"There is a clear distinction between religion and fiction."

[darkstar3]

Simple exercise. The topic sentence is the claim. I would like to know, from anyone, how this distinction is defined. What predetermined criteria or lines of demarcation were used in establishing a training program to teach people that some things are religious teachings and some are fiction?

[Oregone]

1. Well, yes there is

Religion is fiction that people believe.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. No.

Religion is fiction that ADULT people believe.

[cleanhippie]

51. Exactly!

[TheDebbieDee]

3. You left out the part about motivating the killing non-believers!

[darkstar3]

20. Funny,

Darkspouse said the same thing, verbatim, after I mentioned I had posted this thread. :toast:

[baldguy]

4. If someone can get rich convincing people it's true, it's a religion.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. ...by which definition, "free market" economics

is a religion.

Works for me.

[RKP5637]

7. Yep, that's the bottom line, isn't it... we sure see evidence of that over and over. n/t

[RKP5637]

6. IMO religion is often based on real people and events whereas fiction is not.

Now, that said, religion then invokes the supernatural to substantiate a belief system to fill in the gaps between fact and fiction.

[Goblinmonger]

8. So you think there was a historical Jesus?

Support for that addendum to the claim of the OP?

[rug]

9. Do you think he was invented?

[Goblinmonger]

11. Yep

There is no historical evidence and the similarities to other myths, particularly Ulysses, is just to striking to be coincidence. Many wonderful academic treatments of that particular train of thought.

[rug]

12. Why? And by whom?

[cleanhippie]

54. I replied above

with what I think answers your question.

Do you think he was invented? Why and by Whom?

[BurtWorm]

88. The Jesus Mysteries offers one possible answer (though we don't know the answer to either question)

That book argues that Jesus is a typical Pythagorean mystery cult god-man, the worship of whom leads to esoteric knowledge. The authors think the original Christians were probably Hellenized Jews from Alexandria, perhaps. Steeped in Greek intellectual fashions of which they were envious, they apparently wanted to create an authentically Jewish-style paganism, so they constructed a myth around the authentically Jewish idea of the moshiach--the messiah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Mysteries

[rug]

92. Thanks, I had forgotten about that book.

It's written from a Gnostic and mystic perspective. From what I recall, it consists more of syncretism than scholarship. While Paul was a Hellenized Jew and prodigious in spreading Christianity, it's a stretch to find any Gnosticism or paganism in those Epistles.

[cleanhippie]

95. Interesting. Sounds just a plausible (if not more so) than any other explanation I've heard.

I will look into that. Thanks.

[TheDebbieDee]

130. You know, I'm not sure anymore if Jesus was real or not.........

but I think if he knew what was going on in the world in his name, I think he'd either be really embarrassed or really pissed off!

[Beartracks]

13. To Ulysses??

Who/when/where? That would be interesting reading.

Although I'm thinking that correlations between Jesus and myth figures such as Ulysses do not rule out a historical Jesus. A historical Jesus would have been the man to whom mythological trappings were later ascribed (certain attributes, hero journey elements, perhaps new twists on old myth elements, and so forth). A modern day person comparing such a Jesus to Ulysses would already be comparing the "myth Jesus" to Ulysses.

--------------------------

[cleanhippie]

53. Sure he was.

However, the "jesus" type character existed long before the word jesus ever showed up.

[rug]

61. So, who invented him, and why?

[cleanhippie]

63. I have no idea who first came up with that type of character

but I do know figures like that were made to explain things that early humans had no other way to explain. In other words, ignorance was the reason.


I will ask again, Do you think he was invented? Why and by Whom?

[rug]

64. Ignorance does not explain a first century invention.

And no, I don't think he is an invention.

[cleanhippie]

69. Sure it does.

It was the ignorance of the world around them and how that world worked. Maybe you do not like the word ignorance, but I really see no better word.

[rug]

70. Study up on early Christianity.

Judaism was a well-developed worldview in the first century. Christianity added nothing to that. Rather it presented itself as a fulfillment of its scriptures. That is not an ignorant groping to explain the unexplainable.

So, why was Christ invented. And, in the first century, by whom?

[cleanhippie]

71. The christ-like figure was around long before "christ" was invented.

Jesus is but a conglomeration of other christ-like figures that came before him.

And I already answered your question, why do you keep repeating it?

[rug]

72. The question is not about a "christ-like" figure in the foggy mists of time.

The question is specifically about Jesus Christ in the first century, whom you state did not exist.

It's a common canard casually tossed about, but never explained.

So, who invented him at that time and why?

[cleanhippie]

73. As I stated before, i do not know.

But I do know WHY, and explained it.

Since you seem to know the answer to your own question, and even after repeated requests for your answer, please do enlighten me to the answer.

[rug]

74. The why hasn't been answered.

Ignorance may explain stone age rituals but not a first century religion growing from a developed, established one.

Since I don't think he's an invention, it's not my question to answer.

Let me ask you this: Other than ignorance, is there any plausible motive to invent him?

I don't see any and I don't think ignorance explains it.

[cleanhippie]

75. Well, we can just disagree then.

Ignorance is the reason I gave, thats the reason I have. Throughout history, these types of characters have been invented to explain what people could not explain for themselves, yet.

