Jesus faked

“#&%!$”

“ close”

“I just wanted to know what direction the comment was aimed at. Anti-Semitic comments used to bother me but I’ve become so used to it I simply consider it someone’s opinion. BTW- I’m not Jewish, I’m a Chassidic Gentile.

""Ah! ...the exclusivity issue once again seems to emerge from the froth."

I used the passage I chose simply because it’s the most well known and the best example. It is the simple fact that Jesus was placed between man and G-d as a type of intercessor. This is foreign to Judaism and therefore forbidden. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 specifically deal with this as well as false prophets and how Jews are to test them and deal with them. It’s not exclusivity. It’s someone trying to place salvation in a man when salvation, forgiveness and atonement has always been there through G-d Himself.

As I explained to Acts1042 there is nothing specific in the Tanack that says the coming messiah has to be worshipped, followed or even believed in order to gain salvation nor forgiveness.”

“Mutt,

Hard-core skeptics complain and fume ad nauseum over such things as alleged contradictions in the bible, God "murdering" children in the Old Testament, the exclusivist claims of Christian orthodoxy, bible text reliability, Christians behaving badly, the so-called Jesus Myth, etc., etc. You seem to be rather intelligent Mutt, and informed in some areas of religion and philosophy. I can respect that. But I've heard it all before. These old and tired objections are like a broken screen door banging incessantly in the wind ...somewhat irritating, though harmless. The objections may be interesting and informative to revisit now and then, but they've been refuted so many times by so many people (including a number of secular scholars) far more capable than you. As far as I'm concerned, you're missionary efforts here to inspire doubt have contributed nothing even remotely faith-shaking ...at least for me. In fact, quite the opposite. Despite the evangelist-scoffer's agenda to dent or destroy my faith, I find Christianity to be ever more convincingly rational ...even though it is not always certain. When all is said and done, it seems to boil down to what we all choose to continue to believe. And how reliable the evidence for those beliefs appear when examined as objectively as possible.

I want to thank you for inadvertently re-affirming and strengthening my Christian faith in a small way. I know that was not your intention, but God truly does seem to work in kick-a$$ ways sometimes.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!”

“Nigal,

It is the simple fact that Jesus was placed between man and G-d as a type of intercessor. This is foreign to Judaism and therefore forbidden..

If it's strictly forbidden, the prohibition is an exclusive one.

Deuteronomy 13 and 18 specifically deal with this as well as false prophets and how Jews are to test them and deal with them. It's not exclusivity. It's someone trying to place salvation in a man when salvation, forgiveness and atonement has always been there through G-d Himself..

If your religion rejects any means to salvation beyond that which you've just stated, then it is indeed exclusivist. If it was not exclusive, it would accept variant salvation/forgiveness methods within its framework as equally valid. Thus, one who accepts - or even considers - Jesus as a means of atonement could not remain in your belief system and be consistent with its exclusivist teachings.

Exclusive: "Not allowing something else; incompatible; not divided or shared with others ...".”

“objections may be interesting and informative to revisit now and then, but they've been refuted so many times by so many people (including a number of secular scholars)

Cool! Please cite the secular scholars.


As far as I'm concerned, you're missionary efforts here to inspire doubt have contributed nothing even remotely faith-shaking

Well, I enjoy knocking christianity - no doubt. Christianity is silly! However, I'm more concerned with showing that Christianity is illogical - particularly the exclusivity claim. All evidence points to the fact that multiple religions are valid. That's why I'd like to see your 'secular' sources - if I'm wrong, then I would grow from that. However, the point I'm trying to get across is that I don't expect to shake anybody's faith.

When all is said and done, it seems to boil down to what we all choose to continue to believe. And how reliable the evidence for those beliefs appear when examined as objectively as possible.

Well I couldn't say it better myself. That's why I refute the claim of exclusivity - the evidence is not 'reliable' enough to believe it.

I want to thank you for inadvertently re-affirming and strengthening my Christian faith in a small way.

If your faith is strengthened, that's a good thing! It's still not logical, though.”

“Mutt, is every single moment of your life about logic? You need to spice it up man.”

“LOL @ Newgirl!

I just caught up reading this entire thread yesterday. Wow. Good stuff.”

“All evidence points to the fact that multiple religions are valid.

Please cite your sources.”

“Nobody's all powerful invisible men are better than the other...”

