"Not all Truth is true..."

I ran across an article discussing a story called "Tiny Deaths" (post contains plot spoilers) which raised a very interesting question about art and Truth.

I've often heard it said that "art is a lie that tells the truth" ( a paraphrase of Picasso ). This story is apparently an example of that.

I recently engaged in a few conversations with militant anti-theists who claim that the Bible is "factually untrue" and therefore "useless." I could not disagree more; regardless of the truth of the matter, there is still much Truth in those scriptures for those who will look, the same as with any other work of art.

What do you think? Where do you draw the line?

militant anti-theists who claim that the Bible is "factually untrue" and therefore "useless."

Well it proabably is for them and too bad for them.

steamboat28 wrote: I ran across an article discussing a story called "Tiny Deaths" (post contains plot spoilers) which raised a very interesting question about art and Truth.

I've often heard it said that "art is a lie that tells the truth" ( a paraphrase of Picasso ). This story is apparently an example of that.

I recently engaged in a few conversations with militant anti-theists who claim that the Bible is "factually untrue" and therefore "useless." I could not disagree more; regardless of the truth of the matter, there is still much Truth in those scriptures for those who will look, the same as with any other work of art.

What do you think? Where do you draw the line?

I tend to agree with you on this Steam. It reminds me of Joseph Campbell saying that all religions are true in their own way. One of my favorite things about listening to the Campbell lectures in the IP was his stress on the message more than the messenger.

The stories of the Bible are just that, stories. But they are stories meant to illustrate points and those points are what we should focus on, regardless of how we got to those points.

I also believe that taking the Bible literally has been the cause of a lot of problems throughout history. That shouldn't mean, however, that we through it all away as useless.

P.S.

I love the Picasso paraphrase and the fact that you used truth and Truth. Little t and big T.

The fact that "the good book" has been the catalyst for the unjustifiable persecution, torture and killing of millions makes it difficult for me to follow it, much less respect it. I personally found the Gospel of Thomas (selectively removed from the book) far more interesting than the entire Bible itself.

That's an interesting thought, Zenchi.

Say somebody found a Math formula that could create infinite happiness and infinite destruction (as anything that is "all-powerful" must do, due to the law of omnipresence). If a lot of people used it to kill and destroy... would you view it as anything less? I wouldn't. I would see it as an independent thing, and try to use it to the best of my abilities for good.

Fire is the catalyst for great destruction too.. but, I don't think anything less of fire because of it. I am just cautious and use it judiciously with no malice intent.

Connor L. wrote: That's an interesting thought, Zenchi.

Say somebody found a Math formula that could create infinite happiness and infinite destruction (as anything that is "all-powerful" must do, due to the law of omnipresence). If a lot of people used it to kill and destroy... would you view it as anything less? I wouldn't. I would see it as an independent thing, and try to use it to the best of my abilities for good.

Fire is the catalyst for great destruction too.. but, I don't think anything less of fire because of it. I am just cautious and use it judiciously with no malice intent.

Yes, well not all of us are "Christian Jedi." I have of course other reasons, the one offered was the most polite...

Lumping math and fire together to justify or make sense out of why someone may find interest in the Bible makes for very poor examples, lol. I did not post my opinion in some attempt to offend, if someone has a problem with it, please pm me instead of derailing this thread...

I see what you're saying, Steam. For me, the issue is that I do not like the stories in the Bible. Not more than a few, anyway. I take my stories from other books.

When it comes to the bible specifically, I don't believe that the events depicted in it are historicallytrue, but the turths of some of the stories in the bible are "factual." I think the truth of a story depends greatly on what one reads into it.

Personally, I don't put any more stock in Christian mythology than I do in Greek or Hindu, but everything has its value. There's something to be learned from everything and everyone, so I wouldn't agree that the bible is "useless."

Well said and that is the a truth.

I find a lot of truth in the bible and stacks of great advice. It is a real shame that a lot of people can not see the difference between what is written and how men have manipulated it to achieve their own ends.