If you are asking why Christianity grew out of other established religions, I suggest you too need to read up on it. Politics and control explain the rise of Christianity, at least as I understand it. But I am sure we will disagree on that too.

[darkstar3]

76. You may not think he's an invention,

but your faith depends entirely on the reality of his existence, and not a single person has ever been able to prove that there was a historical Jesus. That is why you manufacture questions to shield yourself from answering those put to you by others.

At any rate, I can think of a perfectly good reason to invent him: Power. Imagine the kind of power you might have if you could convince the people in a highly religious area that their prophecies had been fulfilled, their old laws made unnecessary, and a new way forward had been given to them by their own God, and only YOU could show them that way.

[rug]

78. So, you believe in Palestine, in the mid to late first century C.E.,

early Christians invented Christ to acquire Power?

Fascinating. It reads like fiction.

Please produce your evidence of this astounding theory.

[darkstar3]

79. First off, it's a hypothesis, not a theory,

and secondly, it's no less valid than the actual existence of deity-man born of a virgin who performed several miracles and then raised himself from the dead. That couldn't possibly be fiction, could it? Because you have ways of distinguishing that story from fiction, but so far you refuse to share what those supposedly clear methods of distinction are.

[rug]

80. So the purported lack of historical evidence supports the hypothesis he did not exist.

I'll accept that as a hypothesis.

But what remains is the development, rather early, of a movement centered around a Jesus Christ.

That is more persuasive of historical existence than a plot to seize power.

[darkstar3]

81. I disagree,

and you're still not explaining anything close to how a person distinguishes between fiction and religion.

[rug]

83. Read closely the history of Palestine and Rome between 30 CE and 100 CE.

Tell me you cannot distinguish between the Acts of the Apostles and the Iliad.

It's self-evident.

[darkstar3]

85. Are you claiming that the books of the Bible ARE

the history of Palestine and Rome during that time?

Furthermore, the Acts of the Apostles are not in themselves the basis for a religion. Why limit your view only to that one book, when the Bible contains so many more? And why claim that this one small section of the Bible is self-evidently non-fiction when you have no corroborating documents to show that the Apostles actually did the things talked about in the book of Acts? And finally, doesn't the phrase "self-evidently non-fiction" seem a little like an oxymoron to you?

[rug]

86. Not at all. Don't you think the work of William Shirer is self-evidently non-fiction?

As to the rest of your post, keep your own claims to yourself. My posts are quite clear.

[darkstar3]

87. I don't think anything can be self-evidently non-fiction.

The key word being "self".

I still don't see you defining a clear distinction between religion and fiction.

(And considering that I don't accept things on simple faith, that is the paradigm I intend to apply to your claim of clarity.)

[cleanhippie]

94. After following (or trying to) your posts, they are anything but clear.

I fail to understand why you ask so many strange questions yet choose to ignore the questions posed to you. At risk of insult, your arguing skills seem to be akin to "I know you are but what am I."

I think the question of how YOU tell the difference between religion and fiction is very apropos, so why will you not answer it?

[skepticscott]

96. A noble effort

but vain, given the intellectual bankruptcy you're addressing the request to. You're new, but you'll learn....

[rug]

102. That's an intelligent statement.

[rug]

99. You find asking why you believe Jesus was invented is strange?

You should consider the implications of your assertion that he was invented.

As I said, the difference between fiction and religion is self-evident, unless you consider the DaVinci Code to be nonfiction.

[darkstar3]

100. Then show us the self-evident difference between fiction and Scientology.

If the difference between fiction and religion is so clear and self-evident as you claim, then there must be something for you to point to in Scientology that distinguishes it clearly from fiction.

[rug]

103. Fiction does not involve a series of practices and E-meters.

[darkstar3]

104. Considering those practices are based on fiction, and the E-meters themselves

measure fictional items, that statement doesn't hold much water, nor does it show the clear distinction between Scientology and fiction.

[rug]

105. It does if you don't have a two dimensional view of religion.

I don't see many English majors heading to Nantucket with harpoons.

[darkstar3]

106. So Dianetics is less fictional than Moby Dick?

Not buying the bullshit...

[rug]

107. And I don't buy the bullshit you believe they're the same.

[darkstar3]

108. You're telling me you actually think that

Dianetics is less fictional than Moby Dick? How, exactly?

[rug]

109. I'm telling you not even you believe they're the same.

[darkstar3]

110. And now you're guessing,

because once again you don't want to answer the question as to how you separate fiction and religion. Why do you spend such effort on NOT answering this question? Wouldn't it just be easier to tell us WHAT that clear distinction you've referred to so many times is?

[rug]

111. Unless you're obstinately ignorant, it's not a guess.

[darkstar3]

112. Namecalling and diversion will get you nowhere.

I still see nothing from you in the way of a description for that supposedly clear distinction between religion and fiction. If it were so clear, if it were so distinct, wouldn't you have an easier time pointing it out to ignorant-ole-me?

[rug]

113. I thought it was "us".

[darkstar3]

114. More diversion.

Cowardice, thy name is rug.

[rug]

116. Nice namecalling.

[darkstar3]

117. What's good for the goose.

I notice you still won't answer the simple question put to you. Nor will you answer the question of "why". Now anyone else who reads this thread will have to guess at both.

