Telling stories

[Zzyzx]

.
Telling stories

Religions in general appear to be based upon people telling / writing stories about supernatural entities and events – and other people believing the stories and adding more of their own stories, testimonials and opinions.

Are there any exceptions?

Is it unreasonable to ask to be shown that the stories are true?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes but I'm still not clear what you are asking when you say "Are there any exceptions?" ... is that are there any religions that do not deal with the supernatural?

Sorry, I don't think that's my question.
At least, from what I read, not in that post... and I can't recall asking it..
maybe it was someone else.

[JLB32168]

Telling stories . . . Religions in general appear to be based upon people telling / writing stories . . .

This thread (aside from being another of the 10K+ variations of “the Bible is made up� argument that make up 99.9% of the threads on this website) presupposes what it’s trying to prove, namely, that the Bible is a story book and nothing more. It’s a classic example of begging the question.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by Blastcat]

My bad, I thought I was speaking to the OP. Thanks,

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 12 by JLB32168]


[center]Presupposing that others are presupposing.
Part One[/center]

Telling stories . . . Religions in general appear to be based upon people telling / writing stories . . .

This thread (aside from being another of the 10K+ variations of “the Bible is made up� argument that make up 99.9% of the threads on this website) presupposes what it’s trying to prove, namely, that the Bible is a story book and nothing more. It’s a classic example of begging the question.

Your claim that 99% of all threads on the website are based upon presupposition or beg the very question that they are arguing for.

What an extravagant claim !




____________

Questions:

• 
  1. When someone says "it appears to me that..." is it making an argument, or stating an opinion?
  
  2.What "argument", precisely are you talking about? Could you quote it?
  
  3.Who, precisely is PRESUPPOSING anything in here other than the believers who take all the Bible stories as true.. ( or at least most of them or some of them ) ?
  
  4.Outsiders to your faith might ask believers to prove their holy book IS more than just stories. Because, I think it's safe to say that the Bible has a lot of stories.
  
  5.How many of the Bible stories are true stories? 99%?
  
  6. When it comes to Bible stories, like say... All of the books of Genesis, how can you know that they are true stories at all?
  
  7.Do you presuppose that the Bible stories are true?
  
  8. Do you object to outsiders of your faith asking tough questions?
  
  9.Were you intending to back up your claim concerning the nature of 99% of all threads on the website with any evidence, or are you happy to simply suppose that it's true? Because, sorry, JLB, if that's the case, I wont be supposing that along with you.
  
  10. Is it your intention to do anything more than just complain about the topic?
  
  

____________

[JLB32168]

Your claim that 99% of all threads on the website are based upon presupposition or beg the very question that they are arguing for. What an extravagant claim!

Hyperbole is a literary device where one uses obvious exaggeration for effect.

For example,

If I say, “This is verse 501 of the same hymn� or “We need for the PTA to do this; furthermore, I think Carthage should be utterly destroyed� most people wouldn’t actually infer the connotation of “OMG! Again?!?!?!? Are his/her discussions limited to two topics??!??�

Questions:

Oh NO - . . . bite me twice and it's my fault.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 15 by JLB32168]



[center]
Presupposing that others are presupposing.
Part Two: Presupposing that people can read minds.[/center]

Your claim that 99% of all threads on the website are based upon presupposition or beg the very question that they are arguing for. What an extravagant claim!

Hyperbole is a literary device where one uses obvious exaggeration for effect.

What might be obvious to you might not be so obvious to those of us who don't read minds. I suppose that my mistake was taking you at your word.

It's way more obvious now that you aren't to be taken as seriously as I thought.
If your jokes are intended for my amusement, I can assure you that they have fallen a bit short of that mark.

[JLB32168]

What might be obvious to you might not be so obvious to those of us who don't read minds.

In other words, some people just don’t "get" hyperbole.

Gotcha.

[Zzyzx]

.

In other words, some people just don’t "get" hyperbole.

Hyperbole (extravagant exaggeration) may be typical of communication for some people and is common among con-men and politicians; however, it is generally inadvisable in serious discussion or debate.

Perhaps hyperbole is an apt description of Bible tales that tell of worldwide floods, star stopping over a location, Earth ceasing rotation, and long-dead bodies reanimating.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 17 by JLB32168]

What might be obvious to you might not be so obvious to those of us who don't read minds.