“Taboo, do you have any Quaker Meetings in your area? If you've never been to Meeting, check it out. You may find it refreshing.”

““If your religion rejects any means to salvation beyond that which you've just stated, then it is indeed exclusivist.”

We have a misunderstanding here. My comment…”It's not exclusivity. It's someone trying to place salvation in a man when salvation, forgiveness and atonement has always been there through G-d Himself.”…was not me trying to say that Judaism is not exclusive. It should have read, “It’s not ABOUT exclusivity (in Christianity).”.


“Thus, one who accepts - or even considers - Jesus as a means of atonement could not remain in your belief system and be consistent with its exclusivist teachings.”

Right. That’s because idolatry is forbidden 20 times in the Torah and even more times in the Writings. Again, I wasn’t coming from the line of thinking that G-d’s commands are not meant to keep things out of Judaism. Far from it! Many of G-d’s mitzvah to the Jew is meant to do just that, keep Judaism pure and unassimilated. But, BUT, in Judaism there is the path of the Jew and the path of the Gentile. Salvation within Judaism is there for all weather they convert or not. This is why Jews do not seek converts, because Gentiles do not have to convert.

Trying to equate G-d’s commands from the Torah and the attempted institution of a human sacrifice for the purpose of atonement and intercessory is a red herring because the latter is forbidden by the first.”

““What’s the difference between Catholicism and Judaism?
In Catholicism you can eat pork but ya just can’t play with it.”

-John Stewart”

“A 75 year old business man goes into the confessional and tells the priest he is having an affair with his 25 year old secretary. The priest asks how long it’s been sense his last confession and the business man says,

“Never, I’m Jewish.”.

The priest asks, “Then why are you telling me this?”.

“Hell! I’m telling’ everybody!””

“I really don't give a crap what people want to believe in terms of religion, but can anyone explain to me why the damn Jehovah's Witnesses have to come to my door on a Saturday morning 10 minutes after I've just rolled out of bed and I'm still in my underwear?

There's something inherently wrong with a religion that has to go door-to-door for followers.”

“They do that unpurpose spackle...they want to see you in your underwear and the Catholic priests are considering taking up door to door missions now too.

lol..”

“The time had come for St. Peter's annual three week vacation, and Jesus volunteers to fill in for him at the Pearly Gates.
"It's no big deal," St. Peter explains, "Sit at the registration desk, and ask each person a little about his or her life. Then send them onto housekeeping to pick up their wings."

On the third day, Jesus looks up to see a bewildered old man standing in front of him.
"I'm a simple carpenter, says the man, tiredly. "And once I had a son. He was born in a very special way, and was unlike anyone else in the world. He went through a great transformation though he had holes in his hands and feet. He was taken from me a long time ago, but his spirit lives on forever. All over the world people tell his story."

By this time, Jesus is standing with his arms outstretched. There are tears in his eyes, and he embraces the old man.

"Father," he cries out. "It's been so long!"
The old man squints, stares for a moment, and says, "Pinocchio?"”

“lmao!”

“All evidence points to the fact that multiple religions are valid. That's why I'd like to see your 'secular' sources - if I'm wrong, then I would grow from that..

Perhaps my grammar was not clear enough? Your interest focuses on the exclusivity issue. When I use the phrase "including a number of secular scholars" I don't mean to imply that ALL of the objections have been refuted from secular perspectives; rather, that refutations within the list include *some* (ie., "a number of") secular thinkers. Nevertheless, I do not immediately recall encountering anything presented from a non-religious perspective regarding your particular pet peeve. Not that there aren't any ...only that I don't remember. On the other hand, I think a simple lesson from basic algebra points toward refutation of the INclusivist position... If x = (1, 2, 3, 4) and y = (3, 4, 5, 6), each set has some elements in common, but they are otherwise exclusive. So also do various religions have similar/identical elements, but fundamental differences as well. They all make exclusivist claims, including those that insist they do not. Now I have no problem with the fact that religions assert their exclusive beliefs, so long as that fact is admitted without too much wrangling. But I believe we've already haggled over this in another thread, and there's no sense revisiting the issue again here.

Post-Modernist thinking that allows a number of contradicting truth-claims to be equally valid is also refuted by simple rules of logic... ie., a truth claim cannot be both true and false at the same time. To put it another way, a statement and its opposite cannot both be true simultaneously. I confess that I once held my own version of the "multiple religions are valid". position. It was something that sure sounded appealing, and I really wanted to believe, and tried to defend it. But when logic and I have had our differences, logic always wins.


