Truth vs Facts

According to MT's definition. I'm not trying to slam MT or anything, just trying to help distinguish between 'truth' and 'fact'.

Then again, parallel lines do not exist in nature, and thus cannot be tested scientifically in the physical sense. In method perhaps.

 

In reality, parallel lines can't exist. The curve of the Earth is proof enough. But a truth doesn't have to be a fact.

 

That's what I said!

 

I wasn't arguing.

 

I agree with you up to a point. To me it is not important the origin of some of the stories in the OT. They could borrow from other stories, they could have be the inspiration for those myths. I see strong ties between the Sumerian story of Gilgamesh and Noah. The underlying truths are the important part. Writing did exist during the time of Moses and that has been scientifically proven. Not so during the time of Abraham and Noah, or epsecially Creation and those stories could have certainly been borrowed. The fact that all the stories contain similar themes to me lends credence to the fact that they were inspired. The NT is another thing altogether. That Jesus lived and was crucified is undeniable. Hundreds witnessed his death and resurrection. Enough evidence for some that knew him to give their lives rather than deny him. That is historically unarguable.

 

Exactly. It seems funny to me that so much energy is spent on "proving" the facts of these stories, ie. expeditions to Ararat to find the Ark, while ignoring the truths, so to speak. I find this aspect particularly troublesome with some of the Fundie movements in all three branches of the major religions.

Inspired by the one true God or inspired by man's search for meaning and answers. Humans have a vast ability to find connections in the seemingly unconnected. We recognize patterns and answers that sometimes aren't even there. One current example to me is how willing people are to believe in the Psychics like John Edwards. Cold Reading skills combined with the human tendency to accept that which we want to believe and ignore what disagrees with our assumptions, to me, is very similar to what we find with many religiouns.

As for Jesus' death and resurrection, I agree there is historical evidence of Jesus. I do not doubt his existence. I do have major doubts about his divinity and his resurrection. Is there any proof outside of the NT of his resurrection? I know Chrestus, etc have shown up in contemporary documents regarding his life.

As for the writings of Paul in Corinthians about Jesus appearing to hundreds, well, I leave my opinions of Paul to another thread.

 

So are you saying you believe that facts are limited to the physical realm and cannot include emotion or other non-physical ideas? For example, a parent's love for his child, or a child's love for his parents?

Do you think there is a difference between facts and realities?

 

I've said from time to time that truth is truth, no matter where you find it. I've found truth in everything from movies and books to walking around my neighborhood.

You and I can disagree on the validity of those occurrances, Vito, but I see your point and agree with it. We can miss the purpose of the text if we focus on the wrong thing. It's an issue of not being able to see the forest because of all the trees in the way. And I also agree it's a BIG problem in Christianity at least, and perhaps other religions as well. That was sort of the point I was trying to make to Chief Tony in MT's creation thread. He was looking for a literal account of dinosaurs and there isn't one. The reason there isn't is because the Bible's purpose isn't to be a recorded history of nature.

 

Interesting. I didn't know that about when writing came into the picture. Agree completely with you about the underlying truths being the higher value and main purpose of those accounts.

Agreed, although I also think anything historical is arguable.

 

Hasbeens, did you delete my post asking Miss_tery to identify what are currently were facts - according to her definition?