[rug]

118. I don't answer stupid questions, especially insincere stupid questions.

[darkstar3]

119. Correction:

You don't answer questions when you fear the answers, or do not have the answers, and that means most questions asked here in R/T.

So why the fuck do you even bother posting, if all you're going to do is avoid the questions? To break the rules and call other people stupid?

[rug]

121. See 114 for rulebreaking

Do you think anyone actually fears your tedious retread questions? I have yet to read an intelligent question - or thought - in one of your posts, just the same old worn talking points.

[darkstar3]

123. Your dismissal, or attempt at such, is noted, but

if the thoughts were unoriginal or unintelligent then why do you have such problems answering them?

[BurtWorm]

90. #88

[BurtWorm]

89. See #88 for a possible answer.

[RKP5637]

17. yes, I think there is a basis for his existence. n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

18. I find it unlikely that most religious stories are based on anything factual.

Were, for example, the Twelve Labors of Hercules based on factual events? How about the story of Loki's Wager? What about that story where Lord Ganesh's father cut his head off, mistakenly thinking he was the bastard child of another man, only to (rather comically) replace it with that of an elephant? How about the fish eating Orisis's penis? Awareness only of certain things is necessary for such stories to come about, not knowledge of real events. Think about the Augean stables - in order for the Greeks to come up with that, they only needed to now about the existence stables, and that some were dirtier than others. Think of the Noahic Flood, and the countless other flood stories throughout the world that supposedly corroborate it. These stories require only knowledge of what a flood is to be written - not factual knowledge of a specific flood in history. I think we need only look so far as Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard to see that religious stories are quite easily fabricate from sheer nothingness.

[RKP5637]

28. Thanks for adding this. I was too brief. I agree with what you've said. Thanks! n/t

[onager]

49. Couple of others, stolen for the Buy-bull

1. (Parting) Water Sports - the yarn about Moses parting the Red Sea seems to have been stolen directly from an Egyptian myth about a real ruler - Pharoah Sneferu (the first Pharoah to try pyramid-building in a big way. Unfortunately, the space aliens steered him wrong and the result was the Bent and Red Pyramids, which we can still see today.) Sneferu was a well-loved Pharoah, famous for treating poor and rich subjects alike, which is reflected in the many tall tales the common people made up about him.

The Egyptian version: Sneferu was floating down the Nile with some of his harem women. A young woman dipped her hand in the water and lost her ring. Sneferu tried to cheer her up by saying he would buy her all the rings she wanted. But her father had given her that particular ring. It was irreplaceable and she was inconsolable. Sneferu ordered his court magician to part the waters of the Nile and expose dry land, so the ring could be recovered.

2. Baby in a Basket, Part I - the Akkadian king Sargon The Great said his mother put him in a basket and set him loose in the Euphrates River as an infant, to save his life. That sounds vaguely familiar.

3. Baby in a Basket, Part 2 - once upon a time, a god impregnated a virgin and the inevitable little results had to be put in a basket and floated down a river etc. etc. A kindly shepherd found the basket and became an instant father. In this case, the god was Mars, the virgin was of the Vestal variety, and the brats were Romulus and Remus, the legendary founders of Rome.

[darkstar3]

22. I would say

*cough*Scientology*cough* but then that would be ignoring the word "often" in your post...

I think, though, that you're playing it fast and loose with the word "based". Here's why:

Mormonism - belief in God and Jesus, but started by the teachings of Joseph Smith
Islam - belief in only one God, but started by the teachings of Muhammed
Buddhism - belief varies from sect to sect, but involves universal balance and nirvana, started by the teachings of the Buddha.

I could go on, but I won't, because I want to come to my point. When you say religion is "often based on real people", I take your meaning to be that religion is focused on those people, like Christianity is on Jesus (see downthread for the historicity debate). I don't think that's the case for many, if not most religions. Religions are started by people who teach about and base the religion on other things, like gods or discipline or ritualistic sacrifice. That being the case it seems to me that while religions are started by people they are still based in things that are difficult to tell from fiction.

[RKP5637]

27. Excellent points! I was speaking mostly of Christianity. Thanks for clarifying! n/t

[cleanhippie]

52. But that seems to be the problem.

There is no evidence that these were real people or real events, hence the fiction claim.

[Cleobulus]

97. Explain historical fiction then?

I mean, many of those novels and stories have real historical people in them, sometimes use quotes or excerpts from historical people's writings, etc. Hell, I'm reading a book, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" now, a book written(embellished) from Lincoln's own words. What's substantially different between this and the Bible?

[ironbark]

10. Then take the most recent major living religion and apply critical thinking/examination.

That could be Scientology, Baha’i or Islam.

Scientology (or any religious movement in the last 100 years) fits the category of- To early to tell, in historical terms, if it will endure and is worthy of discussion/consideration as a religion….or just another passing cult/fad. But I would be happy to put up the case for Scientology being fiction from a fiction writer ;-)

Baha’i? An independent global faith, is interesting, historically accessible (1840’s) and independently observed in its formation and development…..but still unfamiliar to many.

