CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Proof the bible's stories are fictitious
Don't know why most people on here quote the bible word for word when jesus spoke in parables, and even his own disciples did not understand the true meaning of what he was saying
From this website: http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/parables.htm
And this is common knowledge within religion, but it is extremely looked over.
The shocking truth is that Jesus hid the meaning of His teachings from the masses. The word Parable means a similitude or (symbolically) fictitious narrative that conveyed a moral truth. The word Proverb means essentially the same thing – a fictitious illustration.
So the stories that jesus told WERE fictitious, atheists you are so correct on that.
But where atheists, agnostics and religious followers alike are wrong and where we start to get confused by religion is because we take the stories literal. You are not supposed to take the stories literally, they are symbolic and metaphorical.
Even Jesus’ own disciples had to have these parables explained to them. But He often did that by telling them - - another Parable! Why would Jesus do that? Because God’s plan involvescalling MANY, butchoosingonly a FEW – at least in this eon.
So as you can see, not even his disciples understood what he was trying to tell them and explain to them.
I'm not claiming I do, but I am claiming 99% of religious followers don't understand the stories either. So what do we do? Read it as symbolism, like in revelations "And I saw a beast rising up out of the seas"
In ancient times this would have meant another nation rising to power. You have to understand that in revelations, these people were trying to explain our modern day times in their ancient day language.
But where you are wrong and where you start to get confused by religion is because you take them literal. You are not supposed to take the stories literally, they are symbolic and metaphorical.
Don't put this on Atheists. Christians have done more than their fair share of taking the Bible literally.
I think overall, it makes sense to take the Bible as you have described. The Bible should be used to make the most people happy and to make society better.
While I agree with you that religious stories are often interpreted as conveying a dogmatic perspective on truth, I think this is intrinsic to the most popular interpretations, rather than the texts/stories themselves.
I agree, and actually never stated otherwise. My OP was in opposition to the interpretations themselves, and my first rebuttal to which you have responded was in reference to stories generally and only when they are intrinsically teaching an absolute, incontrovertible truth.
Moral truths are innately subjective and inherently debatable, because morality as a whole is an assertion of absolute truth without substantiation.
Not everyone agrees that murder or violating autonomy is wrong, nor do most people view these moral issues as such absolutes. The majority of people would agree that some cases of murder are morally acceptable if not morally necessary, and the same can be said about the violation of autonomy. (I refer to autonomy because I do not share your belief in free will as an actual reality.)
I never claimed that morals were chosen by society, and I wholly agree that morality is an attribute more or less ingrained in human nature. However, I disagree that morality is held consistently across persons and cultures. If morality were truly uniform and not debatable, then we would agree on all issues all the time (which we very obviously do not). Having a differing morality is not the same as lacking morality altogether, and not adopting morality at all does not necessarily equate to an absence of empathy or conscientiousness.
Autonomy and free will basically mean the same exact thing if im going off the definitions i pulled up that has to deal with philosophical/theological issues, they are the exact same thing.
Free will: I choose my own decisions, and i hold myself accountable and responsible for the decisions i make, with autonomy, i pulled up the same exact definition. "autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility and accountability for one's actions."
That sounds like the exact same thing
Morality has to be the same throughout everyone, if someone sees their murderous actions as justified because their child was killed, thats acceptable, thats an eye for an eye, thats fine.
But if you just say "i justify murder because i find it morally acceptable" That person is probably mentally ill.
You can not have differing morality, there is good and bad, dark and light, holy and evil...
Thats like saying you have 20 people, 10 of them believe murder is morally acceptable, the other 10 do not...
As long as it doesnt interfere with someones personal rights, then it is morally acceptable.
If it doesnt affect anyone, its ok, if it affects others, its not ok.
Autonomy and free will basically mean the same exact thing if im going off the definitions i pulled up that has to deal with philosophical/theological issues, they are the exact same thing.
They are similar, but not synonymous. The distinction is that free will entails a capacity for a willful choice, whereas autonomy references the capacity of an individual to act independent of the control of other persons. Free will references the freedom leading up to an action, whereas autonomy references the freedom to take the action itself.
Morality has to be the same throughout everyone, if someone sees their murderous actions as justified because their child was killed, thats acceptable, thats an eye for an eye, thats fine.
