Maybe we're having a trouble between each others native language here, since you needed fantasy defined for you.

My position is that it is difficult if not impossible to separate the bible from the category of fantasy. I maintain that this is the case, because the bible is in fact, a work of fantasy. The evidence we have been able to amass with regards to the bible, and the god concept in general, lead us to the conclusion that it is a work of fantasy fiction. There is no body of evidence that would lead us to conclude that it is non-fiction. That people find the biblical narrative useful, for whatever reason, does not remove it from the category of fantasy fiction. The faith of those who believe it to be something more than fantasy is only proof of their belief, not proof that it actually is something more than fantasy.

Many posters at this forum are of this opinion, that the bible is a work of fantasy. You, by self identifying as a christian, and defending the bible against the advance of science, have assumed the opposite position. Or have we misread you? Do you instead believe the bible to be fantasy fiction (as we do)? Clear this up for me if I am mistaken in assuming that there is some core part of the bible you treat as fact.

I could muddy the distinction for you further. If I wrote about about wizards, and included my family chili recipe, would it be fair to say, that since my story had a real chili recipe, known to exist, that the book about wizards was not fantasy?

(July 29, 2011 at 7:49 am)Skeptic Wrote: It'd make a pretty rubbish fantasy book but it's certainly something that could be written by a fantasy writer (L Ron Hubbard)

Technically, Hubbard was a Sci-Fi writer, not a fantasy writer. Of course, that said, even he knew better than to create long sections where he tells instead of shows.

I don't think the Bible is fantasy. At least not in the same category as fiction.

The Bible is/was a recording of belief and tradition at a time where man did not have anywhere near the knowledge we have today. Genesis was a valid hypothesis to early man. They couldn't come close to understanding where we came from. It is easy in hindsight to say that the bible is pure fiction. Adam and Eve may not have existed But 2/3 thousand years ago it was perfectly plausible and perfectly understandable explanation.

Dismissing it is a work of fantasy is a little Ignorant. Like all literature we have too look at it in context, It is an immensely important book. Beautiful in parts , horrific in others. It is not a work of fantasy but a historical document that records the beliefs and cultures of numerous civilisations throughout history

(July 31, 2011 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: My position is that it is difficult if not impossible to separate the bible from the category of fantasy. I maintain that this is the case, because the bible is in fact, a work of fantasy. The evidence we have been able to amass with regards to the bible, and the god concept in general, lead us to the conclusion that it is a work of fantasy fiction. There is no body of evidence that would lead us to conclude that it is non-fiction.

Perhaps you should study the Bible more. Fantasy, as it is commonly understood, is a genre of fiction. But the Bible is not one book, as you already know, but it is a collection of over 60 books with different genres. Some, like the Song of Solomon, are poetical writings. Others, like The Book of Proverbs, are proverbial literature. Others, like the Gospels, are written in the form of a biography. The epistles of Paul and the others can be said to be quite theological in nature. Revelation is certainly very symbolical. Other parts of the Bible try more to give a historical account of the nation of Israel, like the Chronicles. Therefore it is not possible to fit all the books of the Bible into the genre of fantasy.

So one cannot simply say "the Bible is fantasy" because the Bible encompasses a wide variety of ancient genres, as I have proven, and not just only one. Therefore I think I am justified in saying that the question is not "Is the Bible fantasy?" but "What part of the Bible is fantasy, if any at all?".

And now I believe it is your turn to give an answer to this and say what part of the Bible you believe to be fantasy and your justification for believing so.

Except that it's not a work of history. We've tried to use it as a work of history, and it is miserable. Whether or not the hypothesis was the best they could come up with is irrelevant. The best they could come up with is fantasy. The bible does indeed belong to many other subgroups, nonetheless, it is still fantasy.

I've already made myself quite clear Emanuel, until someone gives me reason to believe that the bible is anything but the authors imaginations, it's going to stay on the fantasy shelf. It's not like I dislike fantasy, or fiction in general. It's sitting there next to some very worthy companions.

(July 30, 2011 at 12:19 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: Why don't you tell us what science is for then.

Science is used to establish probabilities through observation based on induction. We can then use these probabilities to make predictions due to the uniformity that nature possesses. It is not used to discern truth though deduction, that's the job of logic. I am a bit surprised to see so many on here holding to the philosophy of empiricism, it was abandoned a while ago I had believed.

(July 30, 2011 at 4:30 am)Ace Otana Wrote: That's funny. I remember the last time we debated and the performance you gave. You demonstrated why creationists are a complete waste of time! You're the one who refused to actually fucking debate! Remember?

Your memory seems a bit questionable, it was you who claimed to be folllowing in the footsteps of Dawkins by avoiding debates with Creationists, I never avoid debates on here, you should know that by now.

(July 30, 2011 at 8:01 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Science's Job" is never done on a subject. There is no point where a philosophical argument will ever have more weight than scientific observation. No matter how reasoned our argument, no matter how tight our logic, in the end, it must be fact checked. Guess who does this sort of thing?

This is quite amusing Rhythm, you are bashing on philosophy by apparently adhering to the philosophy of empiricism (all truth claims are established through observation).

(July 30, 2011 at 9:42 am)MilesTailsPrower Wrote: Could you think of 1 thing science can't explain? Can it explain why you failed to spell attempt wrong?

