So, where should we put the Bible in the Library?

Sorry Mak, but I disagree with your decision to close the other thread. The question is legit, and I am asking it as a Christian. Would anyone care to accuse me of flame bait now?

So, here is my take on it, and, the short version, not only is it a valid question, but it is a question that should make you think a bit - and THAT is something no extremists of either side of this fence should be able to shut down.

Intent matters.

If someone were running around asking this questions deliberately to the extremists on both sides, and with a reputation for ... poking shall we say, and then inviting flame by adding to it by telling one side, "You dithering idiot atheists! Some things are obviously true," and Christians, "You dithering idiot Christians! Some things in the Bible are obviously not true, I mean a whale swallowing a man who lives? Come on people grow up!"

The intent there would clearly be flame bait.

Someone like Mak has been around long enough that a simple question is most likely NOT flame bait. Its just a question, and if the initial response to question from someone with a objective and honest reputation is a screel? Well, maybe you we should all examine why that is?

A question in and of itself is not flame bait, its basically asking, "Do you think Bible is true or not?" Most importantly, the library part asks you to explain the rational in a classifying manner - and the Bible defies easy classification in anything OTHER than the religion section.

So, as a Christians I know parts are true, and I know parts are parable. I know the message is spot on ... but a fiction book with a great and powerful message is nevertheless fiction, and a non-fiction book that is denser than Christmas fruit cake is still non-fiction.

But then, that is kinda the point of a book like the Bible. The contradictions that detractors toss out are rarely actually contradictions, IF you take the time to examine context, etc. The Bible is supposed to make you think, ponder ... seek.

And no question that actually causes someone to think, consider, or actually ponder is a bad question.

 

Like you said some of it is true and some of it is parable.

I think some of the things described in the Bible can actually be attributed to history, the real stuff though, none of the fantastic walking on water, parting oceans, giant fishes swallowing people, women being completely turned to salt, or whatever else you can think of that sounds like it came out of a very active imagination.

Like...if you look at the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and essentially cut out everything supernatural or tried to I suppose. Whatever was left could possibly be the real history.

I believe Jesus was a real man with real ideas and beliefs that he shared with his disciples and followers. No I don't believe he was the son of God or God himself. But I definitely believe he at one point in time existed. I believe a lot of the figures of the Bible existed.

I am sure a lot of the characters were embellished though with having all these fantastic magical powers given to them directly from God. I mean think about the myths that surround our own countries historical figures. George Washington for example was said to never tell a lie and that he cut down his father's cherry tree and when his father asked him if he did it he told him the truth. I literally believed this was a fact up until probably middle school when someone told me it was a myth.

It's very easy to take real people and make them seem beyond human, or god-like if you will and then indoctrinate those beliefs into young people and pass it on that way too which is probably what happened with a lot of the Bible's historical characters.

So I would honestly say, from my own opinion, I believe some of the Bible belongs in fiction while some of it belongs in non-fiction.

 

They have to break down the books...sell them individually by author and place them with the other nonfiction books..the bible does not belong in a religious shelve or anything like that..its non fiction part history book. John would have his own book for checkout..sorry for the short answer im at the tub on my cellphone at the casino resort.

 

Sucking up, are we!

Some one who is Inet literate could easily look it up as others did and find it cataloged as:

Number 220 in the Dewey Decimal system. Religion, Philosophy etc section

It WAS a snide flame bait.....Neutral, you're slipping....that'll be 3 Our Fathers, 3 Hail Marys & 1 Glory Be. Go and sin no more....

 

Since The Star Wars Saga is philosophy and religion, should we put that in the 'Religion, Philosophy etc section' also?

 

Im the biggest star wars fan here..star wars belongs in the scifi section always has.

 

I am agnostic and I feel the religion/philosophy section is perfectly fine for the bible and indeed all extant religion's texts, not sure what the problem is. Of course any religion with practising members should be included.

 

Just like the bible should be

 

Are you suggesting that the Librarians do not know how to use the Dewey Decimal system?

 

Well, we call this a dodge. Where SHOULD it, not where is it?

Well, now I am asking the question, is the question still flame bait? Am I baiting you?

How do you thnk Jews view the New testament? Muslims the Bible? Hindus?

We ALREADY know that atheists think all religions are crap - the mere fact of being an atheist flame bait?

Sorry brother, but the question is just a question. There are trolls on both side who will abuse the question, but that is not the questions fault.

BTW - I am not Catholic.

 

So, how do we delinete between religion like Christianity, that certainly have a historical basis ... and Scientology and other cults?

I speak plainly, but if some wanker thinks Christianity and scientology are the same thing - then they are brain dead.

 

Dodge meaning you didnt get the answer you wanted, huh?

Well, then you shud 'still' be able to handle the 3 Our Fathers (aka, The Lord's Prayer")

Guess we'll see by the responses on here that are by Christians as opposed to the 'other' trolls who will 'help you' with your question.

Oh, BTW, Is there a 'brown' emoticon on here of a 'nose'...?

 

I couldnt better define a book in the fiction aisle myself.