How does that follow? Where one person sees that action as morally justifiable another would not. This is empirically true, and an express contradiction to your claim.
But if you just say "i justify murder because i find it morally acceptable" That person is probably mentally ill.
Mental illness is not synonymous with amorality or the capacity to justify murder, and it is prejudicially incorrect to conflate mental illness with an increased proclivity for violence (source).
Regardless of whether they are mentally ill, the truth is that those individuals' moralities are still moral perspectives that exist. What objective basis do you have for claiming that yours is "correct", versus their morality or the billions of other moralities which exist?
You can not have differing morality, there is good and bad, dark and light, holy and evil...
Prove it. Then disprove the empirical evidence that people have vastly disparate views on what constitutes good and bad, dark and light, holy and evil. Until then, you have thoroughly lost this point.
Thats like saying you have 20 people, 10 of them believe murder is morally acceptable, the other 10 do not...
Your point being?
As long as it doesnt interfere with someones personal rights, then it is morally acceptable. If it doesnt affect anyone, its ok, if it affects others, its not ok.
Not all symbolic interpretations of religious scripts are absolutist attempts to nail down one perspective on the truth. Check out Joseph Campbell's work for a very interesting example of this (I recommend Myths to Live By as an introduction). His approach is pluralistic, and interprets religion as a metaphorical attempt to help human beings live a full and psychologically healthy life. He is almost certainly an atheist in the metaphysical sense, but he believes the metaphors in religious texts are psychologically powerful and helpful.
I appreciate that. However I see absolutely no reason to utilize theistic stories to this end rather than non-theistic alternatives, particularly as I consider theistic stories innately more disposed to intellectual abuse.
The things that jesus spoke of though, were mostly parables, they can be taken two ways, one is the way he spoke to the masses, and one is the weay he spoke to his disciples in private.
There are a lot of different parables in the Bible; this is true, and no one doubts that. However, most of the Bible is taken to be actual history, reflecting upon symbolic meanings. Take the flood, for example. 2 Peter 3 establishes for us that the world did in fact become engulfed with water; however, Noah's ark symbolizes baptism, Christ, and the destruction of the wicked, few actually surviving the waters. Likewise, David actually was a really person, having an actual lineage, accumulating eventually to Jesus. However, he too symbolized Jesus, being the humble shepherd, defeating Goliath before the mocking Philistines, while Israel shook in its boots, eventually becoming king of the nation, speaking Psalms that prophesied much about Jesus. So, the Bible is filled with tons of actual historical events, though they symbolize other things; this can be seen in Hebrews 11, when the author of Hebrews tells us that the people of old were commended for their faith, having actually been real people.
The Bible is not an accurate account of history, though it has some historical references which can be substantiated (e.g. someone named Jesus existed historically, but there is no proof that we was the son of god or that he rose from death). There are whole stories that are completely unfounded and actually disproved (e.g. the flood is not substantiated by any other historical account, and is contraindicated by geological evidence).
Actually, there is much backing for much of the Bible. You should do some research.
Also, geology does not contradict the flood. Geology actually proves it....
Moreover, the flood is actually substantiated by other historical accounts. There are countless stories of a man who survived a flood sent from the gods.... You can take it to all be myth, or you can take it to be many tellings of the same story. But to say what you said is either intellectual dishonesty of ignorance.
1. Your source is flagrantly biased; the Institute for Creation Research, really?
2. Your source is not a primary source, nor is it even a secondary source, and it is lucky when it is tertiary source. The argument it advances is premised upon secondary source citations which themselves fail to cite primary sources directly. For example, the following statement - "The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view." - is from Morris, Henry M., Science and the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p. 85.; this author regularly uses phrases such as "we may suppose" and does not cite any primary sources to support his conclusions. This is consistent throughout the citations used by your source.
3. You capture the essence of The Epic of Gilgamesh well: "it is a story". Just because multiple stories exist saying something somewhat similar happened does not mean it actually happened. Lots of stories exist about vampires; that does not mean they are real. How about some actual scientific proof (e.g. geology, archaeology, etc), or a primary historical account that is not a story?