Islam? The most recent of the worlds Major Living Religious Traditions and is a prime candidate to determine the distinction between “religion and fiction”. (Open to any other candidate/ suggestions)

Starting with ‘the prophet’ and the ‘book’….the Quran was recited to others who in turn memorised and recited it back to Mohammed. This places Islam in a unique position among the major faiths-
1/ There is no historical doubt about the existence of the individual Mohammed.*
2/ There is no historical/scriptural doubt about exactly what he said/revealed.*
(*Global/Satanic conspiracy theory Looney Tunes aside)

There is certainly doubt/disagreement about what passages >mean<, but there is no variation in text from one version/book to another as there is with prior traditions.

So the author/revealer (take your pick) is historically solid and the text/scripture is unvarying verbatim record of what was transmitted.(Or at least- as near thereto as we have for any other historicaly verified figure and text)

That leaves the determination of “distinction between religion and fiction” to be based on the content of the text.

A critical thinking examination might start here-

THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE by
Dr. Maurice Bucaille


http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I clove them asunder and I made every living thing out of water. Will they still not believe?” Qur’an, 21:30

It’s an interesting read/starting point…..for an open or opening mind ;-)

[rrneck]

14. Both require the suspension of disbelief. nt

[jody]

15. IMO there is science/mathematics and all else is fiction. n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

16. I think religion is intended to be believed, while fiction is not.

Fiction is written with the clear intended understanding of the audience that it did not happen. I don't think JK Rowling has ever insisted that the events of Harry Potter actually happened. Religious claims, however, are intended to be understood as having actually happened, even if only "metaphorically" (I don't have an emoticon for jerk-off motions, so please mentally insert one here.) Interestingly, it is often the very religious who have difficulty telling even that which is intended as fiction from reality.

[jody]

19. Christianity is clearly history based, i.e. life of one Jesus, but other religions are based on

philosophy including irreligion at least IMO.

[darkstar3]

21. Clearly?

There is no consensus, and there's certainly no evidence, that Jesus actually existed in history, so how can a faith centered around him and his actions be "clearly history based"?

[jody]

23. Understand but it's still history or claimed history as opposed to other religions that are based on

philosophy IMO.

[darkstar3]

24. Hmm...

Well, as an example of what you're saying about other religions, see #22.

Then consider this sentence:

Christianity - belief in God and in Jesus, started supposedly by the teachings of Jesus himself, though some claim started by the teachings of Paul.

I'm still not sure that I would call it history based.

[Cleobulus]

25. Uhm, quite a few religions, from what I've read of them, are based on some type of events...

from the past, a history, if you will. The Buddha may have really existed, its just as likely as Jesus existing, after all. Mythologies are the same way, Troy was a real city, does that mean that Helen of Troy really existed? Its hard to guess, and that's the problem with ancient accounts of history, particularly when you add in the mythological or religious framework. Things get changed around, and stories embellished. This is as true with the Bible as with Homer's stories, or the Vedas, etc.

Christianity isn't unique in claiming some type of historical basis, to even forward such a preposterous notion is being ignorant of religions such as Shintoism(who is the Royal Family supposed to be descended from again?) and numerous other religions of the world.

[BurtWorm]

44. The jury is out on how history- based Christianity actually is.

It's rather astonishing, in fact, to still find people who are innocent of the controversy over jesus's historicity!

[jody]

46. In #23 I qualified my earlier statement as history or claimed history. n/t

[cleanhippie]

55. I think there is still a lot of debate about that.

The claim that christianity is history based is still up for debate, with the debate going in favor against any true historical accuracy.

[crumb77]

26. agreed!

It seems that the bible was written as non-fiction, but as time went on, the advancement of education become more prevalent and strengthened our sense of logic and reasoning. As many of the textures become more difficult to swallow, the meek, brainwashed, and outlandishly stubborn advocates of religion simply slap a metaphor label on it in an attempt to desperately hold ground as we ride into an age of science. If the bible was originally meant to be metaphorical, or half and half, or whatever, it probably would have mentioned that in the bible. If it was supposed to just be assumed, well, what a catastrophic disaster of global confusion, delusion, oppression, violence, genacide....etc.... could have been avoided by just adding a simple one sentence disclaimer.

thanks
Crumb77

[trotsky]

29. Your beliefs are fiction. Mine are religion.

Ta da. :)

[Iggo]

31. Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is your doxy.

B-)

[cleanhippie]

56. Nice trick!

[skepticscott]

30. Well, there is a clear distinction between

fiction and myth, and religion is largely based on myth. That's a place to start...

[darkstar3]

40. Is there?

As far as I can tell, the only clear distinction between fiction and myth is that people believe myth.

[skepticscott]

43. Well, I guess it depends on how you're using the term "fiction"

If you're using it in the sense of the fiction section of a bookstore, a story invented by an author, that's different from the more general meaning of anything false or without factual basis.

Myths are traditional stories told within a culture, and they typically do not have an identifiable original author or creator.

[darkstar3]

60. A story that is untrue. That is what I mean.

Myths are fiction at their heart, because they are fanciful stories told as narratives about things that never actually happened. They are told much like fables because they contain morals, explanations, or nuggets of truth.

