Literary approach to faith

[Qoeleth]

Let’s imagine this: When a person reads ‘Lord of the Rings’ he/she is able to ‘believe’ the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. ‘Belief’ is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is ‘true’ if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of ‘fiction or non-fiction’ is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real ‘Truth’. Hamlet, and the Iliad are ‘true’ stories, although may be the never actually happened.

Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.

Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as ‘sacred texts’) one of literary appreciation? Is the ‘Truth’ of a religious text not 'it’s factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?

It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of ‘truth’ is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.

 

[ColdComfort]

Let’s imagine this: When a person reads ‘Lord of the Rings’ he/she is able to ‘believe’ the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. ‘Belief’ is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is ‘true’ if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of ‘fiction or non-fiction’ is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real ‘Truth’. Hamlet, and the Iliad are ‘true’ stories, although may be the never actually happened.

Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.

Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as ‘sacred texts’) one of literary appreciation? Is the ‘Truth’ of a religious text not 'it’s factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?

It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of ‘truth’ is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.

I couldn’t disagree more. From the CCC:

The senses of Scripture

**115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”**

Literal does mean what it often means in some protestant thinking but simply what the inspired author meant to write. Sacred scripture has a great many genres from poetry to history. Job is a drama not unlike Hamlet except of course its author is God. But when sacred scripture intends to relate historical events the literal sense means just that. The birth, passion and resurrection of Jesus happened.

 

[fhansen]

Let’s imagine this: When a person reads ‘Lord of the Rings’ he/she is able to ‘believe’ the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. ‘Belief’ is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is ‘true’ if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of ‘fiction or non-fiction’ is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real ‘Truth’. Hamlet, and the Iliad are ‘true’ stories, although may be the never actually happened.

Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.

Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as ‘sacred texts’) one of literary appreciation? Is the ‘Truth’ of a religious text not 'it’s factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?

It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of ‘truth’ is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.

I don’t know about you but it would never work for me. Philosophy, eastern or western, the world of mere ideas, however much truth they may contain, eventully proved tiresome and, at any rate, insufficient for me. Unless someone can come through with new ideas, beyond what humans can ascertain on our own here on earth, then we remain mired by our unavoidable parochialism-we just can’t know what we can’t know. Jesus remedied this situation by bringing revelation from the “other side”. He gives us something to believe in: Himself and the truths He’s given us. And unless those extraordinary revelations are authentically true, in the fully practical sense, then we’ve obtained nothing different, nothing we didn’t already know, nothing we can benefit from. I think quotes such as the following help clarify my point:

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1Cor 15:12-19

 

[Qoeleth]

I don’t know about you but it would never work for me. Philosophy, eastern or western, the world of mere ideas, however much truth they may contain, eventully proved tiresome and, at any rate, insufficient for me. Unless someone can come through with new ideas, beyond what humans can ascertain on our own here on earth, then we remain mired by our unavoidable parochialism-we just can’t know what we can’t know. Jesus remedied this situation by bringing revelation from the “other side”. He gives us something to believe in: Himself and the truths He’s given us. And unless those extraordinary revelations are authentically true, in the fully practical sense, then we’ve obtained nothing different, nothing we didn’t already know, nothing we can benefit from. I think quotes such as the following help clarify my point:

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1Cor 15:12-19

But for the post-rationlist generation, who during their formative years read Derrida while listening to Nirvana, the concept of ‘facts’ and ‘objective’ truth no longer seems to hold up. There seems to be no real distinction between fact and fiction, truth and poetry…

 

[Qoeleth]

I couldn’t disagree more. From the CCC:

The senses of Scripture

**115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”**

Literal does mean what it often means in some protestant thinking but simply what the inspired author meant to write. Sacred scripture has a great many genres from poetry to history. Job is a drama not unlike Hamlet except of course its author is God. But when sacred scripture intends to relate historical events the literal sense means just that. The birth, passion and resurrection of Jesus happened.

I firmly believe the birth, passion and ressurection of Jesus ‘happened’, but I still don’t know what that means. I know my own birth ‘happened’ (I have a certificate to validate its ontological status), but it remeains essentially a mytheme to me, no more real to me than my future death. I ‘believe’ the Gospel- it talks of some truth- but I also believe Hamlet. But I watch the news of the latests massacre, and it seems like Dadaist fiction…Is reality just another genre of fiction?

