Why is YOUR Mythology "True" but not Others'

[gnostic]

If you really studied mythology, then myth is not about the truth. So one myth can't be "truer" than others. You can embrace myth by the narrowest or strictest sense, or you can view myth as just a portion of larger picture.

Myth is not a static religious narrative or storytelling. It has the dynamics of been able to grow beyond a single narrative.

 

[Jeremiah]

Look at Church doctrines thrughout the ages, you will note that the bible was to be strictly adhered to as the infallable word of Jehovah. People who put to death for questioning biblical precepts, don't forget.

Look at any poll concerning religion in the US today. You will see that, by far, more Christians believe the bible is litteral.

Are there Christians who have reconciled their religion with scientific facts and/or have always viewed the relgiion as metaphorical? Certainly, but this is far from the norm.

"Look at any poll concerning religion in the US today. You will see that, by far, more Christians believe the bible is litteral."

That is incorrect according to the Gallup poll.

Over all take of America: 31% believe the Bible should be taken literally and 47% believe it is the inspired word of God.

Protestants: 40% literal truth 48% inspired word of God.

Other Christians: 45% literal truth 46% inspired word of God.

Catholics: 21% literal truth 61% inspired word of God.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

 

[McBell]

I know the definition of the word truth, Mestemia, I do not need to look it up. If you feel like having a real conversation let me know.

Problem with having a "real" conversation with you is that you do not seem to know what the word 'truth' actually means.

Perhaps when you learn the definition we can have a "real" talk...

 

[McBell]

Which dictionary?

so sorry.
That was from Wordnet.

Here is from another source:

Truth
1. The quality or being true; as:
(a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with
that which is, or has been; or shall be.
[1913 Webster]
(b) Conformity to rule; exactness; close correspondence
with an example, mood, object of imitation, or the
like.
[1913 Webster]

(c) Fidelity; constancy; steadfastness; faithfulness.
[1913 Webster]

(d) The practice of speaking what is true; freedom from
falsehood; veracity.
[1913 Webster]


2. That which is true or certain concerning any matter or
subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of
things; fact; verity; reality.
[1913 Webster]

3. A true thing; a verified fact; a true statement or
proposition; an established principle, fixed law, or the
like; as, the great truths of morals.
[1913 Webster]
​

 

[MSizer]

...So "truth" is what you decide it to be? ....

No, not at all. It's a matter of fact, not perception or speculation. We share epistimological forms of experience, such as common sense data. If you undermine the validity of those things, we may as well not even debate anything, because we can't be sure of any single thing according to your stance.

 

[Jeremiah]

No, not at all. It's a matter of fact, not perception or speculation. We share epistimological forms of experience, such as common sense data. If you undermine the validity of those things, we may as well not even debate anything, because we can't be sure of any single thing according to your stance.

"If you undermine the validity of those things,"

I do not question the methods or the need for coherence when addressing the objective or what is inter-subjectively verifiable. However, I do feel that personal religious faith does not fall into that category and perhaps, depended on how the individual treats this faith, should not be assessed by the same merits.

 

[MSizer]

"If you undermine the validity of those things,"

I do not question the methods or the need for coherence when addressing the objective or what is inter-subjectively verifiable. However, I do feel that personal religious faith does not fall into that category and perhaps, depended on how the individual treats this faith, should not be assessed by the same merits. I feel there is a distinctions to be made here, and if true then you are undermining the validity of personal "faith" by applying across the board standards to it.

Faith and truth are completely independent. Just because one has faith that jesus walked on water, and sincerely believes it, does not make it true. It is believed, but whether it is a true claim is a separate matter.

 

[Jeremiah]

Faith and truth are completely independent. Just because one has faith that jesus walked on water, and sincerely believes it, does not make it true. It is believed, but whether it is a true claim is a separate matter.

"Faith and truth are completely independent."

Fact and faith are completely independent. You are still lumping everything into one category; you simply want to say this is "turth" and unless it is this it is not "true". Which in relation to you is appropriately true, but anyone who has spent any amount of time here should know that is not how everyone understands "truth".