[skepticscott]

67. It's not quite that simple

Since there a great many stories that can't be easily classified as "true" or "untrue". If the Trojan war actually happened, does that make the Iliad true or untrue...or not clearly either? And we can't know all about how such stories were regarded by audiences early in their histories. To regard myths like those of the ancient Greeks or Hebrews as simply "fiction", no different than the latest David Baldacci novel, misses a lot of understanding.

[darkstar3]

68. I am, at the moment, unconcerned with the reception of the story,

but rather with its content. There are many fictional stories that incorporate into them several elements of fact or truth. The entire series of The West Wing is one such example, and there are many more to be found both in modern media and in ancient writings.

The way in which the audience reacts to a story has very little to do with whether or not the actual content of that story is fictional. The stories of Zeus and his various children were fiction, but that didn't stop people from revering the stories of Hercules and holding him up as if he were some sort of real and ancient hero.

And so we return to the problem first voiced in this subthread: What IS the clear distinction between myth and fiction?

[skepticscott]

82. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find many fictional

stories that don't incorporate any elements of fact or truth, but if your definition of fiction is my second offering, then myth would simply be a trivial subset of "fiction", and there would be no distinction. That's not the way I was seeing the term "fiction" however, since I don't think that's a particularly useful way to do so, in light of your original question. It's true that the stories in the Bible are "fictional" under your definition, but again, trivially so, and in a way that leaves out a great deal of understanding.

[darkstar3]

84. Elaborate please.

What understanding are you talking about? Are you talking specifically about audience reception, or about something more regarding the content?

[skepticscott]

91. What I mean is that

if you simply lump the Iliad and other Greek myths (for example) together with the latest novels by Patricia Cornwall or David Baldacci under the general umbrella of "fiction", simply because they all are stories that contain untrue content, and make no further distinctions based on how they came into being or what their place and function was in the originating culture, you miss out on understanding a great deal about them. Myths are stories, but they are not just stories.

[darkstar3]

93. True,

but once again you're hitting on the idea that some fiction has more power to speak to us than other fiction. Powerful fiction plays on our own strengths and weaknesses, incorporates truisms and even truth from our own world, and elicits a deep and often very emotional response from the reader. That doesn't change the fact that it is still fiction.

An example: It doesn't matter how many people read that awful series known as Twilight and join "Team Edward", it will never mean that Edward Cullen existed. The fact that Edward is a stand-in character for Joseph Smith makes the story more than simple one-dimensional entertainment, but does nothing to factualize Edward's existence.

Do you see what I'm getting at? No matter the power fiction may hold over our imaginations or our emotions, at the end of the day it is still fiction. That is the fact that was ignored in the foundation of Scientology, and I believe the same could be said of many other religions as well.

[laconicsax]

140. There you go changing the subject back to the OP.

Edward Cullen does too exist! Using basic Internet tools, I can find a list of over 100 people named Edward Cullen. He also has a ton of Twitter profiles.

Are you telling me those aren't real?

Try this on for size: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=forks,+WA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.724817,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Forks,+Clallam,+Washington&t=h&z=13">Forks is a real place, and there are lots of people named Edward Cullen. Therefore, Twilight is a true story. It isn't just a horribly written novel with one-dimensional characters and narrated by a Mary-Sue.

Stalin! Stalin! Atheists! Stalin!

Similarly, http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=jerusalem&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.724817,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Jerusalem,+Israel&t=h&z=11">Jerusalem exists and was under Roman rule 2000 years ago. Therefore, Jesus was a real person and the New Testament is true.

French Revolution!

(Twilight isn't entertaining, no matter how many levels of meaning it may have.)

[darkstar3]

141. (I know, I was looking for something banal that had a following.)

nt.

[RagAss]

32. If you mean you can't find a bible of any faith in the Fiction section

at Barnes and Noble....then I agree. But that's as far as I'll go.

[darkstar3]

41. Clearly you've never visited a bookstore after me.

:evilgrin:

[RagAss]

42. LOL !!!

[unblock]

33. a religion is, or can be, more than just a mythology

i think your statement might be better rephrased as "there is a clear distinction between religious mythology and fiction", which, i'm guessing, gets at the heart of your topic.

religion, often having little to nothing to do with any mythology, includes rites and both individual and community identity. these aspects of religion have no basis for comparison with fiction.


what does keeping kosher have to do with fiction?
the believe that the commandments in the torah are were given by god, that you can say is or isn't fiction. but the cultural decision of many jews to mark their identity as jews by keeping kosher has nothing to do with anything that could be called fiction or not.

[darkstar3]

36. You raise a very interesting point,

but it is the source as much as the reason for religious observances that matters. I'll demonstrate by answering your question.

"What does keeping kosher have to do with fiction?"
Trace it back. Jews keep kosher for one of two reasons:
1. Strict religious adherence, which means they do it because a book that might just be fiction tells them to.
2. Tradition, which means they do it because their family does it.

#1 has the fiction problem already built into it. #2 traces back to the fiction problem, because traditional Jews wouldn't have that tradition in the first place if a book that might just be fiction hadn't told their ancestors to keep kosher.

See the connection? No matter why an individual marks a religious observance, that observance takes its origination and basis from something that must be somehow distinguished from fiction. What I'm looking for is how people arrive at that distinguishment.