Other than that, I think your comments are quite revealing... For example, the interest in secular experts alone, followed by the "if I’m wrong...". risk, seems to suggest that only non-religious counter perspectives are considered reliable. Also, concerning your axiomatic statement, "All evidence points to the fact that multiple religions are valid."., what pray tell could be the profit in presenting anything contrary to this exclusivist claim, when it's clearly evident that the person's schema has already been enshrined in absolute certainty? Even with that confusing qualifier added "if I'm wrong..."., contrary evidence is apparently presumed false before examination, and it's plain to see that the believer's faith is resolute to remain the same no matter what. This attitude is fit only for environments like The Jesus Seminar ...and reminds me of the Christian who says "Even if Christianity was proved false, I would still believe it, because......" Or the skeptic's, "Even if Christianity was proved to be true, I still could not believe it, because......"

A faith that allows no room for doubt is a blind faith.


If your faith is strengthened, that's a good thing! It's still not logical, though..

How can building/maintaining an illogical faith be a good thing? Faith for faith's sake? Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, illogical faith seems to be the very concept you scorn. And rightfully so.


ALL evidence points to the FACT that multiple religions are valid.. (capitalization for emphasis is mine)

I'm curious... What is the evidence that you insist justifies this unqualified exclusivist truth-claim? What is the empirical data? Not tangled logic. Not side-issue arguments. No qualifiers. And certainly not faith. Just the hard, cold, objective evidence. The raw information divorced from subjectivity.


Well, enough of this. I have more important questions I would like to ask God, and they cannot be answered here.”

“if we take out the "my religion is exclusive of all others" factor out of each religion, then the position that all religions are equally valid stands up. its that little "i am the only way" attitude that seemingly 99 percent of religions hold that get in the way, and gets in the way of any real dialogue. if jesus had only said "i am A way. if you wanna go another way, thats fine by me. i was just on my way to heaven/nirvana/paradise/that place with the 20 naked virgins feeding you grapes off a silver platter, and i thought id give you a ride"”

“"BTW- I’m not Jewish, I’m a Chassidic Gentile. "

thats like jewish mysticism, right?”

“""BTW- I’m not Jewish, I’m a Chassidic Gentile. "

thats like jewish mysticism, right?"


No. Before Judaism even existed G-d had made a covenants with ALL of mankind through first Adam and then Noah. Then from all of man He took Israel as His firstborn son and gave them a higher responsibility with more requirements. The Jews must observe all the conditions of G-d’s covenant with ALL of mankind as well as the extra things G-d commanded them as His firstborn son. A Chassidic Gentile (or B’nai Noach) is someone that observes the requirements of the covenant that G-d made with all of mankind through Noah. We Gentiles only have to observe part of the Torah.”

“All Religions = Morals to live by.

You decide which morals fit you.

If you don't follow them, the being that loves, cares, comforts you with love and friendship and fluffyness will send you to a place where your skin will melt off, burn, suffer in pain until the end of time...but remember, he loves you though.”

“I don't want fluffiness, I want the virgins.”

“Why?

Give me the experienced!”

“Perhaps my grammar was not clear enough? Your interest focuses on the exclusivity issue. When I use the phrase "including a number of secular scholars" I don't mean to imply that ALL of the objections have been refuted from secular perspectives; rather, that refutations within the list include *some* (ie., "a number of") secular thinkers.

??? I didn’t misunderstand you.

Nevertheless, I do not immediately recall encountering anything presented from a non-religious perspective regarding your particular pet peeve. Not that there aren't any ...only that I don't remember.

I’ve never seen a strong secular argument defend exclusivity (including yours below). I’m not saying it isn’t out there.

On the other hand, I think a simple lesson from basic algebra points toward refutation of the INclusivist position... If x = (1, 2, 3, 4) and y = (3, 4, 5, 6), each set has some elements in common, but they are otherwise exclusive.

Not necessarily. Very simply, 1, 2, 5, & 6 may be wrong – i.e. the unimportant manmade details. For example, the Resurection was manmade – it never happened. There is no parallel of this event in the natural world. Animals don’t die and then come back to life after a few days. Unless there is physical evidence to prove it did happen, there is no reason to believe it’s anything other than a myth. Does this argue in favor of christian exclusivity – no, just the opposite.

