I reckon the “average” Christian is pretty harmless. That library should have a section on faith.

mrjawapa

shadowda · 2018-06-09 16:47:59

What section are other mythologies in? it should be there. fiction? fantasy?

Its not science fiction as it is not science related at all.
nor can it be classified as history as much if it has been proven as not historically accurate.
as well as the fact many characters have been demonstrated as fictional or fictionalized. That is, some characters may have been based on one or more real people but have since been altered/exaggerated/embellished into legend.

TaskManager · 2018-06-09 16:56:09

definitely not science fiction lol
should be labelled the same as other religion books

shadowda

Koto · 2018-06-10 01:07:54

You label it how you want to label ot, and I'll label it how I want to label it.

If you can't handle that, then that's your problem, not mine.

AK712 · 2018-06-10 01:55:08

The New Testament has lasted over 1900 years and still stands as one of the most well-known and respected books in the world. Put it in science fiction or fantasy and every single book written before the 1800s would have to go there as well. No other book has as much evidence for its historiocity as the New Testament. No matter how much whining, mocking, lying, or Wikipedia quotes you throw at it, the fact remains that no acknowledged classics/history department at any university in the world would argue that the New Testament is historically inaccurate, and in fact you can visit any university and ask them yourselves, and you would get the same answer - the New Testament is historically reliable without question.

In all honesty, what did you expect? It's the most popular book in the world, with the most care taken in its translation and transcription. Critics everywhere have been trying to prove it wrong for hundreds of years, and yet it still is here today.

Now, you may be wondering why I'm talking about the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament. The reason is that they are separate for a reason. The Old Testament cannot be proven true or false because the only witnesses to everything that happened would be God himself. All other witnesses (writing or person) have been lost.

TaskManager · 2018-06-10 02:07:20

AK712 wrote:

The New Testament has lasted over 1900 years and still stands as one of the most well-known and respected books in the world. Put it in science fiction or fantasy and every single book written before the 1800s would have to go there as well. No other book has as much evidence for its historiocity as the New Testament. No matter how much whining, mocking, lying, or Wikipedia quotes you throw at it, the fact remains that no acknowledged classics/history department at any university in the world would argue that the New Testament is historically inaccurate, and in fact you can visit any university and ask them yourselves, and you would get the same answer - the New Testament is historically reliable without question.
In all honesty, what did you expect? It's the most popular book in the world, with the most care taken in its translation and transcription. Critics everywhere have been trying to prove it wrong for hundreds of years, and yet it still is here today.
Now, you may be wondering why I'm talking about the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament. The reason is that they are separate for a reason. The Old Testament cannot be proven true or false because the only witnesses to everything that happened would be God himself. All other witnesses (writing or person) have been lost.

oh n
o

let the **** begin
nice signature by the way

drunkbnu, mrjawapa, Loganyoshi

Loganyoshi · 2018-06-10 06:10:55

Hahahaha that's hilarious, but, tbh, I can't decide what it is.

I didn't think much of it at first, but I did a little bit of research.

First off, it's definitely not science fiction because there's no imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes.

As for fantasy, this is where I could see a debate being born.

I think that it may be fantasy because there is imaginative settings such as hell/heaven, and there's "magic" such as god.
BUT, this is religious text that people DO BELIEVE in to be true and accurate, so therefore it may not be imaginative/magic.

As for me, I do lean on the fantasy side...

Norwee

thanksL0L · 2018-06-10 06:55:06

It can be either both of those, but I think it is more of a fantasy

TundrumMax, Loganyoshi, Norwee, PTU

soniiiety · 2018-06-10 07:23:08

they could make a new section named myths or legends.

then people could put all the books of religion in there from across the world.

or there could be a section called unconfirmed.

Loganyoshi, N1KF

Loganyoshi · 2018-06-10 07:54:28

soniiiety wrote:

they could make a new section named myths or legends.
then people could put all the books of religion in there from across the world.
or there could be a section called unconfirmed.

HAHAA unconfirmed section would be great.

I mean, just add a religious genre and put all the sacred scrolls there.

LukeM · 2018-06-10 09:25:06

AK712 wrote:

The New Testament has lasted over 1900 years and still stands as one of the most well-known and respected books in the world. Put it in science fiction or fantasy and every single book written before the 1800s would have to go there as well. No other book has as much evidence for its historiocity as the New Testament. No matter how much whining, mocking, lying, or Wikipedia quotes you throw at it, the fact remains that no acknowledged classics/history department at any university in the world would argue that the New Testament is historically inaccurate, and in fact you can visit any university and ask them yourselves, and you would get the same answer - the New Testament is historically reliable without question.
In all honesty, what did you expect? It's the most popular book in the world, with the most care taken in its translation and transcription. Critics everywhere have been trying to prove it wrong for hundreds of years, and yet it still is here today.

Just wondering what the evidence actually is... I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that it's provable, if it was then surely 100% of the planet would be Christian? Unless you mean in a 'set in x during y' kind of way, where all the time periods line up but none of the actual events have any evidence? (Note that Harry Potter is also correct in this sort of way )

Norwee · 2018-06-10 12:41:40

LukeM wrote:

Just wondering what the evidence actually is... I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that it's provable, if it was then surely 100% of the planet would be Christian? Unless you mean in a 'set in x during y' kind of way, where all the time periods line up but none of the actual events have any evidence? (Note that Harry Potter is also correct in this sort of way )

There is indisputable evidence that for example Jesus of Nazareth DID exist. So you can't say it's wholly fake in that way. But what we do not have is evidence that he for example walked on water, or that he died and then rose from the grave. etc etc... You can neither disprove nor prove these events. What we can do however is point to the fact that all humans on earth when observed by others, have never managed to prove that it's possible to walk on water, thus making it incredibly unlikely that somehow some random dude from the middle east would be capable to, ignoring the "but he had powers from god" aspect. It is clinically possible for someone to seem "dead" with no pulse, but then wake up alive later. So while it could very well be true that he "rose from the grave" in that he seemed like he was dead, but then he woke up later, it does not prove that he was god's son, what's more likely is that it just happened because he had an great immune system or fell into an short coma or something. Most of science would agree that just because something amazing or seemingly magical happens, it does not mean that it's the work of some kind of heavenly spiritual entity.