[unblock]

37. i think you may be mistaking the origin of the traditions

in judaism, at least, i've always believed the traditions came first, developed among the 13 tribes of israel simply because different cultures develop different customs. later came the stories, perhaps to explain why it was that decendants of those tribes had certain customs and rituals while non-decendants did not.

i don't think the scientology chronology, where the book clearly came first, is a requirement at all for religions, and perhaps only applies to islam, mormonism, and christianity.

[darkstar3]

39. Contradicting your belief does not constitute a mistake on my part.

Whether the BOOK comes first or not, the progression of a religion is clear: Teachings* lead to followers, followers lead to a religion. A religion must be founded before religious observances can exist.

I think the problem of us talking around each other is actually the difference between "tradition" and "religious observance." That's a very tough distinction, JUST like the distinction between fiction and religion. I think it important to explore how and why we make both of these distinctions, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the subject.

*As in the teachings of Jesus, the teachings of the Buddha, or of the Dalai Lama, and so on.

[unblock]

48. my point is that the customs might have predated the explanation

a people might do things simply because they do things, or because they had a certain technology or living situation for a time, then it becomes a tradition. i think most of the practices we now read about in leviticus were like that, only i believe leviticus came after.

my point, in this case, is that i believe the traditions (at least most of them) arose for reasons having nothing to do with religion, and the religious rationalization thrust itself later over a more mundane explanation, which was then forgotten.

so TODAY, you could say it's hard to distinguish, except, for me, if it looks like a non-religious tradition, then it probably is; and, if it looks like a religious tradition, it probably is.

so the catholic confession is most certainly a religious tradition, it makes little sense outside the context of religion. but tearing one's clothing at the corners is more likely a non-religious tradition later written down in the torah.

[darkstar3]

58. I don't agree with your belief in how these traditions arose.

If you have documentation of this process, then that might change.

[BurtWorm]

45. Are you sure the thirteen tribes are not a fiction?

[unblock]

47. i'm not sure of much of anything that far back, especially when religion can shroud the truth

but the traditions in judaism scream of tribalism. whether it was 13 or not, i don't know, but many of the "commandments" regarding daily practices certainly could have just become local customs having nothing to do with religion, pre-dating religion.

so it always made sense to me that the stories and the religion might have cropped up after.

[BurtWorm]

77. I think there may be some truth in your view of how rites come to be.

The injunction against pork, for example, has long been presumed to be the relic of an ancient trichinosis outbreak. According to Israeli archaelogists, it's definitely older than Judaism--older than the kingdom of Juda, in any case. They found evidence of it in the remains of hill tribes around Canaan in the second or third millennium (I can't remember which), where they found bones of every type of animal found in the Middle East at that time *except* for pigs. (This is based on my reading, several years ago, of The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. The proponent of a fiction does not believe it to be true. N.T.

[MadMaddie]

35. According to the definitions they are almost one in the same

I would add the following to Religion:

Religion is based on putting fear into the hearts of the common man - note I don't include the top 2%. Why because more oft than not the top 2% are the ones using religion to rule the common man.

Religion is a a tool.

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Fiction -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiction

fic·tion (fkshn)
n.
1.
a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
3.
a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.

[ZombieHorde]

38. Religion and fiction are spelled and pronounced completely differently from one another. nt

[cleanhippie]

50. This makes the assumption that there IS a clear distinction.

I, for one, do not think there is a distinction at all.

[DeSwiss]

57. Fiction, although often influenced by other's stories......

...is generally the result of "original thinking" on the part of the author.

Religion by contrast is almost always the embellishment, rearrangement and renaming of characters from the outright theft of the religious fictional ideas of others who came before them.



To See What I Mean
Click The Sun

http://www.archive.org/stream/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft#page/n3/mode/2up">







(Also, the storytellers of nonreligious fiction almost never rape children.)

Thank you.

[darkstar3]

59. Clearly you've never read Eragon,

or the later works of Terry Brooks.

[laconicsax]

65. Snap!

[DeSwiss]

66. Clearly. n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

120. Are you saying that the author is not original

or that he is a child rapist?

[DeSwiss]

122. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

But then neither am I certain my initial response was understood. But I did try to be clear.

My initial post was in direct response to the OP's question, whether or not I found a clear distinction between religious texts and fiction.

My answer was to the affirmative that I do, and I stated that I thought that most authors of fiction are in-general original although they may often be influenced by the works of others.

As opposed to most religious texts which have been shown to be copies of copies of copies of others people's works and ideas.

As for the aforementioned author of these dragon stories, no I am not familiar with him at all. So no I'm not saying anything about him other than I had never heard of him before now, nor any of his dragon stories, until now.

I hope I clarified myself.

Thank you.

[darkstar3]

125. I got your point.

I was just trying to make a joke about the idea of "originality" in certain circles of fiction. Sometimes I wonder how people get their stuff published...

[DeSwiss]

126. No problemo.

It's just that I suppose I often feel as though I'm a little out of my depth, and maybe get a little self-conscious whenever I'm discussing some the latest fiction writers, and most definitely with regard to movies and video games. Most of which I do not either read, see or play. Although I don't consider myself an oldtimer (in my own estimation anyhow), most of these media sources don't interest me much because it seems as though I've seen or read them all before.