So also do various religions have similar/identical elements, but fundamental differences as well.They all make exclusivist claims, including those that insist they do not. Now I have no problem with the fact that religions assert their exclusive beliefs, so long as that fact is admitted without too much wrangling.

Well, the reason they all make exclusivist claims is because that’s one of the primary social functions of religion – to explain the unknown. Another reason is that humans have a fundamental need to feel part of a group. They feel the need to have a common identity within their ‘pack’. Believing in a myth and claiming exclusivity sets up social boundaries – this is called ‘pattern maintenance’. But does that really have anything to do with God? No.

Post-Modernist thinking that allows a number of contradicting truth-claims to be equally valid is also refuted by simple rules of logic... ie., a truth claim cannot be both true and false at the same time. To put it another way, a statement and its opposite cannot both be true simultaneously.

Again, the contradictions are probably not reflective of TRUTH. Or if one of them is, it’s very likely impossible to know for sure.

I confess that I once held my own version of the "multiple religions are valid". position. It was something that sure sounded appealing, and I really wanted to believe, and tried to defend it. But when logic and I have had our differences, logic always wins.

I’ve successfully defended it for some time now. So I doubt the sincerity of your claim.

Other than that, I think your comments are quite revealing... For example, the interest in secular experts alone, followed by the "if I’m wrong...". risk, seems to suggest that only non-religious counter perspectives are considered reliable.

Well I am interested in spiritual truth rather than religious fiction – but that’s neither here nor there. When it is a trivial matter to logically refute exclusivity, then a secular argument that strongly defends exclusivity would be most valuable. Comprende?


Also, concerning your axiomatic statement, "All evidence points to the fact that multiple religions are valid."., what pray tell could be the profit in presenting anything contrary to this exclusivist claim, when it's clearly evident that the person's schema has already been enshrined in absolute certainty?

When have I ever said I was certain that Christian Exclusivity is wrong? No, there are very few things in life I know with certainty, but I do not need to believe in a myth to retain self-esteem and hope. The ‘profit’ would be great if you could logically argue in favor of your position, but evidently you can’t.

Even with that confusing qualifier added "if I'm wrong..."., contrary evidence is apparently presumed false before examination, and it's plain to see that the believer's faith is resolute to remain the same no matter what.

Mischaracterization. If you can show me solid evidence or a logical argument, I’m more than willing to change my mind.

A faith that allows no room for doubt is a blind faith.

This is the very definition of Christianity.

How can building/maintaining an illogical faith be a good thing? Faith for faith's sake? Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, illogical faith seems to be the very concept you scorn. And rightfully so.

Yes, faith for faith’s sake is obviously beneficial for some people. Religious Studies 101.

I'm curious... What is the evidence that you insist justifies this unqualified exclusivist truth-claim? What is the empirical data? Not tangled logic. Not side-issue arguments. No qualifiers. And certainly not faith. Just the hard, cold, objective evidence. The raw information divorced from subjectivity.

In a nutshell: more than one religion; moral, decent, spiritually fulfilled people in these religions. This is empirical evidence in the philosophical sense. This is objective. This is not faith. And by the way, rejecting exclusivity is not exclusive – just the opposite.”

“If people have to go each week to be told how to live and think by a devine person... more power to you.”

“my god appears in smoke swirles way more than once a week.”

“A faith that allows no room for doubt is a blind faith..
This is the very definition of Christianity..

"Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable. But when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable." --C.S. Lewis


rejecting exclusivity is not exclusive – just the opposite.

A belief that is exclusive of all exclusive beliefs is not itself an exclusive belief ...? Hmmm.”

“You are absolutely right! Stick to your guns! Fight for your faith!”

“Get thee behind me Satan!”

“This is all way to deep for me. Hey, what kind of pack do you think God perfer's, internal or external? How about tents? Do you think he watches his pack weight?”

“God would make the best backpacking partner!! the mans got mangers everywhere and he definatelly knows the coolest water holes.”

“That and if you have a giant lake to hike around, he can part it so you can walk right down the middle. OH OH, he can also help you cut you pack weight down for those long trips. Simply bring one day's food and he can multiply each day your out.”

“This reminds me of an old joke:


Moses and Jesus were part of a threesome playing golf one day. Moses pulled up to the tee and drove a long one. The ball landed in the fairway, but rolled directly toward a water trap. Quickly Moses raised his club, the water parted and it rolled to the other side, safe and sound.

