UK Skins Fan wrote:I, for one, see no problem with what cvillehog said - if you don't BELIEVE in God, then you have to think that the bible is fiction. If you do BELIEVE in God, then you may think the bible is fact, or you may still think it is fiction, depending on whether you think all parts of it should be taken literally or not.
I choose not to believe in God, and I therefore am of the belief that the bible is just a collection of good stories. Can I prove it? Well, no. Can anybody prove to me that the bible is truth and that God exists - no. I rather feel that only God could prove to me that he/she/it is out there, and I just haven't heard the voice of God yet. Anybody could provide me with any amount of anecdotal evidence of this God, but ultimately it comes down to one thing: faith. Do you, or don't you, BELIEVE?
As for the original premise of the thread: clearly, DaVinci Code is influential. Regardless of it's literary worth, it has a number of people talking about the subject. However, the DaVinci Code is no more an alternative theology than Star Wars is a historical document of the Second World War.
im just battling semantics cuse its fun but the bible has other things in it than god. that is why is it a work of historical significance.. it was written during a specific time and those people who were alive at that time are in the bible, its not like the romans never existed. so is may have things you dont belive but it has things that are proven fact contained in it so you have to take it into account when considering our common history. it cannot be left out of our understanding of history because parts of it may not be belived. therefore, in my view, it cannot be called fiction as it is filled with historic fact.
So, I guess you consider Stephen Ambrose books to be non-fiction?
see my earlier comment out finding a bible in a historical fiction section at the library
The best part about Buddhism is that you can be fat and bald and walk around with your shirt open.
RIP 21
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
I've got two out of three. I'd have to rip my t-shirts Chris Samuels style for the third.
RIP 21
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
UK Skins Fan wrote:I, for one, see no problem with what cvillehog said - if you don't BELIEVE in God, then you have to think that the bible is fiction. If you do BELIEVE in God, then you may think the bible is fact, or you may still think it is fiction, depending on whether you think all parts of it should be taken literally or not.
I choose not to believe in God, and I therefore am of the belief that the bible is just a collection of good stories. Can I prove it? Well, no. Can anybody prove to me that the bible is truth and that God exists - no. I rather feel that only God could prove to me that he/she/it is out there, and I just haven't heard the voice of God yet. Anybody could provide me with any amount of anecdotal evidence of this God, but ultimately it comes down to one thing: faith. Do you, or don't you, BELIEVE?
As for the original premise of the thread: clearly, DaVinci Code is influential. Regardless of it's literary worth, it has a number of people talking about the subject. However, the DaVinci Code is no more an alternative theology than Star Wars is a historical document of the Second World War.
im just battling semantics cuse its fun but the bible has other things in it than god. that is why is it a work of historical significance.. it was written during a specific time and those people who were alive at that time are in the bible, its not like the romans never existed. so is may have things you dont belive but it has things that are proven fact contained in it so you have to take it into account when considering our common history. it cannot be left out of our understanding of history because parts of it may not be belived. therefore, in my view, it cannot be called fiction as it is filled with historic fact.
So, I guess you consider Stephen Ambrose books to be non-fiction?
see my earlier comment out finding a bible in a historical fiction section at the library
Was there supposed to be some sort of significance to that comment? As if librarians were the ultimate arbiters of truth? I'm supposed to say, "well, I don't believe in God, but if a LIBRARIAN said it, well that's another matter!" Not to mention that neither the Dewey Decimal system nor the Library of Congress system has a "historical fiction section."
As his 'original question', TincoSkin wrote:...i am a biologist and only belive in a unifying force which we all are cycling through everything else) but my question is do christians belive that people of other faiths or people never exposed to christianity but lead exemplary lives, such as gandhi or a tribe in africa that has never seen white men or a baby that dosnt comprehend these issues go to heaven? or are they all in limbo?
I cannot speak for all of Christianity, but I will say this. The Bible is very clear about Jesus being the truth the light and the way to God.
It also commands us as believers to tell the world about Jesus and his ushering in of the Kingdom of God.
Nowhere does it say we should condemn people, as Christ did not come to earth to condemn either, but to save.
Ultimately, all of us, including you, me, Buddha, and Ghandi will be judged. What will we be judged upon?? The Word of God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "all" will be saved, so, sadly, many will not make it home, no matter how good they might have been.
But, again, thankfully, that is up to God and not moi.
