> Each
> partisan has their own truth and each considers an unbeliever to
> hold to a false faith.
Not necessarily. I cannot speak for Islam, although I bet that in the 
Western countries you can readily find Muslims who believe that Jews and 
Christians can and will go to Paradise. Certainly, there are Jews who expect 
Christians and Christians who expect Jews to enjoy Heaven, and some of both 
who believe the same of Muslims. Fortunately, it's not their decision.

> On what basis is truth and falsehood determined?
This is certainly a fair topic for discussion, but not one to despair of 
discussing. Similar rules apply to religious texts for interpretation and 
historical veracity as for, say, the Classics. We take Julius Caesar's word 
for it that he fought and defeated the Gauls, that being the only evidence 
we have at all for this, and have no problem with that. We find in Luke's 
two-part work rather fine detail, parts of which are studied for their 
historical value today. And, not surprisingly, we find some historical 
puzzles. Some of the historical events he reports, such as Quirinius being 
Governor of Syria during Caesar's census, do not immediately coincide with 
another record. But ancient history is not math, and differing reports are 
an embarrassment of riches, rather than a problem for historians. Likewise, 
we understand that narratives contain non-literal materials, the same way we 
understand the Cave in Plato. Nathan's story to David, or Jesus' parables 
are recognizable narrative art, taken to communicate something other than 
bare facts, in the same way as Plato's Cave must be interpreted to 
communicate something other than spelunking.

Now, when it comes to matters of the nature of the Creator, or what posture 
one might assume when addressing Him, or the shape of true piety, well, none 
of the major religions keep their sacred scriptures or supplemental reading 
a secret for members only. So, the Southern "every head bowed and every eye 
closed" is nothing more than an affectation, an expression of respect or 
reverence, a tradition, but not an absolute requirement of all people 
everywhere. But that one should pray, and when, and where, and how, those 
are in fact open to rationale discussion, in so much as their are texts 
which prescribe them. The text does say what it does say. But what do they 
mean? Truth be told, the meaning of very few texts are subject to much 
debate (although those few that are subject to much debate seem subject to 
enormous and even historical debate).

So, you can ask a Jew or a Christian what is meant by "love your neighbor", 
a text they both have in common. Or what they may and may not eat, and what 
they do in fact eat, and why or why not. But you probably don't want to, 
unless you have a fair amount of time, or are generally antagonistic and 
want to try playing Socrates, or Jesus. As for Islam, there are certain 
texts which are of recent general interest. Do they in fact teach violence? 
Are they metaphor, or allegory? And, are such interpretations of these and 
other passages in fact a reasonable interpretation? (Certainly there are 
some rather graphic texts in various scriptures whose readers prefer to 
allegorize, when no such interpretation is warranted) And are such passages 
reasonably and fairly realized or applied, or capriciously so, like the poor 
guests of Procrustus? The latter, you may fairly object to, when a text is 
taken beyond its apparent intent, or "shorted" to apply far more narrowly 
than could have been meant.

So, we may fault the liar, the thief, the adulterer, the murderer, as 
violating the tenants of the religion they profess. Misunderstanding the 
ancient meaning of the word, English-speakers call such a person a 
hypocrite, without fear of contradiction. It is precisely because these 
tenants can be and are apparent to the casual observer that we may do so.

But to ask on what basis truth and falsehood may be determined, and then to 
state the "truth" (in a sense of the word that destroys the sense of the 
word) is an expression of desire, seems dismissive of there being any such 
thing as truth or falsehood, at least in these matters. And it abandons the 
sort of verifiability you state that you admire, while denying it of others.

Greg Stigers 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *