Dear Rhiann,

I'm sorry but the problem is that the Christian Churches, as for many religions, do not practice what they preach. To try and do so for one or two short seasons is hypocritical and simply exposes what many know. That is, to quote your own words, :

"The core of historic truth of these stories has been embellished, simplified and selected in the telling to suit their primary modern purpose of explaining who we are, where we came from and what we value. ",

thus burying what truth there may have been in the history of the Christian Churches. What is the core of historic truth? The Bible has been changed so many times, for so many political purposes that any truth is no longer a part of the stories used.

The essence of truth is to present the facts, as proven. Not embellishing, simplifying and selecting bits of that truth. Once that takes place the motive for those changes is clear. It is not to further the spiritual advancement of mankind, it is to promote the motives, political usually, of certain individuals throughout history.

By the way there is nothing factual that explains where we came from, just more fables, not facts, fables. You state yourself that Bible stories are more effective in communicating profound truths. Why is that? Is it because the profound truths are not facts, just beliefs?Show and tell those profound truths please.

RobbyH

Actually, the Christian bible has basically not changed since the canon was fixed in about 400AD, although we have various translations and some minor variations in the detail of early manuscripts. How we interpret the bible, however, has varied quite a bit.

My point about “explaining who we are, where we came from and what we value” was referring to the way secular myths such as ANZAC are used to express “Australian values”. This is roughly similar to the way biblical stories work.

Facts alone are often not very meaningful without interpretation and application, even important facts like the invasion of Iraq or the discovery of the electron. Truth must always be consistent with facts, but is not necessarily identical with them.

These are all statements I believe to be true even though I cannot demonstrate them with proven facts:

Beethoven’s ninth symphony is beautiful.

Racism is immoral

We should value the environment for its own sake, not just the “environmental services” it provides to us.

Friendships are important

These tend to be statements of value and interpretation, which can be logically defended but not actually "proven".

Dear Rhian,

Thank you for your reply. I understand what you are saying to be that much of what we each believe in is opinion, based on what we have learnt and experienced in our own lives.In that regard we all have the right to follow our own beliefs and I wish not to infringe on your, or anyone's, beliefs.

I do not accept though the promotion of such beliefs as fact simply because they are recorded in a book. Here's one quote from another web site on the history of the Bible :

"It is hugely apparent that the God of the Old Testament is deeply different to that of the New - and this is perhaps a result of the historical context in which they were wrote. The Old Testament was a result of tribes people, slaves, refugees and primitive peoples, whose previous religions were all polytheistic and non-anthropomorphic. The New Testament God was produced in Greek, in a much more civilized environment, and the God portrayed reflects that."

That statement agrees with your view that it is all a matter of interpretation and core belief, not core truth.

I agree with you also that the examples you quoted of Australians using various historic events are also not factual. Again my view is these events have been used for political purposes. Mainly to try and drive people into groups which are easier to manipulate.

Gallipoli for example. That tragedy occurred due to complete mismanagement and ignorance of those in command and it resulted in a dreadful massacre of young Australians. I see nothing patriotic in that event. Rather I see young men placed in an impossible position struggling for their lives and in doing so they helped each other and gave all they had.

I beg to differ though on your statement that facts alone are often not very meaningful. They are all. The want of man (mainly man as I generally see women being much more realistic than man) to interpret and alter the facts to suit their beliefs to me is simply propaganda, nothing more.

RobbyH

Thank you for your comments. I’d disagree with the website you quote that the god of the old testament is different to the god of the new. Many of the supposedly new ideas in the teaching of Jesus and Paul are solidly based in the Hebrew Scriptures – love your neighbour as yourself, God requires justice and mercy not ritual observance and sacrifice, concern for the poor and the marginalised.

Obviously, the various books were produced in different cultural, historical and political settings, and those different contexts are reflected in what was written and how it was expressed. That’s why bible study is so fascinating. But for all their diversity, all the bible’s books are essentially about the same thing – the encounter with god and what it means. This is expressed in song and poetry, history and myth, teaching and correspondence, ritual and law. I’m not saying it’s only a matter of interpretation, but that the subject can’t be reduced to demonstrable proofs or verifiable facts, so it’s expressed largely indirectly and metaphorically. I respect your view that this means it cannot be “true”, but for me experience suggests otherwise.

I agree that Australia’s national myths such as ANZAC have been abused politically, but don’t think that proves their invalidity. Their power lies in their ability to resonate as being expressions of Australian character and values, even when the interpretations put on them can differ wildly – from rank jingoism to solemn respect for sacrifice to anger at the callous indifference of the authorities that sent young men to die horribly and needlessly. When you say you see in the Gallipoli story “young men placed in an impossible position struggling for their lives and in doing so they helped each other and gave all they had,” you are responding to that same resonance.

You say we can all interpret and alter facts to suit our beliefs, and I’d agree. So how do you distinguish between fact and iterpretation, and between neutral and impartial analysis, and interpretations that are biased and self-serving?

Hi Rhian,

Again, respect and thanks for replying.

Indeed I am responding to that resonance re Gallipoli. Like most of us I have little or no actual knowledge of the events there or the feelings and thoughts of the young men. And again whatever has been written on that may easily have been altered to suit whatever the needs of such writers.

Your last paragraph I think really focuses on the real problem. In many cases we just don't know the difference between impartial and biased versions of any event. We have to accept and reject what we are able to within the realm of our own individual experience.

This is where opinions become facts to many, including myself. This too is where religions and politics to me are totally suspect as both have proven to be great manipulators of people and their beliefs.

Note I make no objection to any individual's beliefs. But religions themselves to me do not represent anything real. The proof, if you like, of that is the extremes of people within any particular religion. Again they have supposedly had the same information available and interpreted it with the divergence of views. I refer here to all religions, not Christian specifically.

At base many religions have a common message, being to live with each other, care for each other and similar values which I generally agree with. In that regard the message you refer to is there, for me and all. It is the "my religion is better than yours" and the competition for an audience that is bad news. This is where opinions become solid cemented facts to many and no disagreement will be tolerated.

Couldn't agree more about the fascination of Bible study. If I had a thousand years I'd still be researching, reading, analysing and would probably be no closer to the reality of history.

Back to the message of this blog. The principles espoused by those that give of themselves for no return is the world I want for all regardless of why those principles have evolved.