Truth and Religion

[rational experiences]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

No.

Life teaches first.

Evolution in a spatial condition ever changing. So too does life body mind and self human spirit change.

The basic unified preaching says do not preach falsely. That prophet future life brings to you spiritual enlightenment. For the teacher always returns changed.

If you do not express the change then you cannot be a teacher.

Basic known spiritual advice.

 

[PruePhillip]

What religion inspired this post? I'm not aware of any that are doing this.

Jehovah Witnesses do this. They call it 'new light.' They even get to have an
updated bible every now and then. Doctrines about Christ's return in 1878 and
1914 and 1917 and 1975 are 'updated', so too are God's commands about
blood transfusions and military service.
The Catholics were good at this in the early centuries. In three hundred years
their church was unrecognizable to the first Christians.

 

[PruePhillip]

Also worth noting that the NT texts were written long before they were considered scripture. They weren't written as scripture, they only became scripture after years of being used as part of a living tradition.

M.a.y.b.e.e.e.e.e.
The texts written by Matthew and Mark would have been considered pretty important
as they were eye witnesses to Jesus. Luke quotes them a lot though he himself never
met Jesus, he was in the Ministry with Paul in his last days.
Later John added his two cents worth and his writings were considered important too.
So too were the writings of James, the brother of Jesus.

Some text becomes 'canon' due to its age. The New Testament canon was already
significant due to its proximity to Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

I never seem to get a clear reply when I ask what definition of "truth" religions use.

My own definition (that truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality) won't work for the supernatural. It won't work for Marvel Comics either.

Is religious truth anything the believer would like it to be? Why wouldn't it be, with no objective standard required, no check to keep it line?

 

[rational experiences]

Rome stopped Alchemy.

Regarded shroud second returned Jesus life attack.

Black hole radiating spaces.

 

[PruePhillip]

I never seem to get a clear reply when I ask what definition of "truth" religions use.

My own definition (that truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality) won't work for the supernatural. It won't work for Marvel Comics either.

Is religious truth anything the believer would like it to be? Why wouldn't it be, with no objective standard required, no check to keep it line?

For Christianity there is an objective Truth, regardless of how churches want to
spin it. That Truth is the life of Christ. It's being honest about yourself. It's about
standards of behavior that apply regardless of what others do, or even do to you.
It's the Sermon on the Mount. It's being hated for doing the right thing. It's about
acknowledging your own failings. It's about honesty, humility, grace, love and
compassion even for your enemies.

 

[blü 2]

For Christianity there is an objective Truth, regardless of how churches want to
spin it. That Truth is the life of Christ. It's being honest about yourself. It's about
standards of behavior that apply regardless of what others do, or even do to you.
It's the Sermon on the Mount. It's being hated for doing the right thing. It's about
acknowledging your own failings. It's about honesty, humility, grace, love and
compassion even for your enemies.

If I understand you correctly, you've said "The life of Jesus is truth".

That won't serve as a definition of "truth", which is what I was asking for. We can't use it to determine whether "Birds are noted for their ability to fly" or "Jesus died for our sins" is true or not, for instance.

When you say, "The life of Jesus is true", do you mean that the NT narrative is correct? If you do, then (given an historical Jesus), "The life of Jesus is correct in its essentials" might be more defensible.

If you mean something else, what do you mean?

And, back at the ranch, what test does religion use to determine whether any particular statement is true or not?

 

[PruePhillip]

If I understand you correctly, you've said "The life of Jesus is truth".

That won't serve as a definition of "truth", which is what I was asking for. We can't use it to determine whether "Birds are noted for their ability to fly" or "Jesus died for our sins" is true or not, for instance.

When you say, "The life of Jesus is true", do you mean that the NT narrative is correct? If you do, then (given an historical Jesus), "The life of Jesus is correct in its essentials" might be more defensible.

If you mean something else, what do you mean?

And, back at the ranch, what test does religion use to determine whether any particular statement is true or not?

A true or false statement might have no relevance to religion, ie the moon causes the tides.
Religious truth is for religious issues.
I accept the NT narrative in general - some might be in symbolic language but that's a
slippery slope.
Jesus IS a definition of Truth if you claim to be a disciple of His. Otherwise the whole
narrative is nonsense.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I never seem to get a clear reply when I ask what definition of "truth" religions use.

My own definition (that truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality) won't work for the supernatural. It won't work for Marvel Comics either.

Is religious truth anything the believer would like it to be? Why wouldn't it be, with no objective standard required, no check to keep it line?

I think that in many cases, religions use the word "truth" as a control tool rather than focusing on any objective definition. By saying "truth" the followers will hesitate to question the religion and second guess any concerning queries they might have.

They would say that their "truth" reflects reality and that is objective, but what objectivity means to them is really subjectivity and they want to put the blinders on.

The believer believes first, then calls that belief truth. How they come to their beliefs is by connecting dots rather than seeing what is objectively in front of them.

 

[blü 2]

A true or false statement might have no relevance to religion, ie the moon causes the tides.
Religious truth is for religious issues.

And not surprisingly, religions have no other test than "I like it".

Jesus IS a definition of Truth if you claim to be a disciple of His. Otherwise the whole narrative is nonsense.

If I understand what you're saying, I don't understand what you're saying.

I take you to have said, If it's Jesus, it's (not true, it's) truth.

Truth is the abstracted quality that true statements share as such. It's a concept. It's not a person, or a thing. "Jesus is truth" makes as much sense as "Jesus is colonialism" or "Jesus is economy" or "Jesus is roadability".