 

[fhansen]

But for the post-rationlist generation, who during their formative years read Derrida while listening to Nirvana, the concept of ‘facts’ and ‘objective’ truth no longer seems to hold up. There seems to be no real distinction between fact and fiction, truth and poetry…

I’m not sure your generation was so different. In my own came the mantra “everything is relative”, and the floodgates were thrown open for minds to end up swimming in various degrees of disorderliness, while the rest of the universe, the natural universe as well as a considerable number of those rational beings in possession of free wills, was marching pretty well according to the drumbeat of reason, obedient to “facts” and “objective” truth without necessarily being conscious of this obedience. For some of us, having too much time on our hands didn’t help either.

All truth is objective, as objective as the truth that gravity will kill if it’s laws are ignored in certain generally recognized scenarios such as jumping off cliffs. Opposing “truths” are simply human imagination. As humans we have the awesome and awful responsibility of aligning ourselves with the truth-or not-in any case it’s not forced upon us to even acknowledge it, let alone subjugate ourselves to it. Pilate wasn’t sure about it either, which is why he could ask, ‘What is truth?’. In Jesus we find the truth personified-an actual sentient, rational being who always acted in truth, not even a slightly hypocritical bone in His body, never a sin, whether one of commission or omission, committed. All sin in some way compromises and contradicts truth by its nature. So important is truth, and so huge is our failure to embrace, acknowledge, and comply with it, that we must actually come, after experiencing the depravity of a world that doesn’t necessarily operate according to its dictates, to value-thirst for- and then even worship it.

 

[fhansen]

I also appreciate Pope Benedict’s words regarding truth in ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ part 2. Here’s an example:

** “…if a man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger.”**

Selfish interests, rather than truth, generally rule the day in this world.

 

[ColdComfort]

I firmly believe the birth, passion and ressurection of Jesus ‘happened’, but I still don’t know what that means. I know my own birth ‘happened’ (I have a certificate to validate its ontological status), but it remeains essentially a mytheme to me, no more real to me than my future death. I ‘believe’ the Gospel- it talks of some truth- but I also believe Hamlet. But I watch the news of the latests massacre, and it seems like Dadaist fiction…Is reality just another genre of fiction?

Uh…no.

 

[edwest2]

Let’s imagine this: When a person reads ‘Lord of the Rings’ he/she is able to ‘believe’ the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. ‘Belief’ is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is ‘true’ if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of ‘fiction or non-fiction’ is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real ‘Truth’. Hamlet, and the Iliad are ‘true’ stories, although may be the never actually happened.

Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.

Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as ‘sacred texts’) one of literary appreciation? Is the ‘Truth’ of a religious text not 'it’s factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?

It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of ‘truth’ is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.

The Bible should never be classified as a piece of literature. That is why it is referred to as the Word of God and Sacred Scripture. The idea that we’re living in a post anything world is a secular fiction and meaningless.

When reading the Bible, we start with the Literal, and then consider other factors. It is not a work of fiction, first of all. It records things God actually did and reveals His attributes through various forms, including parables, analogy and actual historical events.

The “human condition” is also not a description in a fully true sense. It is an arbitrary mix of supposed and actual facts that is only a fraction of what it means to be human. Yes, the Bible addresses what it means to be human and tells us what it means to be fully human. In the sometimes fictional musings of scholars we are constantly in the post, post, post, ad infinitum world - as opposed to ancient times like last week.

Faith is a connection with God - a being whose actual existence is generally denied in the modern (as opposed to last week) and constant cranking out of self-proclaimed scholarly literature. Some scholarly literature provides reinforcement for ideas that fall outside the “fullness of truth” as possessed by the Catholic Church.

Minus our gadgets, we are the exact same people as in the Bible. Are all scholarly writings not useful? If there are no standards, no alignment with revealed truth, than one can say too much of it is. It can be driven by many factors, but people do not become ‘more enlightened’ just because time passes or pull it out of thin air. Part of understanding the human condition is knowing, very clearly, what influences us and where those influences come from.

Faith goes beyond mere human understanding. It is a desire to be in a relationship with the Living God. Jesus Christ taught us (along with the rest of the Bible) what to do. It takes faith, and faith comes by hearing and taking into your heart and mind what the truth of what God has revealed truly is.

Secular scholars may touch on these things, but if their viewpoint is purposely excluding truth as given by faith, then they will fall into error, but believe otherwise. Our gadgets have improved but what it means to be human has not changed. Faith opens our eyes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Let’s imagine this: When a person reads ‘Lord of the Rings’ he/she is able to ‘believe’ the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. ‘Belief’ is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is ‘true’ if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of ‘fiction or non-fiction’ is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real ‘Truth’. Hamlet, and the Iliad are ‘true’ stories, although may be the never actually happened.

Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.

Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as ‘sacred texts’) one of literary appreciation? Is the ‘Truth’ of a religious text not 'it’s factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?

Nonesense. Yes, the Scriptures are wonderful literary examples but they relate a true history, the history of salvation. You can’t save this generation by playing games with them - and this is one of their most serious problelms, one which may well destroy them. Preaching Christ and Him Cruxcified is the only way to go as St. Paul showed. Philosophy helps but this generation can’t think in those categories. I sometimes wonder if they can think at all.
It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of ‘truth’ is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.

 

[edwest2]

I firmly believe the birth, passion and ressurection of Jesus ‘happened’, but I still don’t know what that means. I know my own birth ‘happened’ (I have a certificate to validate its ontological status), but it remeains essentially a mytheme to me, no more real to me than my future death. I ‘believe’ the Gospel- it talks of some truth- but I also believe Hamlet. But I watch the news of the latests massacre, and it seems like Dadaist fiction…Is reality just another genre of fiction?

You’re overthinking this and may be in a semi-euphoric state over nothing. I am sick and tired of reliving the same pseudo-intellectual junk that got thrown out shortly after the late 1960s. But, apparently, it gets recycled.

At the time, I used to read all kinds of things, including books by a certain “in” philosopher. I was puzzled by what he had to say, but like any good science-fiction story, you mix a little truth and reframe and reframe and reframe it some more. By the time you’re done - you go, “Wow. That was heavy, man. It just blew my mind.” And then fix yourself a sandwich and watch some TV. That was then but it also appears to be now - again.

Let’s face it. All of us lead pretty unspectacular lives. Some of us, for whatever reason, end up elevated by society, i.e. you’re an artist!! you’re a writer!! as if we cease to be regular human beings. Nope. We all get up, put our pants on one leg at a time, drive to work, do what we do, and hopefully, enjoy it, go the store, pay our bills and maybe have a little fun.

There are a lot of things to be amazed about out there, but our mental capacity is mostly average with a handful of above average people. Faith is not a plaything. It is not elastic. It has certain characteristics.

I never thought I’d see the word Dada again.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Qoeleth]

You’re overthinking this and may be in a semi-euphoric state over nothing. I am sick and tired of reliving the same pseudo-intellectual junk that got thrown out shortly after the late 1960s. But, apparently, it gets recycled.

At the time, I used to read all kinds of things, including books by a certain “in” philosopher. I was puzzled by what he had to say, but like any good science-fiction story, you mix a little truth and reframe and reframe and reframe it some more. By the time you’re done - you go, “Wow. That was heavy, man. It just blew my mind.” And then fix yourself a sandwich and watch some TV. That was then but it also appears to be now - again.

Let’s face it. All of us lead pretty unspectacular lives. Some of us, for whatever reason, end up elevated by society, i.e. you’re an artist!! you’re a writer!! as if we cease to be regular human beings. Nope. We all get up, put our pants on one leg at a time, drive to work, do what we do, and hopefully, enjoy it, go the store, pay our bills and maybe have a little fun.

There are a lot of things to be amazed about out there, but our mental capacity is mostly average with a handful of above average people. Faith is not a plaything. It is not elastic. It has certain characteristics.

I never thought I’d see the word Dada again.

Peace,
Ed

I think you are reducing the human condition to a factor within ‘reality’, rather than properly construing ‘reality’ as an invention of the human condition, although the notion of ‘the human condition’ itself might be seen a a function of text. As it is, ‘reality’ is one particular genre of discourse, which need not coincide with the discourse known as ‘religion’ (although some overlap may be helpful). Personally, I see no justification for prioritizing the claims of ‘reality’ over those of ‘religion’ (or any other genre of discourse). Let’s hope we retain something from the 60’s and don’t fall back into the error of ontotheology and theo-ontology.