The fact that the bible is based on historical events and locations from history does not make any of the more supernatural aspects of the worlds more likely however. Even the LOTR series hints to the fact that the "fourth age" of middle earth after the war of the ring is in fact "our age" of humanity. But seeing as there haven't been very many hobbit fossils around it's not exactly more nor less believable than anything from the bible.

Different55 · 2018-06-10 15:04:49

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

There is indisputable evidence that for example Jesus of Nazareth DID exist. So you can't say it's wholly fake in that way. But what we do not have is evidence that he for example walked on water, or that he died and then rose from the grave. etc etc... You can neither disprove nor prove these events. What we can do however is point to the fact that all humans on earth when observed by others, have never managed to prove that it's possible to walk on water, thus making it incredibly unlikely that somehow some random dude from the middle east would be capable to, ignoring the "but he had powers from god" aspect. It is clinically possible for someone to seem "dead" with no pulse, but then wake up alive later. So while it could very well be true that he "rose from the grave" in that he seemed like he was dead, but then he woke up later, it does not prove that he was god's son, what's more likely is that it just happened because he had an great immune system or fell into an short coma or something. Most of science would agree that just because something amazing or seemingly magical happens, it does not mean that it's the work of some kind of heavenly spiritual entity.

I feel like there's some seriously circular reasoning somewhere in here. Something along the lines of "He didn't do anything magical because nobody else has done anything magical"? But isn't that kind of the point of him, he was supposed to be magic?

N1KF

Anatoly · 2018-06-10 15:16:37

Science? No. Just FICTONAL!

Norwee · 2018-06-10 15:50:05

It’s not magic for christians Different55, it’s inherent truth to them. What i cannot understand is why someone that lives in an logical world where fact requires evidence, are perfectly accepting of whatevers said in the bible. Don’t get me wrong, i love to fantazise about magical worlds, beings, etc... and i love reading about all the colorful creation stories mankind has come up with, but at the same time i separate fact and fiction clearly. It’s unthinkable For me to think the way religious people do. I’d much rather spend my time trying to fathom quantum physics and ordinary physics as those are fields that are exclusively based on rationality and probability. What’s the probability of a magical sky daddy? Quite low compared to the uncountable other theories one could dream up. Rather than us thinking "So god created Adam and Eve" Why don’t we think: "Why does god exist at all? Does he need to exist? Why does god have so many human features in an inhuman world? Can rocks feel sadness? Can the universe feel pain? Why would an "human" higher being exist rather than maybe some kind of sentient gas cloud?
Maybe the concept of god was simply created by old kings and royalty to control us?" To always obey authority and never challenge those above us? All religious books display feature from it’s respective culture after all. For example, depiction of hell in christianity is a place that’s very hot, because christianity was created in the desert, and to them that’s the ultimate hell. But in nordic old religions and other religions from cold places, hell is depicted as very cold and desolate, because that is what they feared the most. So ultimately, religion is simply an sociological phenomena that’s always based on the environment that’s present to it’s people. Pygmies praise the forest and the ground, because they rarely see the sky. Nomadic people praise the sky and the weather. Etc etc...
So what is not based on environment? What is universal for people of all cultures? Science.
If humanity absolutely needs an religion it should be based on faith of science and empirical evidence.

Different55 · 2018-06-10 16:36:59

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I’d much rather spend my time trying to fathom quantum physics

And there it is, the cherry on top.

My point was, if you're arguing "There's no magic," saying "He couldn't have been magic because nobody else is magic" when the story is "This dude magic" is not going to get you anywhere.

And no matter how you feel about religion, putting it in a sci fi/fantasy section does nothing. Nobody's going to see it there and say "Well hey turns out my beliefs are all wrong." That kind of adversarial crap just makes people dig in their heels even more. The only purpose it serves is to ramp up the /r/atheism /r/iamverysmart hybrid quantum physicist circlejerk.

LukeM, Snowester

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2018-06-09 03:23:39

Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#2 2018-06-09 03:24:07

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#3 2018-06-09 03:28:53

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#4 2018-06-09 03:59:58

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#5 2018-06-09 04:24:39

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#6 2018-06-09 04:30:51, last edited by BasicNet (2018-06-09 04:32:14)

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#7 2018-06-09 05:03:59

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#8 2018-06-09 05:07:01

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#9 2018-06-09 05:10:56

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#10 2018-06-09 11:05:44

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#11 2018-06-09 16:47:59, last edited by shadowda (2018-06-09 16:54:08)

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#12 2018-06-09 16:56:09

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#13 2018-06-10 01:07:54

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#14 2018-06-10 01:55:08

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#15 2018-06-10 02:07:20

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#16 2018-06-10 06:10:55

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#17 2018-06-10 06:55:06

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#18 2018-06-10 07:23:08

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#19 2018-06-10 07:54:28

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#20 2018-06-10 09:25:06

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#21 2018-06-10 12:41:40, last edited by Norwee (2018-06-10 12:45:59)

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#22 2018-06-10 15:04:49

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#23 2018-06-10 15:16:37

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#24 2018-06-10 15:50:05

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

#25 2018-06-10 16:36:59

Re: Should the bible be labelled as fantasy/science fiction?

Board footer