(August 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I love your style; you seem like a fair minded person. I do take issue with one line of reasoning I believe you are using here though. Are you suggesting that because there are fantasy books that have similarities with the Bible that this means the Bible is also fantasy?
(August 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm)ElDinero Wrote: As a former wrestling nut, I won't have people doing a disservice to The Rock.
Honestly Emanuel, just this afternoon I thought of a couple of other things. The list of ways that the Bible is comparable to fantasy writing is as long as my leg. As Rhythm points out, to show that they are MORE than this, you're going to need some pretty hard evidence. Nothing over the last two thousand years has been terribly convincing, but best of luck.
Well just not terribly convincing to you right? They have been convincing to atheists who have converted right?
Firstly, thanks. I try to be fair minded, but I have a low threshold for bullshit also.
That's not exactly what I was saying. However, one thing that fantasy writing must have by definition is at least one thing that is 'fantastic', or in other words, something that differs from the natural order of the world we live, whether it's flying broomsticks, talking trees, lightspeed travel or whatever. The Bible has this sort of stuff in abundance. So yeah, talk of the flood, burning bush, parting of the seas and so on place it firmly in the realm of fantasy, because we know that all of those things are impossible.
Now, if you're going to claim such events could or did happen, which would then disqualify them from being called fantasy, we'll need some evidence, which leads onto your second thing. My use of the word convincing was probably a little vague. What I should have said is that none of the evidence provided over the last two thousand years has been scientifically verified, and the majority of claims made to support biblical events have been refuted conclusively by professionals. You can, of course, convince people of things without evidence, if they don't have the means or will to investigate the claims/think critically, and if the person or people doing the convincing are clever and eloquent enough.