Next, Jesus strolled up to the tee and hit a nice long one directly toward the same water trap. It landed right in the center of the pond and kind of hovered over the water. Jesus casually walked out on the pond and chipped the ball right up on to the green.

The third guy got up and sort of randomly whacked the ball. It headed out over the fence and into oncoming traffic on a nearby street. It bounced off a truck and hit a nearby tree. From there, it bounced onto the roof of a shack close by and rolled down into the gutter, down the drainspout, out onto the fairway and straight toward the aforementioned pond. On the way to the pond, the ball hit a little stone and bounced out over the water and onto a lily pad, where it rested quietly. Suddenly, a very large bullfrog jumped up on a lily pad and snatched the ball into his mouth. Just then, an eagle swooped down and grabbed the frog and flew away. As they passed over the green, the frog squealed with fright and dropped the ball, which bounced right into the hole for a beautiful hole in one.

Moses turned to Jesus and said, "I hate playing with your Dad."”

“Oh man imagine all the waters turned to wine!!!!!!!!!

”

“He can heal your blisters up too!”

“A belief that is exclusive of all exclusive beliefs is not itself an exclusive belief ...? Hmmm.

You're really trying to score a point off semantics, this much is clear. However, in the context of religion, inclusivity is the absence of exclusivity. But really this elides the greater point: even most inclusivists are exclusivists. Only the most ardent defender of moral relativism believes holistically in inclusivity. However, when one examines religions and smaller systems of belief, it becomes apparent that not all paths are valid. Indeed, this fact is just as apparent as the fact that christianity cannot possibly be the one true religion. The truth is muddled, and no one knows exactly what it is!”

“Won't somebody please help Jerry's kids?”

““However, when one examines religions and smaller systems of belief, it becomes apparent that not all paths are valid. Indeed, this fact is just as apparent as the fact that christianity cannot possibly be the one true religion. The truth is muddled, and no one knows exactly what it is!"

Very true. In the past I was a staunch believer in the “one road to G-d” theology but I have come to see many parallels between belief systems. While I choose to follow Judaism as a Gentile I feel I would be blind to not at least recognize Natural Law. Much of this view comes from the fact that I learned that we are not born dirty, nasty little sinners, hell bound for some lake of fire from the cradle. I believe every person is born with goodness in them and this inkling to do good is just as strong as the inkling to do evil.

Yes, the truth is muddled but it is there and I personally feel G-d will judge us based upon what we know about these thruths. A G-d that would damn a person born, raised and spending their whole life in a place where their beliefs are counter to Judao/christian teachings? Not MY G-d.”

“In the tavern are many wines
The wine of delight
of color and form and taste
The wine of the
intellect’s agility
The fine port of stories
The cabernet of
soul-singing
Being human means
entering this place
Where entrancing varieties of
desire are served
The grape skin of ego breaks
and a pouring begins . . .
But after some time . . .
a memory of elsewhere
A longing for the Source . . .
A crying out into the street
begins in the tavern
And the human soul turns
to find its way home.


Rumi/Barkes”

“A belief that is exclusive of all exclusive beliefs is not itself an exclusive belief ...? Hmmm..
You're really trying to score a point off semantics.

Hardly. Lemme put it this way... The moment you make an unconditional statement, you assume the Law of Non-Contradiction. If "multiple religions are valid" (as you claim), you cannot contradict the teachings of Jesus (including the exclusive ones) and remain consistent. It's not semantics at all; rather, a statement of logic (which by the way, seems to be one of the major defenses you've been attempting to use to demonstrate your truth-claims). My intention is not to play games and score points. No sir. Instead, I question the philosophical and existential presumptions I see as faulty in terms of Reason and Logic. I'm not being academic at all ...only trying to get people to be real.


The truth is muddled, and no one knows exactly what it is!.

With this single statement, you nullify in one fell swoop, all truth-claims you've made so far. It's yet another exclusivist claim. And it's also self-refuting... If no one knows exactly what the truth is, this truth-claim itself is equally unverifiable. But even if the statement IS factual, your "truth" would be just as muddled as anyone else’s.”

“Buddhist priest steps up to hot dog cart on New York City street, smiles, and says to the vendor: "Ahh! Make me ONE WITH EVERYTHING." Hot dog vendor makes him one with everything. Buddhist priest pays with a $20 bill. Hot dog vendor puts the bill in the cash drawer and closes it. Buddhist priest waits ...and waits. Finally says: "Hey mofo! where the F(_)C& is my change?!" Hot dog vendor calmly replies, "Ahhh... Buddha say: 'Change must come from within.'"”