4. Even if a large flood did happen, this does not mean it was caused by God.
All I was citing it for was to show you the comparisons of it. And as I had said before, you can take it to having been myth, or historical reinterpretation. You must remember, that the Epic of Gilgamesh was the first historical document that we have. This could show either that this was the first time humans really wrote down anything in writings, which is farfetched, since it is a long work, or that all other writings were disposed of in the flood of the world. Pick which one you think; I'm simply saying that you are looking at the glass half full, when one could see the same evidence as actually supporting the Bible.
The story is not an historical account, just written in earlier human history.
It is not the earliest piece of writing by a long stretch. It was written no earlier than the 10th century BC, and there is writing dating as early as the 6th millennium BC with the Tărtăria tablets.
That you elect to justify your beliefs with it notwithstanding, this story is not actually evidence because it does not prove anything.
You're being intellectually dishonest again; those tablets are younger than the epic of Gilgamesh. Do some research first, or don't lie. This conversation is over if you keep being straight up and flagrantly deceptive.
Many historians, including the one I learned this information from, believe the oldest historical document is the cuneiform tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The Epic of Gilgamesh does not prove the flood and the ark... If anything it suggests that the Jews adopted Ancient Mesopotamian myths, probably during the Babylonian Exile.
Thats why I said one could take it to be either one... the point is that there is tons of evidence for the Bible, but people always make excuses for it, applying to other things.
There is definitely tons of evidence for the Bible. I have one myself! That is proof that it exists lol.
Seriously, though... The similarities between ancient Mesopotamian polytheism and Judeo-Christian monotheism is hardly convincing evidence that the stories within the Bible are based on historical events. That is evidence that tales were being passed around and reinterpreted from one culture to another. It's like the show The Office. It originated in Britain, then the U.S. did their own version. One culture's story being retold by another. They didn't have TV back in ancient times, they had myths and fables.
I understand the stories, and the history, i am talking about when jesus actually spoke to the masses and his disciples, he told 2 very different tales of the same story.
Who thinks that the parables of Jesus were actually real? Few, if any, actually think the stories told by Jesus to be real, considering how He said Himself that they were in parables: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." (Matthew 13:13)
The parable of the prodigal son is, if anything, more realistic than the other stories of the bible. Jesus' theology and teachings were very practical; and if anything Christians read the gospel first and foremost.
The word Parable means a similitude or (symbolically) fictitious narrative that conveyed a moral truth.
Taking that definition and saying it is "proof the bible's stories are fictitious." Is either an incredibly stupid statement on your behalf, or incredibly misleading... a lot like when people use a quotation of a quotation to try to make someone look bad. A fictitious story in a book, if it is admitted to be so, does not make the book fictitious.
Rev. Martin Luther King's last speech included the parable of the good Samaritan. Is his speech "fictitious" because of it?
"Fictitious" does not mean false or untrue, and I don't think the framer of this debate was making that argument. Rather, he/she was simply pointing out the value of interpreting scripture in a non-literal fashion.
The bible should be taken literally. There are some stories within the bible that are told just to illustrate a point. Anyone is smart enough to realize where those are. No, there probably was not literally a good Samaritan just like Jesus said. That doesn't mean you take what he said about divorce and say "well I wonder what he meant here... Divorce must be symbolic for something."
Interestingly, this seems to be the same issue you and I were having on another debate. Arguing that some of the bible should not be taken literally is different from saying that none of it should be taken literally. I am arguing the former position, as I believe you are as well. Therefore, we are yet again in agreement, but you seem to think my view is opposed to yours. I hope I am not being condescending, but there is a difference between the concept of 'some' and 'all' that you seem to be systematically ignoring.
The bible should be taken literally. There are some stories within the bible that are told just to illustrate a point. Anyone is smart enough to realize where those are.
I know what it says, but to look at that simple explanation and not put much thought into the entire context of the story of Abraham, is kind of silly. To say that Agar represents a location, then that leads to other questions... Like, what other characters are symbolic?
Jesus spoke in Parables because he wanted them to think and dwell on it. But mainly all these parables had heavenly meanings. God had explained the parables to the Disciples at a different time. Look at Paul; he had so much doctrine being preached. Jesus must of explained to the Disciples. Just think; Jesus died and rose again for the sins. 500 men sawl him go into heaven. There are many copies of these scriptures. These Disciples would not die for something that was not 100 true. Lets face it: just because you can't understand it doesn't mean that its not true.