And I do feel much the same way you do about "turth" and I don't consider religious faith a viable factor in determining objective turth. But you are asking religious believers what makes their mythology true over others and if you are going to understand the answer then you have to view it through their perceptive. You can't judge the validity of an individual's personal faith in their mythology based on how you interpret a fact; that is not a fair assessment. You can't fairly assess the validity of an individuals religious belief in their mythology without accounting for their religious faith.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Faith and truth are completely independent. Just because one has faith that jesus walked on water, and sincerely believes it, does not make it true. It is believed, but whether it is a true claim is a separate matter.

I would say that faith and truth should be some what connected if we want to have a rational view of the world.

I.E.

I believe in most medical research because I know that its done with a scientific methodology. If a new drug comes out. I am willing to take it with out testing it myself Because I have faith that -for the most part- scientists and doctors tell the truth about the tests that they run and there is a whole system in place to protect my health. I have enough faith in the American Medical System I am willing to take their medicine. I trust my doctor to tell me the truth.:yes:

In India they have people who's job it is to clean the wax out of your ears. They even have special tools for their trade. I do not trust there hygienic conditions so I would never let them clean my ears. I have no faith in Indian Ear Cleaners. (Honest they exist )

 

[DallasApple]

I would say that faith and truth should be some what connected if we want to have a rational view of the world.

I.E.

I believe in most medical research because I know that its done with a scientific methodology. If a new drug comes out. I am willing to take it with out testing it myself Because I have faith that -for the most part- scientists and doctors tell the truth about the tests that they run and there is a whole system in place to protect my health. I have enough faith in the American Medical System I am willing to take their medicine. I trust my doctor to tell me the truth.:yes:

In India they have people who's job it is to clean he wax out of your ears. I do not trust there hygienic conditions so I would never let them clean my ears. I have no faith in Indian Ear Cleaners. ( Honest they exist )

If its smaller than your own elbow...dont stick it in your ear!!!!!!!!!

Love

Dallas

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

If its smaller than your own elbow...dont stick it in your ear!!!!!!!!!

Love

Dallas

I see you lack faith in this area also.

 

[AxisMundi]

So, the majority gets to decide, and screw all the minorities? (Besides, you haven't actually given me the polls, or given me any polls that actually take the votes of ALL human beings on the planet.)

It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid; not with regards to religion. The foundation of Christianity is set in the Christian Biblical canon. (Whichever one.) I think the ones who were closer to the original writings, i.e., the commentators who lived BEFORE the Dark Ages, would have been closer to the ball than the ones inspired by the Dark Ages priests.

Firstly, there are too many polls to list them all, here are a few...
Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church, while the largest Christian sect, hardly speaks for all Christians, or all Catholics for that matter. Each sect makes it's own "biblical cannon" and each sub-sect chooses to follow whatever parts of that cannon they choose.

 

[Riverwolf]

so sorry.
That was from Wordnet.

Here is from another source:

Truth
1. The quality or being true; as:
(a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with
that which is, or has been; or shall be.
[1913 Webster]
(b) Conformity to rule; exactness; close correspondence
with an example, mood, object of imitation, or the
like.
[1913 Webster]

(c) Fidelity; constancy; steadfastness; faithfulness.
[1913 Webster]

(d) The practice of speaking what is true; freedom from
falsehood; veracity.
[1913 Webster]


2. That which is true or certain concerning any matter or
subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of
things; fact; verity; reality.
[1913 Webster]

3. A true thing; a verified fact; a true statement or
proposition; an established principle, fixed law, or the
like; as, the great truths of morals.
[1913 Webster]
​

That's more like it. More definitions, more details. And a very reputable dictionary. :yes: Was it an unabridged version?

What's the Oxford English Dictionary's definition?

 

[Riverwolf]

Firstly, there are too many polls to list them all, here are a few...
Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

That's more like it. Thanks.

How come I never heard about those polls? Shouldn't a poll take the opinions of EVERYBODY before they can really say for certain what the statistics are?

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church, while the largest Christian sect, hardly speaks for all Christians, or all Catholics for that matter. Each sect makes it's own "biblical cannon" and each sub-sect chooses to follow whatever parts of that cannon they choose.

Whoever said I was only talking about the Roman Catholic Church?

There were several other churches before the Catholic Church (which was an attempt to reconcile them all), and even when it was established, there was still the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as a few smaller Churches dotted here and there. The Gnostic groups were still around, as well, though in very small numbers.

Besides, didn't the Roman Catholic Church become established just before the Dark Ages? If so, that kinda nullifies the idea that I was even talking about them.