Costco apologizes for Bibles labeled "fiction"

boing
102

Well, sure. But that shouldn’t be unexpected. Flat-Earthers would be similarly dismissed, and probably by a majority of American Christians (unless things are worse than I hope). And so would adult believers in Santa Claus.

When one dismisses a faith or loses a religion or “grows out of” a fantastical belief, or even simply finds another person’s beliefs to be demonstrably wrong (or, more likely, demonstrably far-fetched), then it’s quite difficult for one to afford that belief a large degree of respect. That’s why sectarian warfare is so stubborn, widespread, and never-ending. The best we can hope for, I suppose, is that we all just shut up about it. I remember my parents speaking of a time in decades past when it was considered incredibly gauche to discuss religion and politics at all during any social gatherings that were not directly related to political or religious function, for the very reason that somebody’s gonna get offended by somebody else’s disrespect for their particular superstition. Since people (on a societal level) seem to have forgotten how to shaddap and keep their opinions to themselves, the strategy du jour would seem to be to develop a thicker skin.

Or resign oneself to getting in fights over this stuff.

The alternative would be to afford every solemn courtesy and respect to each and every Scientologist, 9/11 Truther, Druid, UFO Abductee, ghostbuster, anti-vaxxer, Presbyterian, cultist, and four-year-old one ever meets. Which would surely make one the most courteous and respectful gentlebeing on the block.

3 Likes
103

Can it be a fact if a joke is funny or not? Or is it both? Or neither?

104

I don’t think anyone here is dismissing all Christians as close minded assholes, tough there does exist a sizable close minded asshole population in this world. I think people are just dismissing them as people that believe in magic. Honestly, I just slap the average Congregationalist or Unitarian (two harmless Christian denominations) into the same category as people that believe in tarot card magic, get their fortune read regularly, try to balance their chi, worship the goddess, or that go burn sage to make the evil spirits go away; harmless people to try and avoid making disparaging comments about woo and magic around.

Think of how you feel when someone tells you that they just bought some awesome power healing crystals from a guru that is going to balance their chi, and that is pretty much how I feel when dealing with a Christian that isn’t seeking shove their beliefs down my throat at the point of a gun. Getting the Bible labeled as fiction is like a woo store labeling power healing crystals as “inert rock” by accident. It is funny to laugh at, but I would probably try and avoid snickering around a friend who believes in that kind of magical nonsense.

1 Like
105

actually, i’m starting to like russell crowe. see the man with the iron fists yet?

106

Times are tough. What with the increased taxes levied on rolling papers and the steady inflation of the price of toilet paper, people are starting to feel the pinch. It would a bit presumptuous of those Gideon people to expect that every admirer of their complimentary gift would choose to use it in only one manner.

After all, truth be told, many of the same stories and legends found in the Gideons’ book are related by Herodotus with far better style, voice and fundamental writing technique. Indeed when I travelled frequently for work, I often wished that Herodotus’ “Histories” had proven as popular with the Gideons. But, alas!

107

So true. And don’t forget the Epic of Gilgamesh: a lot of the same stories, the oldest of which have been dated to around the 18th century BCE. If nothing else, the Christian Bible is guilty of plagiarism.

3 Likes
108

There was one post in particular that I think was saying exactly this, but I can’t find it. But yes, most people here aren’t being like that.

I always liked the quote, “Religion is like a penis. It’s fine to have it, and it’s fine to be proud of it. Just don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around, and don’t try to shove it down my throat.”

I think we’re pretty much on the same page, in the end.

Also, don’t forget the Mahabharata. I hadn’t heard of it until a couple of years ago, but I read a translated version, and it’s a really good read. And the Shatapatha Brahmana has the flood myth, just like so many other religious texts.

1 Like
109

Apparently nobody here knows the difference between non-fiction and fact. Poetry is non-fiction. Philosophy is non-fiction. Humor is non-fiction. Anything that isn’t explicitly written as a made-up story is considered non-fiction. So regardless of whether you believe in the Bible, the people who wrote it did, which means it is non-fiction.

110

You do a fairly good job of making superstition seem hip.

111

Quite an assumption on your part. I’m aware of the philosophical difficulties involved with the concept of “actual history”. Nonetheless, I think most reasonable people in our cultural milieu would agree that for any question about history there was a “fact of the matter” regardless of whether it’s possible to accurately reconstruct it. Of course, it’s always possible to be unreasonably skeptical or unreasonably credulous about any historical claim of fact but if you wanted to prove, for example, that the Persian invasions of Greece never happened you’d need to overcome a great deal of evidence that the Persians did, in fact, invade Greece.