UK Skins Fan wrote:I, for one, see no problem with what cvillehog said - if you don't BELIEVE in God, then you have to think that the bible is fiction. If you do BELIEVE in God, then you may think the bible is fact, or you may still think it is fiction, depending on whether you think all parts of it should be taken literally or not.
I choose not to believe in God, and I therefore am of the belief that the bible is just a collection of good stories. Can I prove it? Well, no. Can anybody prove to me that the bible is truth and that God exists - no. I rather feel that only God could prove to me that he/she/it is out there, and I just haven't heard the voice of God yet. Anybody could provide me with any amount of anecdotal evidence of this God, but ultimately it comes down to one thing: faith. Do you, or don't you, BELIEVE?
As for the original premise of the thread: clearly, DaVinci Code is influential. Regardless of it's literary worth, it has a number of people talking about the subject. However, the DaVinci Code is no more an alternative theology than Star Wars is a historical document of the Second World War.
im just battling semantics cuse its fun but the bible has other things in it than god. that is why is it a work of historical significance.. it was written during a specific time and those people who were alive at that time are in the bible, its not like the romans never existed. so is may have things you dont belive but it has things that are proven fact contained in it so you have to take it into account when considering our common history. it cannot be left out of our understanding of history because parts of it may not be belived. therefore, in my view, it cannot be called fiction as it is filled with historic fact.
So, I guess you consider Stephen Ambrose books to be non-fiction?
see my earlier comment out finding a bible in a historical fiction section at the library
I hardly think that the position of the bible in a public library either proves or disproves its validity as a historical document. I'm guessing (haven't been to a library for a while) that bibles are usually displayed somewhere near the Koran, and works on the Bhuddist, Shinto, Hindhu, Scientology and other faiths. They can't all be true, can they? Then again, perhaps they can - now there's another thread all of its own...
If the bible is historical fact, then these peoplelived a LONG time. You just don't see people living 800/900 years anymore... they just don't make'em like they used to!
If men can run the world, why can't they stop wearing neckties? How intelligent is it to start the day by tying a little noose around your neck?
tazlah wrote:If the bible is historical fact, then these peoplelived a LONG time. You just don't see people living 800/900 years anymore... they just don't make'em like they used to!
I touched on that point earlier, in mentioning that the bible at a minimum doesn't stand on its own as a historical reference.
cvillehog wrote: Was there supposed to be some sort of significance to that comment? As if librarians were the ultimate arbiters of truth? I'm supposed to say, "well, I don't believe in God, but if a LIBRARIAN said it, well that's another matter!" Not to mention that neither the Dewey Decimal system nor the Library of Congress system has a "historical fiction section."
oh common.. i was half serious.. did you get my johnny tramain ref? i acknowladged that there are works that have historical fact and fiction (d code being one) that are not historical and should not be taken as a history book.
but my real point is that the bible has been around for sooo long and is a compilation of multiple different entries found in different places at different times its not like a guy sat down and wrote it from begining to end with the expressed intension of writting a fun fiction book with historical refs that his publisher would like and would sell.. the bible is a record of the time. its like if we found some old papers, letters and coroborated signs of the life and times of martin luther king jr and we started a religion based on it.. does that make MLK fiction? no it mearly means that the author mis interpreted the facts but the book would still serve as an historical account of MLK
JH wrote:Also a quick note to all of those that participated in this thread: My thanks. It has been very intersting thus far!
Lemme piggie back on this post and say thanks, as well. In the past, we've had threads like these that end up in SMACK, but, aside from one or two posts that were lapses of judgment, everyone has expressed their views in a civilized manner.
Much like "The Da Vinci Code" is meant to inspire it's readers to question everything regarding faith beliefs (as per author Dan Brown), I hope this thread helps others give scripture a chance before making a decision that could determine the outcome of their eternal lives.
Justice Hog wrote:Purgatory cannot be found in scripture, me thinks. It's a Catholic-invented doctrine according to this.
This makes you wonder how many people are truly following God, or are just observing (and accepting) man-made traditions.
Last edited by REDEEMEDSKIN on Tue May 16, 2006 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tazlah wrote:If the bible is historical fact, then these peoplelived a LONG time. You just don't see people living 800/900 years anymore... they just don't make'em like they used to!