Although I will confess to having had a bizarre attraction to the video game "Silent Hill" from a few years back. But that's as far as I'll commit.

;)

Thank you.

[darkstar3]

127. You're not missing much. :)

Except for Firefly. Watch that, on DVD if possible.

[laconicsax]

136. Firefly has the same internal logic as the Star Wars prequels

Sorry, but it's true.

It was a neat idea for a show--a space western that's actually a western, but without establishing some key things about the show's universe, the whole thing winds up making little sense in even less time. The whole thing stinks of laziness and if not for the kitsch value of seeing cowboys in a spaceship and our need to root for the underdog, I doubt the show would have amassed such a fan base.

[darkstar3]

137. Everyone's a critic...

Personally, I've read a few things outside the actual series that were sanctioned, written, or confirmed by Whedon. If he'd been given the chance to expound on his ideas beyond 13 episodes, some of which didn't even air, those problems would have been dealt with.

That's Whedon's way. He doesn't care so much about getting plot and structure through until he can make you care about the characters first. It doesn't mean he hasn't thought about it, just that he doesn't want to distract you with it yet.

But that's a debate we can have in the lounge sometime. :)

[laconicsax]

138. Might as well have it here.

It would be no less off-topic than some of the responses in the average R/T thread.

Just remember to call the Alliance "Stalin" the reavers "Mao" the Blue Sun Corporation "the league of militant atheists," and ramble about context and metaphor when you don't want to answer a question.

In "Serenity," it was revealed that Stalin inadvertently created Mao. Therefore atheism is evil.

[darkstar3]

139. .

:rofl:

That was beautiful.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

135. What's to misunderstand?

You made two points about authors of fiction:

a) They're mostly original
b) They're mostly not pedophiles

Darkstar said that the author of Eragon was demonstrably not one of those two. I was hoping he meant unoriginal, but I wasn't sure, so I asked him to clarify.

Your points are right out in the open and don't need any clarification. To address them, I think that the good author knows exactly what archetypes he is exploiting in his writing, and has some idea of what comparisons to other works of literature a well-read audience will be making. For example, when reading Harry Potter, we should be making subconscious comparisons between Dumbledore, Merlin, and Gandalf, between Voldemort, Darth Vader, and Milton's Lucifer, between Harry and every other Christ figure back to the OG himself (though his was by no means the first salvific death. Which brings us to your other point.)

I think the exact same process is undergone by somebody fabricate a religious myth, he would do well to take the effective already-existing myths into account. If I wanted to make up a story about a fratricide, I had damn well better know something about Romulus killing Remus and Cain killing Abel.

[darkstar3]

124. I was saying that the authors were unoriginal. Incredibly so.

[Cleobulus]

98. Eh, not really...

I'm not saying originality is dead, but most fiction is derived from past stories or books, not plagiarized, but concepts for plots, general outlines, shared worlds or characters, etc. are quite common, and always existed to a certain extent in all fiction. Indeed, we could call today's fiction, particularly the fantasy and sci-fi stories as a continuation of the old time myths and folktales of old. Particularly in the fantasy genre, many of their concepts are borrowed heavily from myths and legends.

[saltpoint]

62. It's a great debate question but for my part, I don't

accept that fiction is fiction.

Fiction is more of a mosaic of degrees of truths. A ghost story around a campfire can be plausible if not strictly 'true' because its components are designed to be possible. It has a strategic aim and relies on atmosphere and convincibility.

Huck Finn is a 'fictional' character but there were kids like him living up and down the MIssissippi River in the early part of the 19th century. There were caves and cats and graveyards and freckles and so forth as well. In the big mosaic, Huck is pretty real, actually.

I like Huck when he accepts possible eternal punishment for deciding to help Jim. He's at his best there. He knows the stakes and does the right thing anyway. It would fair to say that Twain was making a point in a time when that point would not have been especially popular.

One of the problems with "religions" is that their narrative writers aren't nearly as gifted at language as Mark Twain. Some of them are downright dull and sloppy, in fact. In the New Testament, we can read that the writers of the gospels sound sincere, but they can't get their story straight, and there's a lot of fog out in the back yard, and the back yard goes back a hell of a lot of miles. In the NT mosaic, I like the Jesus who defends (and saves the life of) the woman in the pit whose villagemates are about to stone her to death. That could have happened. Or not. Hard to say. But it is at least plausible and makes a point about who's perfect and who isn't, and about prioritizing transgressions. Here, a woman is defended and saved. In Twain, it is an escaping slave.

The world' religious narratives are not without their poetry, but IMO the greater passages are the plausible ones. As a reader, I'm no more inclined to believe that Jesus could walk on the surface of the water than I am that Huck Finn could walk on the surface of the Mississippi. Twain makes no claim that Huck can do any such thing.

That is also a clear distinction.

[Cleobulus]

101. The problem you mention with religions is that they didn't have a single narrator...

Mark Twain wrote the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, we know this from historical records and publication history. The Gospels have no consistency because they were written by different people, at different times, about a guy who possibly existed before any of those writers were born.