There are thousands of things science cannot explain! A great example would be the justification of science itself, are you really going to use science to justify using science? Circular argument alert. Another good one would be logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes these truths in order to operate so it cannot be used to justify or explain them. Another one would be the reliability of a person’s senses; you cannot prove your senses are reliable without first assuming they are. Science is full of presuppositions it cannot be used to prove, hence why empiricism is a fatally flawed philosophy.

(August 1, 2011 at 6:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There are thousands of things science cannot explain!

I agree with you that science has not explained a lot of things yet, however how is goddit is any better of an explanation?

(August 1, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: Except that it's not a work of history.

Part of it is, part of it isn't (like the proverbs, for example; no historical writings there).

(August 1, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: We've tried to use it as a work of history, and it is miserable.

Can you please give an example of this?

(August 1, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: Whether or not the hypothesis was the best they could come up with is irrelevant. The best they could come up with is fantasy.

Can you please clarify here? What hypothesis are you talking about?

(August 1, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: The bible does indeed belong to many other subgroups, nonetheless, it is still fantasy.

Let's take this step by step:

1. "Fantasy" is a genre of literature.
2. The Bible contains many different genres, as I have proven and as you admit; possibly fantasy as well (I do not hold this view, but it is up to you to prove that at least part of the Bible is fantasy).
3. Given 1 & 2 one cannot say that the Bible is fantasy, because that would mean it has only one genre (fantasy) while also having many other genres at a time (proverbial literature, poetical writings, etc.).

I know you already know this, but I wrote it step by step just in case.

So you'll have to tell me which parts of the Bible you believe to be fantasy, because all of it cannot be.

(August 1, 2011 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: I've already made myself quite clear Emanuel, until someone gives me reason to believe that the bible is anything but the authors imaginations, it's going to stay on the fantasy shelf. It's not like I dislike fantasy, or fiction in general. It's sitting there next to some very worthy companions.

Again, you'll have to be more specific. Which part of the Bible are you refering to as being only the author's imagination? And to what author are you referring (I believe it is not necessary to remind you that there are many authors, not just one)?

And by the way, it cannot be compared to any other fantasy book. I'll give you for a second that the Bible is indeed fantasy, even though I disagree. As it is often stated, it was written by almost 40 different authors in a period of at least 1500 years. Let's see what other fantasy book is like the Bible in this respect! So the Bible is certainly on a different level from, for example, The Lord of the Rings.

So basically, Rhythm is defining fantasy as anything not proven to be real, and you're being a bit more stringent in your (valid) definition, saying that it is a specific genre of literature. Both right.

Now even though it was written by multiple authors over centuries, that doesn't make it any less a fantasy. I think the Old English fantasy poem Beowulf is thought to have multiple authors and have been written over about three centuries, if I remember correctly. So while it is different in that respect to something like LotR, the difference doesn't take it out of the realm of fantasy. If you're looking for specific examples of things in the Bible that would qualify as fantasy writing, I think I can oblige through a reasonable knowledge of the Bible and a good knowledge of Tolkien's works:

1. Nature being conscious
2. Talking animals
3. Spirits/demons (In the Tolkien universe, Morgoth is essentially Satan)
4. Miracles
5. Gods intervening in human affairs (Gandalf is actually a demi-God of sorts whose purpose is to lead Men to victory over Sauron)
6. Resurrection
7. A flood washing away the impure people (Tolkien sinks the island of Numenor after the people attempt to reach the Undying Lands)
8. Fulfillment of prophecy (Aragorn, also see Darth Vader and Harry Potter)

I could go on and on, honestly. Some fantasy works, like the Chronicles of Narnia, are direct allegory to the Bible, with Aslan replacing Jesus, so it really isn't hard to make comparisons. All of the above are common elements of many fantasy works, from Harry Potter to Pirates of the Caribbean to Star Wars.

To the original question posed, I will flippantly add that most fantasy books have a protagonist that is likeable.

(August 2, 2011 at 6:07 am)ElDinero Wrote: So basically, Rhythm is defining fantasy as anything not proven to be real, and you're being a bit more stringent in your (valid) definition, saying that it is a specific genre of literature. Both right.

Now even though it was written by multiple authors over centuries, that doesn't make it any less a fantasy. I think the Old English fantasy poem Beowulf is thought to have multiple authors and have been written over about three centuries, if I remember correctly. So while it is different in that respect to something like LotR, the difference doesn't take it out of the realm of fantasy. If you're looking for specific examples of things in the Bible that would qualify as fantasy writing, I think I can oblige through a reasonable knowledge of the Bible and a good knowledge of Tolkien's works:

1. Nature being conscious
2. Talking animals
3. Spirits/demons (In the Tolkien universe, Morgoth is essentially Satan)
4. Miracles
5. Gods intervening in human affairs (Gandalf is actually a demi-God of sorts whose purpose is to lead Men to victory over Sauron)
6. Resurrection
7. A flood washing away the impure people (Tolkien sinks the island of Numenor after the people attempt to reach the Undying Lands)
8. Fulfillment of prophecy (Aragorn, also see Darth Vader and Harry Potter)

I could go on and on, honestly. Some fantasy works, like the Chronicles of Narnia, are direct allegory to the Bible, with Aslan replacing Jesus, so it really isn't hard to make comparisons. All of the above are common elements of many fantasy works, from Harry Potter to Pirates of the Caribbean to Star Wars.

To the original question posed, I will flippantly add that most fantasy books have a protagonist that is likeable.

Impressive. You've managed to make a list of similarities between the Bible and other fantasy books. That's pretty much what I wanted (but I suppose it was my mistake for not being clear). Thank you.

Now, I need some time to think on this.