As Zenchi said some of the best bits are the books that were left out like the Book of Enoch, Jasher and the lost books of Eden. Actually there is just stacks of them that are referenced in the bible. I also find translations that are as close to the original scripts as possible to be the most enlightening. Huge difference between something like "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not kill" like it is written in modern translations.

Firstly, I was brought up in an atheist family so I never believed that the Bible was factual record of history. I read it myself during my teenage years and found the stories to be ridiculous but still interesting/amusing - much like the Greek myths but more staid.

Since then 30 years have passed and I've matured a lot. I know see the Bible as a whole as a collection of myths and sayings, some of which I find helpful in my life (in particular some parables of Jesus, but far from all of them!)and some I find dangerous (Abraham intending to sacrifice his son to God as a test of loyalty springs straight to mind).

Today I regard the Bible in the same way as I do the Upanishads, the Analects of Confucius, Greek/Norse/Celtic myths, the Quran, the myths of all cultures and certain books and films. All have some 'truths' as I see it, and some 'lies' as well. I take from them what seems right and disregard what seems wrong.

The problems come (I think) from those who believe that their myths are true and all others are wrong. Hence we see the tensions between certain Catholics/Protestants, Jews/Muslims, Hindus/Muslims etc.

steamboat28 wrote: Where do you draw the line?

That is, perhaps, the greatest question on the planet. The Bible aside, where does one ever draw the line?

I guess the question is does one even benefit from the actual 100% truth.

Hitira38 wrote: I guess the question is does one even benefit from the actual 100% truth.

What is the 100% truth? Once an event is over and done with, the truth depends on the individual.. hence why they say that history is written by the victors.

Well, I guess the question is are we victors.

Although it can be said that there are alot of good lessons in the stories in the bible, it should be remembered that it is not a factual historical text. Alot are taught otherwise. It can also be said there are alot of evil concepts in the bible. Its hard to accept a faith but pick and choose from its holy book. If you are not christian, there are some positives that can be gained if you ignore all the bad. I left the faith because its deity requires the murder of many millions of gays and adulterers as a part of his worship. I was not willing to follow a deity that requires me to murder as part of a religion, so I left.

Gregory wrote: I left the faith because its deity requires the murder of many millions of gays and adulterers as a part of his worship.

I don't think this is to do with the deity... I think it is more down to the people that believe in the deity and how they act.

There are enough conflicting comments in the bible to satisfy the ideas of anyone.

The issue regarding the authority of holy scriptures in any revealed religion is how these texts are to be interpreted. For example, only a minority of Christians interpret The Bible literally. Judaism, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism each have an interpretive model that allows for some variation in determining the meaning of a particular text. Historical, sociological, literary, and theological perspectives can be employed to aid in interpretation. Also, just as Islam has a very small minority of militant Jihadists among the 1.1 billion Muslims, so also, in Christianity today, only a very small radical minority advocate violence towards the disobedient, apostates, heretics, and other sinners. Neither ethical condemnation nor moral judgment include advocating violence.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of myth. Contrary to the false distinction that juxtaposes Myth is a kind of fiction and so is distinct from Fact, my understanding of myth is that they are the narrative embodiment of an idea. Myth is a “traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today and, in a general manner, establishing all the forms of action and thought by which man understands himself in his world.” (Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, p. 5) Myth narrates a sacred history; it is the story of an event in that happened in primordial time; it tells how reality (or some part of it) came into existence. Myths can be known, experienced, and lived in the sense that one is seized by the sacred in the reenactment of the primordial, sacred event. Myth places the experience of man in a whole that receives orientation and meaning from the narration. Thus, an understanding of human reality as a whole operates through the myths by means of reminiscence and an expectation. (Ricoeur, p. 6) On this view, one can come to an understanding of myths and posits them (all of them) as expressing a truth for those persons who live within their narrative worldview.

So how are myths not fiction and not distinct from fact in this case? It's not like people keep saying that myth is "mere" fiction or "nothing other than" fiction. Just that it is fiction as opposed to non-fiction, which, of course, it is. And that is not at all "contrary" to your understanding, or is it?