CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
27
that makes sense thats a lie
Debate Score:61
Arguments:62
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 that makes sense (26)
 
 thats a lie (22)

Debate Creator

gratedebator(283) pic



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 involves calling MANY, but choosing only 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.

Can you imagine trying to explain that?

Nope. That would be very hard to explain.  

that makes sense

Side Score: 34
VS.

thats a lie

Side Score: 27
2 points

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.

Side: that makes sense

true that i'll edit the debate real fast, thanks lol

Side: that makes sense
1 point

I've been saying that for a while now. A literal interpretation of the Bible is dangerous.

Side: that makes sense
1 point

I've been saying that for a while now. A literal interpretation of the Bible is dangerous.

Side: that makes sense
1 point

The bible has been disproved more than any other book, ever.

Side: that makes sense
2 points

I am an anti-theist opposed to both literal and symbolic interpretations of all religious texts. I do not err in this.

Side: thats a lie
1 point

so are you against childrens stories that have a deeper psychological and moral meaning too?

Or do you fully believe in those?

Side: that makes sense
Jace(5161) Disputed
1 point

I am against any story that teaches any idea as an absolute and incontrovertible truth, religious or otherwise.

Side: thats a lie
Swryght(161) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: that makes sense
Jace(5161) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: thats a lie
1 point

The Bible stories aren't fictitious at all. Just because the disciples didn't understand doesn't mean that the Bible's stories are fictitious.

Side: thats a lie
1 point

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.

Side: that makes sense
Srom(12206) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, and how does this prove that the stories are fictitious?

Side: thats a lie
1 point

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.

Side: thats a lie
Jace(5161) Disputed
2 points

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).

Side: that makes sense
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: thats a lie
1 point

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.

Side: that makes sense
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

No one thinks those to be real....

Side: thats a lie
1 point

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?

Sorry, try again.

Side: thats a lie
Swryght(161) Disputed
1 point

"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.

Side: that makes sense
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

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."

Side: thats a lie

You call the Bible ficticious and get on my ass for questioning a few passages?! I call bullshit on that. Good day to you, Sir Hypocrite.

Side: thats a lie
1 point

So what are we saying morals are fictitious now?

And why are you lower-casing "Jesus"?

Side: thats a lie

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.

Side: thats a lie