Well, no it didn’t. It put second-hand reports against first-hand reports and as you yourself stated Herodotus often included somewhat skeptical disclaimers with his second-hand reports. There’s a reason hearsay isn’t accepted as evidence in a trial but testimony is. With good justification we can say Herodotus’ first hand reports are more reliable evidence than what we see in, for example, the gospels which are almost certainly removed from the actual events by many tellings and retellings.

A little bit, I suppose. Herod actually was king at the time. But whereas Herodotus was actually trying to record historical events (albeit without a tradition of historical research or journalism to inform best practices) there’s a lot of reasons to think the writers of the gospel were not trying to do the same thing as Herodotus. Where Herodotus’ narrative is consistent with other evidence this seems to be purposeful. Where the Biblical narrative is consistent with other evidence it seems to be incidental.

You can’t elide the verisimilitude (since you object so strongly to accuracy but fail to offer a word of your own as substitute) of Herodotus compared to the Bible without also eliding the context in which Herodotus and the gospel authors were writing. The equivalency you’ve tried to draw is arguably about as ahistorical as the positivist conception of history that you decry.

Either that or your view of history simply doesn’t deal with the notion that some forms of evidence are more reliable than others in which case your view of history is pretty much incoherent.

112

I think it’s a strange usage because every single book ever written --including fictional works – is a “historical document” in the sense that you use.

113

The Christians you no don’t take the bible as literal fact, amirite?

114

They do, yes. Selectively.

115

this is starting feel like counting angels on the head of a pin, slicing semantics; but ya, everything that s been printed is a historical document technically. But we don t have to pretend that we are some sort of context insensitve software program, we re not. We are senstive to context, and in this case I would say that the amount of aging, how far in the ‘past’ the document is, matters, as well as other factors, such as how incredibly important the bible has been in seeding western culture, from influencing the very interpretation of history as linear rather than cyclical or otherwise (eg. Hegel) to language and the creation of law. So it might stand up as more of a historical document than a chip of pattery with a few letters on it from the same era. To take another example, say the american declaration of independence - I think most would have no problem with saying thats an historical document. But really, why? it could be considered folklore and mythology could it not? inallienable rights? what are they? that s a metaphysical concept. the laws put in place only exist through consensual agreement; does that mean they are not real?

116

Hey man, I was just trying to explain to you why your statements might have been misunderstood. There was a definite problem with communication since I and at least one other person were mistaken about what you meant. That is to say, even in context “historical document” turned out to be a misleading phrase for at least some people reading your comment.

You can argue all day about what could or couldn’t be considered a “historical document” and make a lot of jokes about “context insensitive software” but that wouldn’t change the fact that your statements actually were misunderstood.[quote=“liquidself, post:115, topic:14759”]
To take another example, say the american declaration of independence - I think most would have no problem with saying thats an historical document. But really, why?
[/quote]

Because it is an explicitly political document and, in our particular cultural context, “history” is often used as a short-hand for “political history.”

why? it could be considered folklore and mythology could it not?

I’d say not. Folklore and mythology don’t necessarily have anything to do with metaphysical concepts and metaphysical concepts are not necessarily folklore or mythology. Here’s a definition of folklore:

Folklore (or lore) consists of legends, music, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, fairy tales, stories, tall tales, and customs included in the traditions of a culture, subculture, or group. It also includes the set of practices through which those expressive genres are shared.

Here’s one for mythology:

According to Alan Dundes, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form,[2] although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story.[

I don’t think the Declaration of Independence is consistent with either of those definitions.

117

IIRC the Popol Vuh describes an individual called the “Pus Master” (EDIT: and thus, a Good Book). I haven’t thought to look for it at Costco, though.

2 Likes
118

I did have to look it up (my formal education stopped after a few semesters of community college as a Theatre Arts major, so any holes in my canonical reading are nobody’s fault but mine own), but I think the vanishingly small chance of finding that text at Costco is probably still likelier than finding it at Wal*mart.

So be warned, aspiring Comparative Religion students.

119

I’m just way more skeptical about these discrete facts I keep hearing thrown about as so much proof of the “there” that’s supposed to be there in history, whether narrative, academic, or otherwise. Sure, stuff happened, but that’s a narrative too. And the terms of these narratives are so porous, like Persians, invaded, Greece, and the like. I do agree about unreasonable skepticism, but when that’s countered by undue credulity, I guess I’d rather fall on the side of skepticism. But, sure, folks marched around and stuck weapons into one another, agreed.

I think I mentioned above not wanting to further discuss your exact words re: faux-Athena. It’s a bit of the old “empty chair” argument, and it’s neither enlightening nor pleasurable.

