Kant: Sure. Many people in the age of science and reason can fabricate thousands of high-minded stories about other worlds and fantastic happenings. Why?--probably because a lot of it is based on experience; e.g., other sci-fi novels, the advances in space travel, superstitions about aliens and life on other planets, &c. Nevertheless, where did Christianity emerge: twentieth century America, or 1st century Galilee?--in scientific times, or primitive times?
Firstly, there are many instances of writers who were 'way before their time'. Jules Verne, to name but one example, had imagination that stemmed far off into the future. Imagination has no boundary, it can do as it pleases.
But.. for a second let's agree that a lot of what is written is based upon experience. Let's also agree, as you said, that the people in question were a primitive people.
How would a primitive person explain the sun dissapearing at night? How would primitive man explain earthquakes, lightning, aurora borealis, snow, and so on and so forth. They would write what they experience with extremely limited, if not non existant, scientific facts concerning that which they write about.
Furthermore we add to that the overwhelming evidence suggesting a large portion of the bible is but a mere translation of much older texts, (Sumerian writing), written roughly 1,500 years before the bible and you can imagine the amount of errors, addons, translation problems, more modern influences etc etc.
Furthermore it would seem apparent that most of what is written is about the past. The lives of adam and eve would only be known by adam and eve. Anyone centuries later who writes about them wouldn't have all the facts, but would be working on supposition and guesswork. Think it gets any better over a gap of 2000+ years, or hell, even 6000+ years?
We can take a quick look at how story, superstition, belief travels throughout time- how it changes, morphs and develops into something quite different to that which the author, or the beginning story intended:
Do you, or does anyone you know, cross their fingers ever when wanting good luck? This superstition has changed and developed over centuries- started off by christians. Does anyone really think crossing of fingers brings good luck? And yet here we are- a modern day scientific people where the most skeptical of us will still at times cross our fingers. The point is, originally crossing of the fingers had nothing to do with getting luck- However, as the years progress everything changes.
When i was at school my teacher told us to take a poem home and write what the author meant in that poem. I handed in a blank piece of paper, with my name signed on the bottom. The teacher looked at me and asked why it was blank:
"I can tell you what that poem means to me. I can tell you how it makes me feel, what i gain from reading it, and what i image when doing so... However!... The only person who can accurately know what was originally meant in that writing is the author."
The poem had been written perhaps 10 years earlier and yet i was in no position to even claim i could tell anyone what the author was actually referring to. You think you can over several thousand years?
Ok, if he had written:
"The large yellow ball of fire cast heat upon the world, making the flowers grow, and the animals thrive."
I could suggest he's writing about the sun. However- if this same author had have been born 2000+ years ago, how would he describe that very same thing? Who's to say? Your priest, you, your mother?
It has been oooh 12 years or so since i saw that poem in my school. I could sit here now and attempt to tell you that poem. I guarantee you however that it wont be anything like the original. hell, this is just over a space of 12 years and i can't remember the damn thing well enough to put it here for you, but i do remember the basics of it and im sure, with a little bit of messing about, i could give you it's basic idea. I'd hate to try that after a gap of more than a millennium. If you think you could, you're more of a man than i am.
Actually, if you'll just "read your bible" like a lot of these people keep telling me here, you'll find that the original 12 apostles were probably some of the most unsuperstitious, skeptical people around.
How do you draw that conclusion? As shown above you're working merely by your own, (or more likely your priests), version of a story written so long ago none of us can claim the right to having the facts. Having said that it remains sad, and frankly bloody rude to your brain to deny it the right to find facts. Your parents or priests tell you what is true and you lap it up like it's chocolate milk. You never stop to find out what the ingredients are. A lot of us can't just accept something without any proof, and yet to some of you it's the easiest thing in the world. You're easily pleased and i guess thats fine, but some of us find it insulting. I often ask myself why people would just accept something for no apparent reason- then it dawns on me that you guys have the offer of eternal life in heaven- ah what a way to get someones undivided attention. Shit, i'm a mortal- and eventually i'm gonna go the way of the dodo, but WAIT! what's this here? Eternal life? holy shitz0r what must i do? Nothing, aside from believe in an ancient dead jewish person? Holy shmoly this is easier than i thought! I'm saved!
Pffft, it sickens me.
Actually, the only time I ever made use of anything which needed biblical support were two times--who was there at the tomb and what they saw
Well in this specific instance biblical support is pretty pointless. The story is changed so many times and yet very few religious people actually see these blatant errors. 2 angels 2 people, 4 angels, 2 people 2 angels, 4 people? *yawn* etc etc Ha! Someone's having a laugh right?
This shows clearly what happens when someone takes an old story and fucks about with it. Details and truth are lost and make way to supposition, imagination, and vague recollections.
Did judas hang himself or fall over and spill his guts?
Was jesus hung at the 3rd hour? the 6th? the 9th? Who knows, who cares, right?
Nevertheless, a not-very-working-knowledge need be known of the Scriptures to know those things; among Christians, they are "general facts", "common knowledge", and what have you.
Oh... so priest tells you, you tell your kids who tell their friends, they tell their kids etc etc etc? So nobody actually needs to look at what is written- instead just accept it as truth because their mummy said so? The Hindus down the road told me you christians wouldnt know the truth if it got up and slapped you in the head.. To them that's "general fact" and "common knowledge". Does that make it right? I guess so.