 

Well, then you had best put every volume of history in it, because much of it is a best guess based on available information - and many of them rely on oral histories and parables to define and explore early cultures.

So, guess we just put the entire profession of history into the 'fiction' section.

 

Well Neutral, I don't know... here at this post http://www.politicalforum.com/4832817-post508.html , another non-theist is declared to have admitted that the Bible can be used as a source of PROOF. So, according to that non-theist, not all of History should be filed in the fiction area of the library.

 

Nonsense.

Fiction book's are allowed to have elements of non fiction in them.

 

Law books also have elements of practically every subject matter one can think of, so what category would you place those books in?

 

While the poll may have been legit, her follow up post was not.

Yes, intent matters and when you post an imflamatory follow up to a poll, the intent is obvious.

When you post, "Would Christians be offended if The Bible was placed with OTHER FICTION, was intended to state categorically that The Bible is fiction and was a red flag waved in front of Christians.

[quoteSomeone like Mak has been around long enough that a simple question is most likely NOT flame bait. Its just a question, and if the initial response to question from someone with a objective and honest reputation is a screel? Well, maybe you we should all examine why that is? [/quote]

It seems you haven't read too many of Makedde's posts. Yes, she has been around a long time but during that long time she has often posted imflamatory and even downright stupid posts. She does not have a reputation as an objective poster. She has, rather, a reputation as someone who far too often posts before she thinks.

Had she asked, "Do you think The Bible is true or not?", it would not have been considered flamebait. When she posted, "Would Christians have a problem with The Bible being placed with OTHER FICTION", she crossed from asking a question to posting flamebait.

[quoter]So, as a Christians I know parts are true, and I know parts are parable. I know the message is spot on ... but a fiction book with a great and powerful message is nevertheless fiction, and a non-fiction book that is denser than Christmas fruit cake is still non-fiction.[/quote]

Makedde did not refer to The Bible as you did in the above paragraph. She asked one of those, "Do you still beat your wife", type questions.

Members of Political Forum are allowed, and even encouraged to ask probing questions and to voice disagreement in an attempt to come to some sort of conclusion about topics. What they are not allowed to do is post questions in such a manner that they constitute frlamebait.

Her post was not designed to foster discussion but instead was an insulting post directed toward Christians.

Look at the post in question again.

 

The original OP, when it asked if Christians would be okay with the Bible being with other fiction material simply meant whether there would offense if a library assumed the Bible was make believe. How would you feel if your library didn't acknowledge what you believe to be true?
Sometimes you need to read between the lines. Don't understand the OP? Ask me to clarify. Its simple.

Now, a question. If the Bible was placed in the religion section of a library, but part of that Bible was historial fact and the other half was not generally accepted as fact, it would contain both fiction and non fiction, right? So who makes the decision as to where it belongs?
As I see it, I could belong anywhere as there isn't really any way to tell what is truth or make believe, and therefore it couldn't have a 'rightful' place.

 

Why would you ask the question when the Library already has a preexisting standard for the placement of books within certain sections of the library? That standard has been around for many decades and is accepted by society as a whole, regardless of the current placement.

The question is asked in the paragraph above. I don't understand your rationale for asking the question.

Irrelevant question. 99.99 % (a number out of the air) of the books in a library contain elements of both within them. What you suggest would cause 99.99% of the books to be placed in the fiction section. Even some science journals where the only discussion in the books are 'theories' (remember, theories are not proven to be fact). If a theory has not been proven to be fact, then that written material would need to be placed in the "Fiction" section of the library.

Along with those that are pure 'theory'. Keep that in mind.

 

the bible should be put with all the other fairytale books. It is nothing more than a work of fiction that has caused a great deal of harm in this world. The only reason the church has flourished in the past is that some people have been moronic enough to take it as non fiction and believe in the bullshyte.

 

No...I'm thinking it's more a matter of ignorance, now.

That's not what she asked...


It's not the topic, it was the tone. And your re-framing of what you THINK she meant is kinda condescending toward's Mak--as if she's not intelligent enough to say what she means.

And actually--this is an absolutely stupid question! Have you people ever BEEN to a library? If yes, you obviously didn't spend much time there. Books are arranged in a logical sequence related to TOPIC--not "fiction or non-fiction" (although those are subcategories in the literature section).

And here is the religion section's organization:

THIS is the silliest part of all! Go to a library! If you're "thinking," the best thing to do is to look and see if there is already an ANSWER to your question.

 

probably in the law section

 

So, then all the history books that have to fill in gaps based on best guesses or gaps in the evidentiarty record MUST be placed in the fiction section? Any volume of history that uses language to make the scenarios more engaging rather than padantic MUST be assigned to the fiction section?


You see what happens when we apply the standard elsewhere?

 

Even those law books that deal with such matters as the validity of the scientific method and its impact on the credibility of evidence in a jurisprudential setting? Now we have a mixture of science and law. What about laws dealing with church matters? Now we have a mixture of religion and science. Religion as some suggest needs to be placed in the fiction section, then all the law books dealing with religion should also be placed in the fiction section. That be cool with me... I always sort of thought that the laws in this country were fiction, make believe.