"Not all Truth is true..."

Firstly, I was brought up in an atheist family so I never believed that the Bible was factual record of history. I read it myself during my teenage years and found the stories to be ridiculous but still interesting/amusing - much like the Greek myths but more staid.

Since then 30 years have passed and I've matured a lot. I know see the Bible as a whole as a collection of myths and sayings, some of which I find helpful in my life (in particular some parables of Jesus, but far from all of them!)and some I find dangerous (Abraham intending to sacrifice his son to God as a test of loyalty springs straight to mind).

Today I regard the Bible in the same way as I do the Upanishads, the Analects of Confucius, Greek/Norse/Celtic myths, the Quran, the myths of all cultures and certain books and films. All have some 'truths' as I see it, and some 'lies' as well. I take from them what seems right and disregard what seems wrong.

The problems come (I think) from those who believe that their myths are true and all others are wrong. Hence we see the tensions between certain Catholics/Protestants, Jews/Muslims, Hindus/Muslims etc.

steamboat28 wrote: Where do you draw the line?

That is, perhaps, the greatest question on the planet. The Bible aside, where does one ever draw the line?

I guess the question is does one even benefit from the actual 100% truth.

Hitira38 wrote: I guess the question is does one even benefit from the actual 100% truth.

What is the 100% truth? Once an event is over and done with, the truth depends on the individual.. hence why they say that history is written by the victors.

Well, I guess the question is are we victors.

Although it can be said that there are alot of good lessons in the stories in the bible, it should be remembered that it is not a factual historical text. Alot are taught otherwise. It can also be said there are alot of evil concepts in the bible. Its hard to accept a faith but pick and choose from its holy book. If you are not christian, there are some positives that can be gained if you ignore all the bad. I left the faith because its deity requires the murder of many millions of gays and adulterers as a part of his worship. I was not willing to follow a deity that requires me to murder as part of a religion, so I left.

Gregory wrote: I left the faith because its deity requires the murder of many millions of gays and adulterers as a part of his worship.

I don't think this is to do with the deity... I think it is more down to the people that believe in the deity and how they act.

There are enough conflicting comments in the bible to satisfy the ideas of anyone.

The issue regarding the authority of holy scriptures in any revealed religion is how these texts are to be interpreted. For example, only a minority of Christians interpret The Bible literally. Judaism, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism each have an interpretive model that allows for some variation in determining the meaning of a particular text. Historical, sociological, literary, and theological perspectives can be employed to aid in interpretation. Also, just as Islam has a very small minority of militant Jihadists among the 1.1 billion Muslims, so also, in Christianity today, only a very small radical minority advocate violence towards the disobedient, apostates, heretics, and other sinners. Neither ethical condemnation nor moral judgment include advocating violence.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of myth. Contrary to the false distinction that juxtaposes Myth is a kind of fiction and so is distinct from Fact, my understanding of myth is that they are the narrative embodiment of an idea. Myth is a “traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today and, in a general manner, establishing all the forms of action and thought by which man understands himself in his world.” (Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, p. 5) Myth narrates a sacred history; it is the story of an event in that happened in primordial time; it tells how reality (or some part of it) came into existence. Myths can be known, experienced, and lived in the sense that one is seized by the sacred in the reenactment of the primordial, sacred event. Myth places the experience of man in a whole that receives orientation and meaning from the narration. Thus, an understanding of human reality as a whole operates through the myths by means of reminiscence and an expectation. (Ricoeur, p. 6) On this view, one can come to an understanding of myths and posits them (all of them) as expressing a truth for those persons who live within their narrative worldview.

So how are myths not fiction and not distinct from fact in this case? It's not like people keep saying that myth is "mere" fiction or "nothing other than" fiction. Just that it is fiction as opposed to non-fiction, which, of course, it is. And that is not at all "contrary" to your understanding, or is it?