“*A rabbi and a priest get into a car accident and it's a bad one. Both cars are totally demolished, but amazingly, neither of the clerics is hurt. After they crawl out of their cars the rabbi sees the priest's collar and says, "So you're a priest. I'm a rabbi. Just look at our cars. There's nothing left, but we are unhurt. This must be a sign from G-d. G-d must have meant that we should meet and be friends and live together in peace the rest of our days." ...
* The priest replies, "I agree with you completely. This must be a sign from God." ...
* The rabbi continues, "And look at this. Here's another miracle. My car is completely demolished but this bottle of Mogen David wine didn't break. Surely G-d wants us to drink this wine and celebrate our good fortune." ...
* So he hands the bottle to the priest. The priest agrees, takes a few BIG swigs, then hands the bottle back to the rabbi. The rabbi takes the bottle, immediately puts the cap on, and hands it back to the priest. ...
* The priest asks, "Aren't you having any?" ...
* The rabbi replies, "No...I think I'll just wait for the police."”

“One day, three scientists go to God and tell him that they can do anything he can do -- only better. God says, "Okay, let's put it to a test. I want you all to make me a human out of a handful of dirt." The three scientists bend down to get some dirt... God interrupts, "NO...NO...NO... Go get your own dirt."”

“... Prove it isn't our dirt.”

“If "multiple religions are valid" (as you claim), you cannot contradict the teachings of Jesus (including the exclusive ones) and remain consistent

Not at all. In order for your assertion to be true, you'd have to presuppose the Bible is accurate and should be taken literally.

Obviously the Bible cannot be taken literally - science has shown us that much. Accuracy? Well, there's good arguments on both sides of that issue.

Like I said, the resurrection never happened - it's a silly myth for reasons I've already explained. So, using this one example, it's apparent that a religion which contradicts the resurrection may also be a valid religion. Having said this, it may be that believing in the resurrection opens up a window for you to see a portion of Truth. However, the resurrection itself is not important - the wisdom and insight you receive from it is.

With this single statement, you nullify in one fell swoop, all truth-claims you've made so far. It's yet another exclusivist claim.

No, it actually is inclusive. Are you willing to claim you know the totality of God? If not, you'd have to agree that you don't know the Truth. You may know *some* of the Truth. Other people may know some of the same Truth you know, and they may know other portions of the Truth. Thus, multiple religions may be valid.

And it's also self-refuting... If no one knows exactly what the truth is, this truth-claim itself is equally unverifiable. But even if the statement IS factual, your "truth" would be just as muddled as anyone else’s

Well yes, of course. Does this frighten you? Does it bother you that you cannot possibly know what the Real Truth is - that you can only receive hints and bits and pieces?”

“Wounded Knee, I think God is definitely an ultr-lighter. Also, the other coo thing, we can all hike w/ him. He isn't one of the sorts who gets annoyed if you aren't a "top-of-the-line" hiking buddy. He'd allow us to have lots of breaks, make bad gear picks, . . . He'd even let us whine alot. LOL!”

“the resurrection never happened - it's a silly myth.

Analyzing the details of specific religious doctrine from scientific, historical, theological, philosophical, etc. perspectives would be a different (though certainly related) discussion ...for another time. As I see it, the primary issue here is that, whether you agree with them or not, many (but of course not all) of the fundamental teachings of world religions contradict and are irreconcilable with each other. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality.



And it's also self-refuting... If no one knows exactly what the truth is, this truth-claim itself is equally unverifiable. But even if the statement IS factual, your "truth" would be just as muddled as anyone else's.
Well yes, of course. Does this frighten you?.

Frighten me that you're truth-claims would be muddled? ...or that it's possible everyone's could be muddled? ...or that yours are unverifiable? Not at all. None of these frighten me. But I'm pleased to see you seemingly admit that you may also be wrong.



Does it bother you that you cannot possibly know what the Real Truth is - that you can only receive hints and bits and pieces?.

Though not sure what you mean by "*Real* Truth," (the term seems to be a redundancy) I did/do not claim to know the totality of Truth/God. Never have, never will.

While it's certainly possible that I cannot know Truth, it's just as possible that I CAN know it - or more correctly, *enough* of it - to support a reasonable Christian faith.”