Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Sheldon your suggested to John, “Nor does disbelieving it and in any deity, if only you had only asked the one single question in your op you now seem to have any interest in. I suggest you go back and delete this but from your OP.
"Have you thought of this format at a bad thing, or a good thing for religion? In other words, if God is real, is this a smart move or a bad move?" “
I concur, it would be much, much better writing to do so.
The OP is written as intended.
Actually I was just agreeing with Sapporo's point, here:
00:24 Permalink
Sapporo "I disagree that the bible was written in narrative format. It seems more like a collection of books written by numerous different authors with different motives that was compiled at a later date."
The word homogeneous is just an irrelevant tangent you seem to have focused on. I'm not sure why?
The point is that the bible does read like a single narrative, it's disjointed, inconsistent, offers manifest contradictions, changes style wildly, is demonstrably erroneous in many places, and on and on.
In other words it reads as flawed human creation, and not as an infallible message from an infallible deity.
I would expect a book written in a narrative format to be written as a history, not a work that begins with mythology, then a pseudohistory and law code, then a gap in the story before the time of the prophets (around the time the older books of the Old Testament were probably actually written), then the books of the early prophets, then books of poems, proverbs, and moral lessons, then the books of the later prophets, ending with the book of Daniel which has prophecies after events have taken place, as well as prophecies that never came true, then you have the New Testament books dedicated to the Jesus myth (which only mention external historic events as a framing device), as well as letters where the Christians were deciding on which dogma to follow, often with fabricated justifications.
Why? First of all given that the bible is obviously a collection of books, to say the bible is written in narrative is to say the books that compose it are written in narrative.
But secondly, I'f we take the bible as whole it most definitely has narrative. It has a beginning with its origin stories, it has the problem of the fall of Israel with the prophet books, it has a climax or resolution with Jesus and the gospels, and evena cliff hanger ending with the acts of the apostles and the promise of the second coming.
There's narrative within books as well as across them. There's plenty of stories that span across several volumes.
So what are your rules for narrative? Because writers play with them all the time, telling stories out of sequence, with a clear point or without it, etc.
You said that the bible was written in A narrative format. I disagree that it had such an overarching purpose. I also disagree that all the books are intended to be narrative.
Then like I said, break down your rules for me.
You were the one that said "The bible is clearly written in a narrative format. It is isn't written like a textbook or an encyclopedia. It is laid out as a story form."
I can only suggest you make a case for your claims.
Of course, and I have tons of studies under my belt to defend my point. But I made this thread to specifically see where all of you are coming from. I said so in the OP.
The format of a work tells you nothing about whether or not the alleged author or muse is real.
A work could be written claiming to be a historical account - this also tells you nothing in itself.
So? What does that have to do with narrative?
Your OP asked "Ignoring the psychology behind it. Have you thought of this format at a bad thing, or a good thing for religion? In other words, if God is real, is this a smart move or a bad move?"
Harry Potter is a narrative, it has a beginning and an ending, I'm not sure this tells us anything about its veracity. You also seem determined to miss the point, that the ambiguous, contradictory, and erroneous nature of much of that biblical narrative doesn't suggest it has been accurately derived from an omniscient omnipotent deity.
"There's narrative within books as well as across them. There's plenty of stories that span across several volumes."
Indeed there are, but these don't appear to have originated from the same source, but rather appear to have been cobbled together in a post ad hoc fashion, and again this would be a bad sign for it's veracity if it were a human book, the fact it's been touted as divine in origin speaks for itself to any objective person.
"So what are your rules for narrative?"
From omniscient omnipotent deities? I have no objective point of reference John, but as a starting point I'd expect it to nail basic facts, and offer morality that didn't try to justify things like genocide, mass rapine, ethnic cleansing, slavery and infanticide, to name but a few.
"Because writers play with them all the time, telling stories out of sequence, with a clear point or without it, etc."
Human writers John, how many times does an atheist have to point out you're comparing Janet and John to the Encyclopedia Britannica as if they are subject to the same standards of veracity?
You like to invent your own points and then claim I've missed them.
What does that have to do with my point? But you're right how dare anyone introduce their own points into your debate.
Exactly as if it is not an homogeneous narrative at all, but cobbled together from different myths and stories.
Breezy: "Well, then give me your definition of narrative, as well as why the bible doesn't have it. Because authors and motives seem to be components of narrative."
The bible is NOT a coherent narrative. It is nothing more than collection of plagiarized myths and legends that are FAR! older than the bible. Some thousands of years older. One that is not so separated by time is the Samson plagiarization of the myth of Herakles. And then the writings are so horrible, one can only conclude the stories were written by incompetent and illiterate buffoons.
Another example is the Exodus. There is not one word of Hebrew in Egyptian and vice versa. And they lived together for 430 years? Bullocks. Bullshit. And the second damning evidence is the total lack of any evidence 3 million wandered the Sinai for 40 years. C'mon Breezy. When are you actually going to think critically?
Breezy. At least you use a correct Screen Name.
rmfr
"A message from a deity that created everything and wanted us to know should rationally be expected to be infallible and definitive, not errant and ambiguous."
You didn't comment on the above, any reason? Do you think it's a reasonable assertion, and if not then why not?
Now that's the look !
"if God is real, is this a smart move or a bad move?"
Why would an omniscient and omnipotent deity (that cared if we knew it existed) write in an ambiguous and anachronistic form, that didn't demonstrate any objective or compelling evidence for it's existence?
The more likely reason the ideas and stories in these books mirror the primitive knowledge, and cultural views of the human authors of the epoch is fairly obvious. A far less likely scenario is a cruel or indifferent deity, either deliberately trying to trick us, or an inept deity who couldn't communicate rationally.
Don't forget whichever deity anyone thinks is real, the vast majority of people disagree, even among ostensibly the same religions they can't agree on what the message is supposedly saying.
Haven’t read everyone’s responses yet but my first thought on the question from you, John, that asks, “The question leans more towards asking, if you were divine, how would you covey your message?”
I’d write it in such a way that would not result in misunderstandings by my minions. And were I divine, I’d likely know how to do so.
Which, as I'll argue, implies narrative. Do you agree with that, or would you like to propose an alternative form?
As I am not divine (and don’t believe divity exists), then I couldn’t possibly determine what format would result in no misunderstandings.
"implies narrative" is contrary to your claim that it "is clearly written in a narrative format".
edit: typo
No; I'm saying the hypothetical approach from Cyber implies that narrative is the winner, based on what we know about it.
You said "Which, as I'll argue, implies narrative." - does this mean you imminently intend to present your case?
@CyberLN presented her suggestion of what she'd do if she was a divinity writing such a work, but you haven't actually said why that necessitates a narrative format.
Not immediately. I'll creat such a thread after the feedback I get here.
John, you wrote, “I'm saying the hypothetical approach from Cyber implies that narrative is the winner, based on what we know about it.”
I am implying no such thing!
Duh, hence why the sentence begins with "I'm saying" not "Cyber is saying."
No; I'm saying the hypothetical approach from Cyber implies that narrative is the winner, based on what we know about it.
Pages