Summations Only

Was Robert Louis Stevenson a forger when he wrote Treasure Island pretending to be Jim Hawkins?

You're assuming that there was a real Paul and a real Peter. I'm not.

Neither am I - and if they don't exist, there is no forgery. It would be like signing Donald Duck's name to a cheque. You seem to be reasoning in both directions at once. (Most) Christians believe that Paul and Peter were real but they also (tend to) believe that they wrote the epistles attributed to them.

They might be, if it wasn't for double-think.

I know what you mean. But what we have is some people who think the stories are true and some people who think they're fiction. In neither case does it make any sense to talk about forgeries. Unless somebody does think they're forgeries, it's futile to insist that anybody "must" logically conclude that they're forgeries.

That's where I would disagree with you. I don't see deceit at all. I come back to Robert Louis Stevenson whose intent was not to deceive when he wrote Treasure Island as Jim Hawkins.And what do you think of writers who do intend to deceive people about their identities by writing under a synonym? Is there less truth in what they write?

Actually, you're the one who's speaking of something different. What the Bible writers were doing was pretty close to writing under a pseudonym, as opposed to the "forgery" that you claim. If you think there was deceit involved, why don't you address that part of my post?

I only have two hours of Internet time a day. I don't waste it on posting, "Good answer!" I'm not asking you to concede anything. I'm asking you why you think the Bible writers were "deceitful" when today writing under a pseudonym is considered quite ethical. I'm asking for a discussion, not a final solution. You'd find that I would be the first one to argue against everything in the book. It's hard enough finding good opposition around here. It might be a nice change to argue against my "self".

If your book was good, I'd be flattered that you put my name on it. If it made any money, I'd want a cut. If it was bad, I'd be pissed at my groupies for mistaking your nonsense for my brilliance. And I'd still want a cut if it made any money.You're underestimating both the authors and the "real" people whose names they used. The real people - if indeed they existed at all - would be glad that their ideas were getting out. The authors had nothing to gain personally by using famous names. All they had was the satisfaction that somebody else's ideas were being spread.

Nor do you.It just makes sense to conclude that the authors' intentions were good, since they had nothing to gain by deceit.

I didn't say anything about money. I said "good" intentions. The examples you give - increasing converts, reducing turmoil, quelling mockers - are all "good" intentions. There is nothing to suggest deceit. Indeed it could - so you have no cause to infer deceit.

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is related to Occam's Razor. It makes more sense to infer innocence than guilt. Seeing guilt behind every tree leads to paranoia.

So if I merely say that Charles Manson's acts were heinous, I'm passing no judgement on the quality of the person? That's mostly a case of self-deception. To repeat my favorite example, you'd be deceiving yourself if you believed Jim Hawkins wrote Treasure Island. You can't blame it on Stevenson.

I was raised Christian. Almost everybody I know is Christian. You'll see me defending religion all the time on this forum. I think I have a certain amount of empathy for the Christian perspective.

I didn't. No more than when I learned that Jim Hawkins wasn't real.I have a book that purports to be the "real" biography of the "real" James Bond. It was in the fiction section at the bookstore but there's nothing in the book itself that admits to being fiction. It presents itself as biography. I personally believe it is fiction but I don't feel that anybody is trying to deceive me - and if they are, I don't care because I'm not deceived.