I touched on that point earlier, in mentioning that the bible at a minimum doesn't stand on its own as a historical reference.
very true but there is a massive list of things, people places, events, etc that are found in other sources as well. thus proving that some of the things in the bible existed lived and did happen.. therefor it shares a perspective that cant be discounted one that we must take into account when considering other historical evidence.
we cant pick and chose our historical artifacts.. when people do that we warp our history .. thats like finding dinosaur bones and ignoring them or finding the gospel of judas and ignoring it..
tazlah wrote:If the bible is historical fact, then these peoplelived a LONG time. You just don't see people living 800/900 years anymore... they just don't make'em like they used to!
If you read further along in the book of Genesis, you'll see why man no longer lives to be that age.
cvillehog wrote: Was there supposed to be some sort of significance to that comment? As if librarians were the ultimate arbiters of truth? I'm supposed to say, "well, I don't believe in God, but if a LIBRARIAN said it, well that's another matter!" Not to mention that neither the Dewey Decimal system nor the Library of Congress system has a "historical fiction section."
oh common.. i was half serious.. did you get my johnny tramain ref? i acknowladged that there are works that have historical fact and fiction (d code being one) that are not historical and should not be taken as a history book.
but my real point is that the bible has been around for sooo long and is a compilation of multiple different entries found in different places at different times its not like a guy sat down and wrote it from begining to end with the expressed intension of writting a fun fiction book with historical refs that his publisher would like and would sell.. the bible is a record of the time. its like if we found some old papers, letters and coroborated signs of the life and times of martin luther king jr and we started a religion based on it.. does that make MLK fiction? no it mearly means that the author mis interpreted the facts but the book would still serve as an historical account of MLK
Don't mistake my lack of agreement with a lack of understanding. Of course, calling the Bible "historical fiction" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It predates the novel by thousands of years (for the oldest passages -- but still hundreds of years in the case of the youngest passages). I would say that the Bible would technically be considered mythology, but I have avoided that word because I wasn't trying to say "what you believe is wrong," but rather "I don't believe what you do." I think calling the Bible a myth would've carried the former, rather than the latter message.
Justice Hog wrote:Also a quick note to all of those that participated in this thread: My thanks. It has been very intersting thus far!
Agreed - I really am impressed that nobody has threatened to kill anybody else in this thread so far. Now, if only this level of cordiality could be extended to threads regarding your president...
tazlah wrote:If the bible is historical fact, then these peoplelived a LONG time. You just don't see people living 800/900 years anymore... they just don't make'em like they used to!
I touched on that point earlier, in mentioning that the bible at a minimum doesn't stand on its own as a historical reference.
very true but there is a massive list of things, people places, events, etc that are found in other sources as well. thus proving that some of the things in the bible existed lived and did happen.. therefor it shares a perspective that cant be discounted one that we must take into account when considering other historical evidence.
we cant pick and chose our historical artifacts.. when people do that we warp our history .. thats like finding dinosaur bones and ignoring them or finding the gospel of judas and ignoring it..
So, if some of the Bible is fact, and some of it is not (be it poetic license, metaphor, mis-translation, mis-understanding, or even mal-intent), and the only facts that we can be sure of are corroborated in other texts (which some might say lessens the usefulness of the Bible in that regard, since the facts are available elsewhere), how does the support the assertion that the Bible is the most accurate historical document ever, or whatever other claims you've made?
[Editited: rethought some wording]
Last edited by cvillehog on Tue May 16, 2006 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
parts of the old testament i can see as mythology.. genisis yeah i can see that but when they start talking about egypt and rome and major civilizations, babylon, etc.. i mean, you can go to babylon today.. its a little run down .. maybe a lot run down come to think of it.. but its still there.. that isnt mythology
TincoSkin wrote:parts of the old testament i can see as mythology.. genisis yeah i can see that but when they start talking about egypt and rome and major civilizations, babylon, etc.. i mean, you can go to babylon today.. its a little run down .. maybe a lot run down come to think of it.. but its still there.. that isnt mythology
I think if you look into mythology at all, you will see that it surrounds real people, places, and things.
cvillehog wrote: how does the support the assertion that the Bible is the most accurate historical document ever, or whatever other claims you've made?
[Editited: rethought some wording]
oh common... i never said it was the most accurate or anything of the sort.. in fact i said,
"it shares a perspective that cant be discounted one that we must take into account when considering other historical evidence."
it has facts so we should consider it as containing some facts.. look at other things contained in it that may be facts and investigate them using other historical objects, letters, books, statues, whatever and decided if they are indeed facts.. its a part, along with a lot of other collected stuff from the past that grouped together creates our understanding..
You'll notice that Buddha is ALWAYS smiling ... because he gets the joke! (or he just farted.)