In other words, some people just don’t "get" hyperbole.

Gotcha.

That may be true.

However, when I am expecting someone to state what they really think, hyperbole doesn't help at all. All I can really go by is the words that people actually write. If someone doesn't really MEAN 99%, they should not write 99%, or risk being misunderstood, as you were just now. And that to me, represents a waste of time.

It would be better to phrase our thoughts as ACCURATELY as we can. Especially in written debates like this. The most common problem that we all fact in here is miscommunication. Hyperbole would only add to that problem.

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to post 9 by Realworldjack]

Jack, I appreciate what you say.

Does it make a difference if the stories and letters are truthful, accurate, um-embellished, un-distorted accounts of events that literally happened in the real world?

Since we are aware that people often misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or fabricate what they write or say, how can we determine if Bible writers are not among them?



Edited to add: The people who compiled the anthology that became known as the Bible selected stories / letters / writings that fit their preconceived notions or opinions. Can they be trusted to have chosen accurate and representative descriptions of events and conversations?

Does it make a difference if the stories and letters are truthful, accurate, um-embellished, un-distorted accounts of events that literally happened in the real world?

Yes, it makes a tremendous difference, and I do not believe that we should simply assume that the things recorded are true, but rather go through the process of analyzing them, to determine if they hold up to scrutiny. In the same way, I do not believe we should simply assume the claims could not possibly be true, because they are to difficult to believe. This is why I say,

There is a tremendous amount to consider concerning Christianity, and to simply say, "it is based upon people telling stories" does not really take into account all that would need to be considered, in my opinion.

So then, we have Christians who simply assume these things are true, but in reality they do not really know what they believe, or why they believe it. However, I also believe there are many unbelievers who take a simplistic approach as well, and simply assume that they must be right, whether it be because of experiences they may have had, or because it is just to extraordinary to believe.

My point is, I do not simply assume I must be right. I studied, and analyzed these things for over two years before finally coming to my conclusions. Even though I have done this, I still do not believe I must, or have to be correct, rather I clearly understand the possibility of my error.

We cannot be certain how many people actually analyze what it is they claim to believe concerning these things, as opposed to those who simply assume, or react over and against what is being said in the Bible. What I do know is, when I read the Bible, I come away with a completely different understanding than most Christians, as well as unbelievers. Is this because I am not reading it correctly? Or, is it because many simply assume what it must, or has to be saying?

Another thing I know is, many times I am misunderstood here on this site, and it is not because of what I have posted, but rather I have demonstrated time after time, that it is because people simply assume what I must be saying since I am a Christian.

Again, the point is, I have analyzed these things intently for many years, and for some three years here on this site. Because of this, I highly doubt that I will be able to expound upon all of what I have considered, but would only be able to hit some of the highlights. However, I think it is a mistake for any of us to simply assume that those opposed to us, must not have considered all that would need to be considered. I do my best to never assume this.

Since we are aware that people often misinterpret, distort, exaggerate or fabricate what they write or say, how can we determine if Bible writers are not among them?

Thanks for asking this because it is a great question, and is exactly what I am referring too. This is not a question that I have not thought of myself, or ignored, but rather is one I have considered, and analyzed intently. However, since I have thought through this so intently, there is no way I could expound it all out here in this type of format, because it would have to be in depth. So then, I can only hit the highlights.

First, the way in which we claim to know much at all about ancient history, is by reading letters written between different parties at the time. Now, as we read these letters, we do not simply assume that all that is said would have to be true, rather we compare individual letters against each other, and are able to come to a reasonable conclusion of what is true, as opposed to what would be false. With this type of method, we claim to be certain of those things that happen in ancient history.

With this being the case, the New Testament is filled with different letters, authored by different people, addressed to different audiences. So then, as we compare these different letters to each other, we are better able to tell, what may be true, as opposed to what may not be true.

Now, we could certainly say that, "since all of these authors had the same agenda, then we can expect that they would be saying much the same thing", and I would agree with this if all we were talking about were certain teachings, but this is not the case. Rather, we are also talking about the accounts they give concerning certain claimed historical events, and I am not simply talking about the things surrounding the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, but also by comparing the letters of, lets say Luke, to the things that Paul wrote.