Re: verisimilitide: Compare, if you will, these two fantastic stories from the texts we’re discussing. Here’s Arion’s miraculous rescue by the dolphin in Herodotus:

This Arion, they say, who for the most part of his time stayed with Periander, conceived a desire to sail to Italy and Sicily; and after he had there acquired large sums of money, he wished to return again to Corinth. He set forth therefore from Taras, and as he had faith in Corinthians more than in other men, he hired a ship with a crew of Corinthians. These, the story says, when out in open sea, formed a plot to cast Arion overboard and so possess his wealth; and he having obtained knowledge of this made entreaties to them, offering them his wealth and asking them to grant him his life. With this however he did not prevail upon them, but the men who were conveying him bade him either slay himself there, that he might receive burial on the land, or leap straightway into the sea. So Arion being driven to a strait entreated them that, since they were so minded, they would allow him to take his stand in full minstrel’s garb upon the deck of the ship and sing; and he promised to put himself to death after he had sung. They then, well pleased to think that they should hear the best of all minstrels upon earth, drew back from the stern towards the middle of the ship; and he put on the full minstrel’s garb and took his lyre, and standing on the deck performed the Orthian measure. Then as the measure ended, he threw himself into the sea just as he was, in his full minstrel’s garb; and they went on sailing away to Corinth, but him, they say, a dolphin supported on its back and brought him to shore at Tainaron: and when he had come to land he proceeded to Corinth with his minstrel’s garb. Thither having arrived he related all that had been done; and Periander doubting of his story kept Arion in guard and would let him go nowhere, while he kept careful watch for those who had conveyed him. When these came, he called them and inquired of them if they had any report to make of Arion; and when they said that he was safe in Italy and that they had left him at Taras faring well, Arion suddenly appeared before them in the same guise as when he made his leap from the ship; and they being struck with amazement were no longer able to deny when they were questioned. This is the tale told by the Corinthians and Lesbians alike, and there is at Tainaron a votive offering of Arion of no great size, namely a bronze figure of a man upon a dolphin’s back.

Just dripping with lovely details, that oh-so-realistic passage. And then here’s Mark on the demons and the swine:

And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand; and were choked in the sea.And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid. And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.

Both are quite fantastic events that I think, agreeing with you above, that many “reasonable,” non-supernatural-believing folks would be quite skeptical about. (And Mark seems a touch more “real” to me, but that’s a function of style, primarily tone, in the Greek and here in the KJV.) But if you’re going to introduce verisimilitude as a category for historical truthiness, I’m not sure it helps your argument, as it allows for incredibly fantastic and fictional pieces to be admitted to the bar of history based simply on the stylistic elements pertaining therein, i.e., seeming facts and details, names names names, an authoritative narratorial voice, a grasp of pacing, subordination, and presentation of elements of a story, and so much more. DeFoe would go crazy with this when writing his fiction and his fictive histories some centuries later. So you’re basically arguing my case for me if you’re going to throw out the awful term accuracy and bring in such a fictive, fungible term like verisimilitude as a marker of historical authenticity. For which I thank you. Taken together, they’re both grab-bag narratives of every damn thing the authors wanted to talk about, encyclopedias, and I’m not sure either admits a higher standard of truthiness than the other.

Many forms of “evidence” (a lovely, loaded metaphor, who’s judging? who’s the jury?) provide more convincing narratives than others, sure: of course, when seen from our contemporary viewpoint, which is a construct of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and which we consensually agree to call true, lacking other alternatives. Love those archives, documents, shards of pottery and whatnot, of course. I just think we have such opposed views as to a lot of these things, and I’m particularly of the linguistic-turn school, which finds so many of the basic terms we’ve used problematic, fun, poetic, rhetorical, whereas you seem to see them as more or less having a stable, central meaning. Your shorter dialogues with liquidself are similar, such as your finding the term of historical document to be capable of admitting “every single book ever written” to be strange, whereas that’s exactly how I would define the term in its broadest sense. Cf. your recent (to me tone-deaf) statement that the Declaration isn’t mythology because documents and facts and stuff. You conveniently ignore the DoI’s own mythologizing (all that stuff about freedom and dignity, asserted but not argued), its rhetorical stances, its use of metaphor, its narrative, and its highly-privileged status as a quasi-religious text for the American republic: mythology works, but not if you’re going to insist that mythology is Greek gods and whatnot. I feel that liquidself and I have been discussing these issues in a more critical, post-linguistic-turn, narrative-based sort of way, whereas you and others have been insisting on a stable set of meanings and a “there” that’s there. And it gets to feel that we’re talking right past one another, which is a shame, because it’s a fascinating topic and one that we’re both smart about and highly invested in.

120

Changing the label would be omnipotence, though he’s supposed to have that too.

121

An old acquaintance from college was quite incensed when he found out that his Mythology class included the Bible…

2 Likes