"Not all Truth is true..."

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?

Gisteron wrote: 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?

I think Alan is suggesting that myths are a unique fiction in the same way that a supposition for argument's sake is distinct from, say, a novella. When one discusses a possibility, a theoretical one, we often say things like "If that were true," and "if we take x[/i] as fact...[/i]." We've invented a fiction purely to conjecture, we all know it's a fiction, and yet we're taking it (at least temporarily) as fact.

My problem with the bible is why bother? You have to really step over some landmines to find any good advice and there are way way better books out there to find wisdom in. Can it be useful, sure in the same way windows 95 can be useful ,but why would anyone want to use it when there are so many better options.