Mark Twain, by contrast, was probably, at least to an extent, being autobiographical about his breakthrough novel, he wrote about what he KNEW, hence part of the reason it sounds realistic. His experiences, first hand or from friends he grew up with, along the Mississippi and the towns and cities and peoples of the area helped give his novel atmosphere.

The Gospel writers were at least a Generation removed from Jesus, and some of them may not have even lived in the area to begin with. Its like trying to write a biography about a guy based purely on hearsay, its not going to end up being very accurate.

[saltpoint]

115. Yes. Not to slam the authors of the gospels for

sport, but only to agree with you that their authorship differs sharply from Twain's tales of Huck and Tom.

As distinctions go, there can be a long list.

Point taken.

[Silent3]

128. They're may be varying degrees of realism...

...but I wouldn't call the kinds of distinctions you're making about Huck Finn matters of degree of fiction. If you're making up characters that aren't specific real people, no matter how much they might resemble one or more real people, and putting these invented characters into stories of events that never actually happened, no matter how much those events are similar to real events or how probable such events might be, you're writing fiction.

The only sort of gray area I see (and I'd still tend to call it a form of fiction) is historical dramas where the story mostly follows known history, but takes a few small dramatic liberties, like composite characters or imagined conversations.

[saltpoint]

129. We can delineate the fictional character but have

no instrument to gauge the figures in the New Testament, to use one example.

Someone now called 'Mark' wrote a gospel, or is said to have, and in any case there is a gospel by that author we can read. It could be argued that that gospel's author is putting forth a point of view. We cannot know if the figures in that narrative are real or not. They may be, or may not be. They could be based on real people. Or not.

A case could be made that the ideas which resonate from a 'fictional' author and the author of 'Mark' are far closer in purpose and nature than they are different.

[Silent3]

131. "Putting forth a point of view" has nothing to do with whether...

...something is fictional or not, regardless of whether the view is truly someone's view or not.

For example, I'm all for letting people gay or straight marry whichever consenting adult they wish to marry. I could write an essay explaining my position. That would be nonfiction. I could write an uplifting story about a gay marriage that turns out well, or a tragic story of two gay people who are kept apart by discrimination. Either could convey my true view on the matter, but I'd be writing fiction if I made up the people and events. Even if my characters and events were based on real people and events, if I were deliberately departing from an accurate historical account of real events, I would be engaging in the creation of fiction.

It could be that I write a story about a gay marriage, I don't explicitly say whether it's a true story or not, and it's plausible enough that you're unsure whether the story is true. That would make the fictionality of the story indeterminate, but the story is still either fictional or nonfictional even if the answer to that question is unknown.

The main place I see things getting a bit fuzzy is that an author's intent has to be considered if you consider one additional situation: inaccurate history. I don't think if someone sets forth with the intent to tell a true story, but inadvertently gets some of their facts wrong, the product of these errors can properly be put in the literary category of fiction (the insult value of sneeringly deriding a flawed attempt at an historical account as belonging in the fiction section of the library not withstanding).

When it comes to the Bible, I don't think very much of it is factually true, but the manner in which it deviates from factuality is likely to be a mix of deliberate fiction in some parts and inaccurate history in others.

[saltpoint]

132. I'd say point of view is inherent in an author's

work, no matter the work and no matter the author.

Even a non-ficitonist who strives for the 'objective' rendering.

That would apply, IMO, both Twain the 19th century novelist and Twain the 19th century essayist or letter-writer. And it would apply to the author of 'Mark.'

You may have seen the Adam Gopnik piece in the May 24th NEW YORKER, "What Did Jesus Do? Reading and unreading the Gospels." I think he nails 'Mark,' as it were.

Agree with you that the gospels suggest deviations from actualities. It's a thornier bush for there being no way to fact-check, even from the historian's cool-browed angle. I suspect that every head of every group of monks who copied those texts over many centuries took out what they didn't like, or altered passages to their preference, or added language as they saw fit to add. The result appears to be a surreal mural. Intermittently dazzling as art / literature but not 'true' in any strict sense of the word.

All the same, I like it that a universal text has a character in it who argues for mercy for the woman in the pit.

[Silent3]

133. Is that just an additional point you wanted to add...

...to what I wrote, or did you somehow get the impression that I was saying an author's point of view didn't matter in some types of writing? If so, that is certainly not something I was saying.

I had only two points about point of view and an author's intent to make:

1) Conveying a true point of view is insufficient, almost irrelevant, to whether a written work is fiction or nonfiction.

2) Distinguishing between fiction and merely inaccurate history might put one in the position of having to divine the intent of the author, which might not be possible in many cases.

Even in fully accurate history an author's point of view still comes into play by means of which facts the author chooses to convey and emphasize, and in any interpretation of those facts that the author provides.

At any rate, I suppose another category should be considered: legends

If forced to put legends into either the category fiction or nonfiction, I'd definitely go with fiction. I'd prefer not to have to make such a black/white distinction, however, because not only do many legends have at least of some basis in historical fact, they have generally been passed down through generations of telling and retelling. The person retelling a legend may not himself/herself have any particular intent or concern regarding relating historical truth or telling a fictional story. Those who write down or retell a legend may simply be passing on something about which they themselves have no knowledge of the degree of accuracy.

[saltpoint]

134. I think we're very close on the question in the original

post, Silent3.