Otherwise the whole narrative is nonsense.

Parts of it certainly are. But it's not impossible that other parts have some kind of historical basis.

 

[blü 2]

I think that in many cases, religions use the word "truth" as a control tool rather than focusing on any objective definition. By saying "truth" the followers will hesitate to question the religion and second guess any concerning queries they might have.

Or to give some of them the benefit of the doubt, it might be intended to pep up aspiration for a vaguely defined good so it sounds more confident, more certain.

( I recall the Pisco fudge at funerals "The sure and certain hope of the resurrection", which has a left-handed kind of honesty. Having said that, I wonder if they still use it.)

 

[PruePhillip]

And not surprisingly, religions have no other test than "I like it".
If I understand what you're saying, I don't understand what you're saying.

I take you to have said, If it's Jesus, it's (not true, it's) truth.

Truth is the abstracted quality that true statements share as such. It's a concept. It's not a person, or a thing. "Jesus is truth" makes as much sense as "Jesus is colonialism" or "Jesus is economy" or "Jesus is roadability".
Parts of it certainly are. But it's not impossible that other parts have some kind of historical basis.

In Christianity, AS WRITTEN AND LIVED BY NT STANDARDS, Jesus IS a standard of Truth.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
This truth is 'abstracted' to people who don't live by its standards. I suggest someone like
Kenneth Copeland would find this standard confronting with his materialist doctrines and
self aggrandizement. So too the priests, cardinals and popes with their ornate gowns and
pomp.
I find that Christ isn't an 'abstraction', but lots of religious doctrines ARE abstractions, often
quite deliberately so to avoid the unpleasant truths of this man.

This 'roadability' is an interesting term. Wots it mean?

 

[Marcion]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

Truth cannot be found in any religion because religions never agree and always contradict each other. Truth can only be realised through the implementation of the introspective science (going inside the I-consciousness). So a wise person will avoid religion and find a proper spiritual philosophy and path that can help in the spiritual emancipation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Truth cannot be found in any religion because religions never agree and always contradict each other. Truth can only be realised through the implementation of the introspective science (going inside the I-consciousness). So a wise person will avoid religion and find a proper spiritual philosophy and path that can help in the spiritual emancipation.

This is arrogant and condescending rhetoric, and I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

A "wise person" has gained wisdom through experience. One doesn't begin one's path as a "wise person." For many, the experience of religion is a path to wisdom and a path to an ultimate truth.

 

[blü 2]

In Christianity, AS WRITTEN AND LIVED BY NT STANDARDS, Jesus IS a standard of Truth.

1. "You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."

1. Know what truth, exactly?

This truth is 'abstracted' to people who don't live by its standards. I suggest someone like Kenneth Copeland would find this standard confronting with his materialist doctrines and self aggrandizement. So too the priests, cardinals and popes with their ornate gowns and pomp.

I imagine Copeland, and Falwell, and Robertson and Driscoll and so on think of themselves as Christians, and no doubt they each can readily explain the 'eye-of-a-needle' part by claiming works of charity. I personally find them repulsive, as do you, but Jesus does not provide a moral 'truth' such that they are wrong and you or I are right.

I find that Christ isn't an 'abstraction'

I said he wasn't, 'truth' being an abstraction and he being a specific.

'Roadability' refers to the practicality and ease of driving of any particular model of motor vehicle.

 

[PruePhillip]

1. Know what truth, exactly?

I imagine Copeland, and Falwell, and Robertson and Driscoll and so on think of themselves as Christians, and no doubt they each can readily explain the 'eye-of-a-needle' part by claiming works of charity. I personally find them repulsive, as do you, but Jesus does not provide a moral 'truth' such that they are wrong and you or I are right.
I said he wasn't, 'truth' being an abstraction and he being a specific.

Re Copeland et al. Jesus provided an absolute standard of behavior these characters
failed to meet, even understand.
Fame, wealth, political influence, sexual impropriety etc are things Jesus said have no
part in 'the kingdom of heaven.' John the Baptist declared to his audience they needed
to exceed the standard of the religious establishment if they were to be worthy of God.

I showed someone a Copeland video tonight actually. Here he is SCREAMING at his
audience - and praying that God would banish the Covid virus. Worth seeing - for a few
seconds. Nothing gentle, or rational, or relevant or inspiring at all.
As for wealth for the poor. Jesus gave no money to the poor. That was not his ministry.
Those who do so fail to understand that charity begins with yourself, not your church.
You don't get kudos because your church gave money to someone.

 

[Marcion]

This is arrogant and condescending rhetoric, and I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

A "wise person" has gained wisdom through experience. One doesn't begin one's path as a "wise person." For many, the experience of religion is a path to wisdom and a path to an ultimate truth.

You don't "experience" religion, you experience spiritual development, which has nothing to do with (is independent from) this or that religion. So it is the spiritual science only that leads to wisdom.
I'm sorry to see this viewpoint keeps making you so emotional.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You don't "experience" religion, you experience spiritual development, which has nothing to do with (is independent from) this or that religion. So it is the spiritual science only that leads to wisdom.

Are you, in all seriousness, trying to speak intelligently about what I experience?

 

[syo]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

There is no such thing in a religion.

 

[pearl]

Yes! That is what I remember! So would revelation through the church then supercede the scriptures?

No. In the compilation of the Gospels the Church recognizes three stages of revelation; the life and teaching of Jesus, the oral tradition, and the written gospels.