1st sentence 3rd paragraph: sorry no such thing as religious truth

Dear mjpb,

My statement was: “I don't think there is such a thing as religious truth. Belief, no matter how strongly held, is not truth.”

That has nothing to do with a belief in a supernatural. Belief consists of faith in propositions for which there is no proof. If there is proof then it ceases to be belief and becomes truth.

You wrote: You said that you think (/believe?) that there is no such thing as religious belief.

I have never denied the existence of religious belief. I have denied the existence of religious truth. Since different religions maintain different propositions to be true we cannot establish that any of them are true. Therefore for all practical purposes there are no religious truths only religious beliefs.

And evolution wins the day as the origins of man. The facts and models that the people of this thread ( and the others ) have demonstrated quite well, in knowing where religion manifested its,self. Science will go on and uncover more myths as time go,es on, and fear will no longer be a driving force to shape humanity. Religion should be kept in the back of the minds how you want it, and not force onto know one.

The environment, religion, and population are the three in my mind, the most important things to set strait and Iam finished with this particular subject, knowing quite well where I come from. I am able to think with the most clearness, with sense of pride, knowing what the real truth is, and "I am" good with it! You cant sell godness! Its either in you or its not, and we all know the bible stories.

Each person is born with this goodness already evolved in us, since the beginning of life on this planet, and its only circumstances that make us (evil)=( survival instincts ) and with fear, and this is where the bible comes into play. A hope that tomorrow will be a better day! This is what it offers, plus an easier way to comfort death, and this was very much needed in those times, and for a longer time to come.

People seem to think humans are not evolving, well sorry to say, with each new born baby, evolution adds one more degree to the human species, and religion will evolve with it.

Hypethically, when man finds how life got here, the book will seem a bit leaky, more than it already is!

EVO

Evo,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Davidf,

Thanks. We use "belief" in different ways. You dichotomise belief and truth so that there can't be a belief in the truth and with evidence it ceases to be mere belief.

I relate to the Merriam-Webster definition. In particular the alternative:

"3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"

Using words differently naturally will lead to a slight communication gap. Thanks again.

"You wrote:...I have never denied the existence of religious belief..."

See my second post. Please excuse the typo.

Regarding your point about different religions doesn't establishing truth often require evaluating competing contenders? Please explain this further.

Pericles,

I'd like to revisit the eyewitness point. We expressed our varying views about Paul who claimed to be an eyewitness. I believe Poly raised the issue of Luke. I'd like to move on to Mark.

What are your thoughts on Mark's gospel? My understanding is that Mark accompanied Peter and wrote down what Peter taught. Now clearly there are different ways in which evidence could be obtained. If it were a written statement wouldn't it normally be written by a lawyer or the police? Now in that situation the statement would be written down and organised and the person giving the statement would sign it. Here Peter didn't sign it. However it is a book and there was no reason for him to do so. Literally it is technically not an eyewitness account but isn't it a little pedantic to dismiss it completely on that basis? My thought is that it isn't technically an eyewitness statement but due to little more than the technicality that the deceased Peter didn't sign it. Indeed my understanding is that scholars consider that Matthew drew upon Mark and another source document (Q) when writing his own gospel book. Wouldn't it be fair to assume that Matthew, apparently an eyewitness of Jesus, would only assist his recollection using Mark if it was a pretty accurate account of what Peter had witnessed? Over to you.

Pericles,

You've dumped me before and come back... I'll keep going.

I'd like to expand upon Pliny because he seems so hostile toward Christianity and it leads into something else I'd like to discuss.

"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...

They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery...

This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women...I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagent lengths."

Historically I believe this has the added interest to Christians by confirming that Christianity spread to Rome really quickly (which makes sense as Peter and Paul were believed to have gone there), the Christians under pain of execution maintained their belief and at least claimed to observe high ethical standards. But most importantly for the historical territory I'd like to cover next it shows that they regularly engaged in verbal rituals which honoured Christ as if he were "a god".

In spite of the facts adduced so far which provide at least "arguments for" "the historicity of the Bible" some people put much weight on other documents written by earlyish Christians. The fact that those books didn't make it into the Bible is taken by some as indicating that the Church Councils excluded equally meritorious books because it didn't suit them. They wanted to have people think Jesus was divine so they cherry picked and excluded equally worthy books to guide Christianity in that direction. That suits the secular notion of Jesus as just a good bloke and the keenness to think that that is what early Christians really believed. In case you think I'm renegging on my stated intention to leave the issue of the validity of supernatural in abeyance I note that I am just discussing what Christians believe nothing more.

Notable in this regard is the gospel of Thomas of which a fifth century copy was located. This is the most interesting because the original was written as early as 140AD.

I have just highlighted (hostile) external corroboration (Pliny) for the view that Christians took of Jesus. I'd now like to raise the following points in regard to the gospel of Thomas.

1. It overlaps with the gospels but some parts are totally inconsistent with earlier recognised Christian writings.
(a) eg. 1 It has a pantheistic Jesus which conflicts with the canonical gospels.
(b) eg. 2 It has Jesus saying "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every worman who makes herself male will enter into the kindom of heaven."and "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life". This totally conflicts with Jesus in the gospels and Paul's writings which preach equality of being and respect for women.

Thus it just doesn't look like the real McCoy.

CONT