It is very easy to detect from these letters that Luke, surely must have been along with Paul on his missionary journeys. After these journeys, Luke sits down to write a letter to someone by the name of Theophilus, and the reason Luke gives for witting these two different letters, is so that this Theophilus "can be certain of the things that he was taught."

Now, as we compare these two letters of Luke, to those letters that Paul wrote to the different Churches, (which means the letters were written by different authors, addressed to completely different audiences, addressing completely different concerns) we can see they speak of the same events that occurred on these missionary journeys. In fact, in one of the last letters of Paul, that was addressed to Timothy, Paul tells Timothy that, "only Luke is left with me." This demonstrates that Luke was with Paul on these journeys, and explains why Luke begins to use the word, "we" in describing the different events that occurred on these journeys, all through, and up until Paul was taken to Rome to stand trial, and placed under arrest.

Now, as we begin to think about this, we would have to conclude that these men were telling the truth about what they wrote to these different audiences, or they were both completely deceived in some sort of way, along with many others, or they were completely lying, and did a great job of colluding together. If we say they were deceived, or lying, we then must go through the process of attempting to determine how they, and many others could have become so deceived, or how they were able to hold such lies together, and the reason, and motivation for such lies, otherwise we would simply be assuming. All of this is a lot to consider, and would take much time, and effort.

This is just a small sample of the evidence that suggests that these letters were not, "misinterpreted, distorted, exaggerated or fabricated." From here I would move on to the undisputed fact that Paul was clearly opposed to this Christian movement to begin with, so much so that he was willing to see Christians put to death in order to stop it. Then or course, all of a sudden he makes a complete change for some reason, and then with the same energy and vigor, he becomes the biggest missionary for this movement that he was initially, violently against, and it was not something that simply lasted for a while, but rather the evidence overwhelming suggests that it lasted the rest of his life, and his letters and life prove this!

Then, I would go on to talk about the contradiction between Paul, and James, and how all of this flushed out, and also how, even though this would seem to call into question the truth of the Christian Faith, it actually gives more credence to it once you read the events carefully. But as you can see, this sort of thing becomes far to in depth to discuss in this type of format. At any rate I hope this at least demonstrates that these are things I have thought of myself, and have went to great lengths to investigate them.

If you are interested in my take on the contradiction between Paul and James, here is a link where I debate a fellow Christian concerning this contradiction, and why I believe it lends credence to the truth of the Bible. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/t ... bbcode.gif

For some reason this link did not work. You can find it on the thread, "The Foundations of Christianity" post 23.

The people who compiled the anthology that became known as the Bible selected stories / letters / writings that fit their preconceived notions or opinions. Can they be trusted to have chosen accurate and representative descriptions of events and conversations?

As you know, you are not conversing with the everyday Christian. With this being the case, I understand the reason, and the need to compile these books together in order to have a common understanding and belief. However, I do not place much credence at all into the process that occurred. In other words, we all have sound minds hopefully, and are able to read all of these things ourselves.

In other words, I have the ability to read, and understand how the Bible was compiled together, and I also have the ability to understand the reasons they did not allow some of the books into the Bible. With this being said, I also have the ability to read those books that were left out, which means I am very familiar with the content, and have the ability to determine if there is anything contained in them that I may learn from.

I also have the ability to understand that there were some letters that are contained in the Bible that were very hotly disputed, and I can learn the reasons why they were so disputed. I can do all of these things, (read what is contained in the Bible, along with those things that were rejected), and I do not have to believe that the process of compiling the Bible, was somehow directed, or ordained by God. Again, there is a lot to consider here, and it would take much more time, and space than we have available here.

An example of one of the things that would have to be considered, is the fact that the Apostles themselves were battling against Gnosticism themselves, and these Gnostics did in fact have writings.

In the end again, I hope this at least demonstrates that I have considered all of the things you have brought up. In fact, there has not been much, if anything that has been brought up to me while I have been here on this site, that I have not considered myself. However, when I consider things, I do not look for quick easy answers, rather it is a long drawn out process.

After all is said and done, you and I may come to completely different conclusions, and I have no problem with this at all. In fact, I have studied these things so intently, that I can understand unbelief, and I can understand the reasons some folks give for their unbelief. What I cannot possibly understand, or except, is when someone tells me that I have no reason to believe! I do, or I would not!