Dada is not to be under-rated. Perhaps our current society- people continuing to subscribe to a scientific rationalism they no longer believe in, logocentrism retained as a self-negating bricolage- is the consummation of Dada, but a Dada which no longer dares speak its name.

Maybe this is the key to approaching Faith in the modern (or post-modern, or post-post-modern age)- the systematic rejection of the ‘reality of reality’.

Now I must go and make a sandwich and watch more TV…

 

[edwest2]

I think you are reducing the human condition to a factor within ‘reality’, rather than properly construing ‘reality’ as an invention of the human condition, although the notion of ‘the human condition’ itself might be seen a a function of text. As it is, ‘reality’ is one particular genre of discourse, which need not coincide with the discourse known as ‘religion’ (although some overlap may be helpful). Personally, I see no justification for prioritizing the claims of ‘reality’ over those of ‘religion’ (or any other genre of discourse). Let’s hope we retain something from the 60’s and don’t fall back into the error of ontotheology and theo-ontology.

Dada is not to be under-rated. Perhaps our current society- people continuing to subscribe to a scientific rationalism they no longer believe in, logocentrism retained as a self-negating bricolage- is the consummation of Dada, but a Dada which no longer dares speak its name.

Maybe this is the key to approaching Faith in the modern (or post-modern, or post-post-modern age)- the systematic rejection of the ‘reality of reality’.

Now I must go and make a sandwich and watch more TV…

The late 1960s are where they belong: in the trash heap of failed loud-mouths. I’ll take the Church’s teaching over some well-plowed ground that has been seeded with a ton of words that don’t amount to much.

I’m clear on what faith means and is. Others can try to bury it under a mass of verbiage. I encourage my fellow Catholics to know about but reject anything with the phrase “post-whatever.” It never has and never will amount to anything.

Rejecting the reality of reality will still not convince a police officer to not give you that ticket or your credit card company or the people who want to shut off your power.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Giants]

Let’s imagine this: When a person reads ‘Lord of the Rings’ he/she is able to ‘believe’ the story and events. Similarly with seeing a Sci-Fi or vampire movie. ‘Belief’ is sustained while engaged in that particular thought-world (or language game) of the literary or artistic genre in which one is engaged. A work of literature is ‘true’ if its ideas have a resonance. The distinction of ‘fiction or non-fiction’ is a genre classification, and has nothing to do with real ‘Truth’. Hamlet, and the Iliad are ‘true’ stories, although may be the never actually happened.

Now, I propose that religion can be approached in the same way. If we read a work of literature, say the Gospel of John, can we appreciate it as a viable work of literature? It is true if it has resonance with the human condition.

Is the most appropriate approach to religious truth (i.e. the truths expressed in literature in the genre known as ‘sacred texts’) one of literary appreciation? Is the ‘Truth’ of a religious text not 'it’s factual content, but its ability to resonante with the human condition?

It seems anything other than such an aesthetic conception of ‘truth’ is redundant in a post-modern, post-scientific world.

There may be a resonance with some of the ideas in the Bible that seem to transcend the time they were coming out of. But that can potentially be true in any piece of ancient literature. Also in any literary work like “Lord of the Rings” - which contains themes and ideas that transcend the fantasy-world in which they’re contextualized.

IMO, it’s perfectly fine to appreciate the Bible this way. We do it with all the stories of the Ancient Greek and Roman gods. But the “truths” you find in the Bible are not religious truths, no matter how transcendent. The Golden Rule isn’t given validity because of its religious context. It works to make life better just about everywhere it’s applied. Also, consider that, if the Resurrection of Christ were a historical truth, nobody would call it a religious truth. It would just be true, without qualifications.

 

[Qoeleth]

I encourage my fellow Catholics to know about but reject anything with the phrase “post-whatever.”

In rejecting such phrases, does one not become ipsofactoically post-post?

 

[Qoeleth]

There may be a resonance with some of the ideas in the Bible that seem to transcend the time they were coming out of. But that can potentially be true in any piece of ancient literature. Also in any literary work like “Lord of the Rings” - which contains themes and ideas that transcend the fantasy-world in which they’re contextualized.

IMO, it’s perfectly fine to appreciate the Bible this way. We do it with all the stories of the Ancient Greek and Roman gods. But the “truths” you find in the Bible are not religious truths, no matter how transcendent. The Golden Rule isn’t given validity because of its religious context. It works to make life better just about everywhere it’s applied. Also, consider that, if the Resurrection of Christ were a historical truth, nobody would call it a religious truth. It would just be true, without qualifications.

But isn’t a ‘religious truth’ something which seems to speak directly to the human condition, transcending it immediate facticity (or lack thereof). Why can’t a Christian also find religious truths in Greek and Roman literature? I, for one, think Truth is to be found everywhere- Scriptures of other religions, philosophy, fiction, etc. The Truth is out there…

As for ‘historical truth’- it is a contradiction in terms. The past no longer has any ontological status, history is simply a narrative- its truth can therefore only be assessed aesthetically. Why privilege history over fiction or mythology? Because it ‘actually’ happened? That seems no longer to mean anything in a post-modern, post-historical, post-ontotheological, neo-nihilist world…

 

[fhansen]

But isn’t a ‘religious truth’ something which seems to speak directly to the human condition, transcending it immediate facticity (or lack thereof). Why can’t a Christian also find religious truths in Greek and Roman literature? I, for one, think Truth is to be found everywhere- Scriptures of other religions, philosophy, fiction, etc. The Truth is out there…

As for ‘historical truth’- it is a contradiction in terms. The past no longer has any ontological status, history is simply a narrative- its truth can therefore only be assessed aesthetically. Why privilege history over fiction or mythology? Because it ‘actually’ happened? That seems no longer to mean anything in a post-modern, post-historical, post-ontotheological, neo-nihilist world…

I think that historical events such as actual resurrections would tend to transcend the relevance of any particular way that some may view humanity in terms of development or enlightenment or whatever reason they may find to naively believe that humans or human nature is somehow different or unique vis-a-vis some earlier time.

 

[edwest2]

But isn’t a ‘religious truth’ something which seems to speak directly to the human condition, transcending it immediate facticity (or lack thereof). Why can’t a Christian also find religious truths in Greek and Roman literature? I, for one, think Truth is to be found everywhere- Scriptures of other religions, philosophy, fiction, etc. The Truth is out there…

As for ‘historical truth’- it is a contradiction in terms. The past no longer has any ontological status, history is simply a narrative- its truth can therefore only be assessed aesthetically. Why privilege history over fiction or mythology? Because it ‘actually’ happened? That seems no longer to mean anything in a post-modern, post-historical, post-ontotheological, neo-nihilist world…

If it’s all meaningless and you believe that, why bother getting up in the morning? Nihilism is a bad idea. It doesn’t deal with reality. Denying, denying, denying. What is truth? Whatever I think it is?

Not buying it.

Ed

 

[Giants]

But isn’t a ‘religious truth’ something which seems to speak directly to the human condition, transcending it immediate facticity (or lack thereof). Why can’t a Christian also find religious truths in Greek and Roman literature? I, for one, think Truth is to be found everywhere- Scriptures of other religions, philosophy, fiction, etc. The Truth is out there…

Because not even the truths you find in religion are “religious truths.” To the extent that they’re even original, the fact that they are true means they transcend the religious context they’re originating from. It’s only an accident of history that such truths are first found in, say, The Bible, instead of, say, The Odyssey.

 

[Qoeleth]

Because not even the truths you find in religion are “religious truths.” To the extent that they’re even original, the fact that they are true means they transcend the religious context they’re originating from. It’s only an accident of history that such truths are first found in, say, The Bible, instead of, say, The Odyssey.

From my perspective, a ‘religious truth’ is the same as a ‘human truth’.

There are many such truths in ancient literature, Gilgamesh, Homer, Hesiod, the Bible.

I don’t think any ‘religious truths’ are actually original. They are as old as being human. From the first caveman with a barely awakened consciousness who realised that all humans will perish, to the philosophers of the present day. This is the first and perhaps, only foundation of religious truth. Religion, then, is how we frame that single piece of wisdom.