Talk:Religious views on truth

Split

Discussion with who? The cannot be multiple definitions of Truth. oxymoron Thank you.. -mapsurfer

This article was split from the main article Truth after discussion. [1] History before 03:22, 8 July 2007(UTC) can be found there. Banno 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Synchronise

I have simply copied the content of Truth#Religious views to here, leaving a copy of the first paragraph on the old site as a lead-in to this article. More work need sot be done to synchronise the two articles. Banno 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

rewrite

I've attempted to make the article Truth reflect the material here, albeit briefly. More work needs to be done. Rick Norwood 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought this article should be about the problems peculiar to determining the truth or otherwise of religious claims, as against truth in a general (and usually more verifiable) sense - instead of merely describing (in several sections) what different particular religions claim is true.

The latter belong in articles about those religions, and maybe also in a general article about religion (if for comparison you want to keep these comments together in the same article). But there are quite complex issues, philosophically and logically, involved with truth in religion, found almost nowhere else (except, in a different way, with the arts), and stemming from the fact that the field of religion does not seem to offer objective evidence of its claims, but people have powerful convictions of truth, and (possibly) inner and unprovable revelations of truth - and I would think this article could usefully discuss all these kinds of issues. (I am not knowledgeable enough myself, though, to attempt this.)

(About claimed infallible revelations of truth: different people claiming this sometimes contradict each other, certainly between different religions, and sometimes even within the same one - so can *any* of them credibly claim truth? But this is one of the many issues that an article called "Truth (religious)" could discuss - amongst many others.) M.J.E. (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU SHOULD WRITE ABOUT EASTERN RELIGIONS ALSO NOT ONLY ISLAM IS ONLY RELIGION IN WORLD Ashish Ajay Dhonde (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

File:What is.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:What is.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Humans claiming to BE "the Truth" personified

Has any other religious figure from ANY religion claimed to actually BE "the Truth," besides Jesus of Nazareth? If so, whom? By "religious figure," I mean a human, and not a god/goddess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mm, I’d think Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Confucius, or Jain, and of course many other leaders claim to have the Truth, not just the [[List of people claimed to be Jesus]. The topics of truth, true truth, Truth, and TRUTH seems actually a pretty deep topic. One can read the Truth claim sets for different religions and the history of 800 BC to 200 AD era where religion developed into distinct and exclusive schools. Religions sort of *invented* the concept of truth - the intellectual systems, patterns of doctrine, and body of writing.

And that usage of “the” with capital-T “the Truth” - is the English convention where Truth with a capital-t is a proper noun for singular or important item, reflecting the exclusive nature of singular monolithic absolute of late day belief systems such as you see for nature/Nature, man/Man, science/Science, and cause/Cause. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Missing Religious Representation / Narrow Definition of Religion

The opening section states, "Each religion sees itself as the only path to truth." with no citation.

This statement should be deleted or re-written, unless we can show evidence that all religious traditions make this claim. As it stands, this article has no representation from North America, South America, Africa, Australia or Oceania. It is even missing Taoism. Most obvious to me is the Religious syncretism from Japan where Japanese authors often proudly state that Japan officially recognizes that their society has a long tradition of embracing both Buddhism and Shintoism, two religious views that share different aspects of truth.

The religions listed in this article all happen to be religious institutions that have had state sponsorship that allowed them to grow past their original national borders. If that is to be a limiting factor for this Wikipedia article, perhaps the title of the page should reflect that to the effect of something like: Views on truth from the point of view of state sponsored religious institutions. Otherwise, I would like to see more representation from Hawaiian religion, Dogon religion, Hopi mythology, Religion in the Inca Empire, etc.

In various degrees even the institutional religions listen on this page, such as Christianity, have histories of religious syncretism. Christianity is influenced by Judaism in its founding mythology, the Isis-Horus-Osiris mythology for its holy trinity and resurrection mythology, Stoicism for its monastery conventions, and other Greek and Roman ideas of underworld mythology. In other words, Christianity is a collection of "truths." Akashicorca (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)