Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dead Corpse
Why should I believe that the native religion of a particular people has a claim to truth that other types of paganism and the later religions don't have?

That was one of the points I was tryin' ta make. No one group of people can lay a claim to the Absolute Truth.

That's not the point I was trying to make. There is such a thing as truth, and we can know it. Not claim it as if it were a possession, because it's external to us, just know what it is. You obviously think the things you believe are true, otherwise you wouldn't believe them. I was asking why you think they're true, or at least more likely to be true.

Over eons, all types of information about earlier times has been lost. Who can say for certain that all of the info we have on Christianity is 100% accurate? How many times has the Bible been re-writen, sometimes by those with questionable motives?

Many times. Fortunately, the vast majority of texts agree with each other, even when there's been no interaction with the holders of other texts of the same type. For some of the books, there are fragments as early as the first century.

What about the Gospel of St. Thomas found near the Dead Sea that the Vatican rejects as heresy? What other bits did they leave out?

You're implying that the book of Thomas was part of the Bible to begin with, and was taken out. It wasn't.

Forcing someone, through government interdiction or otherwise, undermines any moral stance I could have claimed.

Why would you think I have any interest in doing that?

179 posted on 09/08/2001 1:45:08 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]


To: A.J.Armitage
That's not the point I was trying to make. There is such a thing as truth, and we can know it. Not claim it as if it were a possession, because it's external to us, just know what it is. You obviously think the things you believe are true, otherwise you wouldn't believe them. I was asking why you think they're true, or at least more likely to be true.

Philosophers have been contemplating the meaning of truth for thousands of years. No one has come up with one over-riding truth that all people can agree on. Even the "Golden Rule" is spit on by some. Would some of the Holy Rollers present on FR really want someone else coming into their homes and telling them how to live their lives? Of course not. All religions require some kind of personal faith. After all that is what religions are about, your faith in what it all means and what the ultimate end is. My faith makes a certain sense to me. After looking at all the others, and their adherents, I decided I'd study up on the religion of my fore-fathers. It strikes a cord within me somewhere that "feels right". The system of honor, no fear of death, personal responsiblity, importance of the family, honesty, and courage is built in to the religious beliefs. As for a yardstick for measuring truth, I try to use the Golden Rule for most situations. "An it harm none" can be a good delimiter as well, although some confuse "doing no harm" with not defending yourself. That is wrong because you are then allowing the harm to be done to yourself against your will.

I really wandered around their didn't I? I hope I mangaed to get something across. ;-)

Many times. Fortunately, the vast majority of texts agree with each other, even when there's been no interaction with the holders of other texts of the same type. For some of the books, there are fragments as early as the first century.

However, the earliest texts were written almost a generation after the fact. As has been pointed out, grapevine type oral traditions are notorious for changes to the original story. Also, both books of the Bible were translated from other languages. The errors alone from that have never been questioned. "Pepsi gives you life" translated into chinese and back again turns into "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave."

Try reading the Good news Bible, and then the KJV. Tell me that something doesn't get lost in the translation.

You're implying that the book of Thomas was part of the Bible to begin with, and was taken out. It wasn't.

No. It was a gospel rejected by men. Click here. These are supposedly Christs own words. The scroll itself dates as early as any of the other original manuscripts. However, it doesn't exactly fit Church docturine now does it? This is more of a threat to the church as an institution, than it is to Christianity.

Why would you think I have any interest in doing that?

Most people of strong faith, feel that others that believe differently are "bad". "Wrong". "Sinners". "Evil". They will tell you that you MUST be saved, some will even take it as far as death threats. While I didn't mean to imply that you were such a person, I have been blind sided by a few here on FR that would rather try and wish me ill, than pray that I have a change of heart.

Sorry this rambles a bit. I'm really not that eloquent and I feel I'm leaving literally pages of discussion out.

182 posted on 09/08/2001 3:47:48 PM PDT by Dead Corpse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson