Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP
The question is not whether the bible is a historical document or not. The Koran is a historical document. The Magna Carta is a historical document.
The question is whether the bible speaks of true events, modernized mythological anthropomorphic fairy tales, complete fiction (new testament, at least), or anything else.
And that is completely unproveable which is why religion is based on faith, not fact.
edit: both of my posts sound a lot harsher when re-reading them than I intended when writing it. I totally respect your right to believe anything you want, I was just bringing up my opinions. Tone is hard to do with words on a page. Sorry if it comes off as such.
|
I see what you are saying, may I re-phrase myself as far as the historical document. The Bible is an "accurate historical document", that is to say that it is not a bunch of "fairy tails" but contains truth. For my purpouses I could label it an "academic" document but I feel that it would give it the wrong connotation.
I find it interesting that you say that that the new testament is complete fiction. From my prespective I find the new testament "more credable" than the old. My reasoning for this is we have a hard time understanding exactly what the authors of the Old are trying to say because they are speaking in terms of their time. For example it says (sorry I forgot where) it says that a man lived over 200 years old. The problem with this is that it was originally written thousands of years ago. But the "julian calendar" was created roughly around year 0. This means their use of "years" does not coincide with our understanding of the calandar year. This is why the Bible should not be taken word for word (and we must account for possible faulty translations), but understanding it as a whole. This is why "Adam" isnt some ass-hole who ate an apple from a tree and doomed humanity. Insted we are sapposed to rely on "our" reason (which is the figurative fruit of knowedge) to understand the meaning behind the story, not take it at face value. Now cant there be different interpretations of each story? How do we know if they are true? - This is where Catholics differ from other Christian denominations, to aviod this we have enacted upon Apostolic Tradition (Following the interpretations of the Apostles, those who were closest to Jesus) to ensure the accuracy our interpretations.
As far as "And that is completely unproveable which is why religion is based on faith, not fact."
I do not believe that religion is "completely unprovable". Plato, through his reason, came to the conclusion that there must be one God. This is amazing considering he is in a culture of Pegans and he did not have ANY outside influence to come to this decision. Now while that does not "prove" religion, it shows how logic and reason can point us in the right direction as far as religion is concerned. But there are some features of Religion that cannot be explained, therefore we have to go on Faith. I will use the ultimate to explain this. Jesus was Fully man and Fully God. This is somthing that our human minds cannot fathom. Thats kind of like saying I am 100% White and 100% black. This single act of Faith is the cornerstone upon which the entire Caothlic Religion is based. Without it we do not have a foot to stand on.
I know all these concepts may be a little hard to understand, sorry. I am trying to fit thousands of pages of writing into a few mere sentences. There are bound to be some holes in my arguments presented simply because I do not have the time to delve into each of them