Empirically speaking, the effects of religion on converts is almost always beneficial. Especially in regards to morality....which is at the heart of all religions and they tend to hold the believer to a more stringent standard than society's common denominator.

What about the relationship between any particular religion and objective truth?

Well what about it........?

Can anything actually be "proven" through scriptual interpretation???

And what bearing would this have on me.??

Stating that a religion has helped you become a better person I understand....but I could point you to other examples of how people became better.....this would be subjectivity....

Subjective, correct. Since we don't care about subjectivity, what questions regarding the religion's objective claims would you want answered?

Would you guys consider the exodus an objective fact?

Why did you pick that one? Basically, why is that important to you?

i'd also wonder what about the exodus (from Egypt). The event as a whole, some specific of the event, the people involved, the history of the event, etc...

Good question.....I don't know!
Something that poured out of my subconscious I suppose....I think I remember reading that there are conflicting claims from scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists....and even people within the field of linguistics on whether the exodus actually took place...and even whether there were Hebrews living amongst Egyptians for such a long period......it could put all of the old testament into question I suppose.......

Any others?

keep in mind as well that you can find a 'scholar' to take just about any position. Not to derail this thread but you could find people to defend and attack the notion of 'global warming'. There is a lot of sifting through information, studying, rational thought, etc., to do when coming to conclusions.

Back to Max's question...

So the exodus argument is no good?

I like to think I disseminate work that fits within my idea of rational and valid reasoning..........some yahoo can sit and explain to me why my phone is actually a grapefruit...but I doubt I would use that in an argument.

No, not saying that, but like Student said, it's up for debate.

Basically, what I'm asking is this.

A Church makes claims about objective reality....i.e. Jesus existed, Paul said this, 'X' is true, you should believe 'Y', etc.

How would you want them to prove to you that their beliefs coincide with objective reality?

I don't have to prove I'm innocent...you have to prove I'm guilty.
I already know the answer.

Also...I could contruct a syllogism (your favorite) ....postulating that if the exodus is myth....then the whole ball of wax is myth.....

Huh?

Here are some definitions of "objective":

1: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" [syn: nonsubjective] [ant: subjective]... 3: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation;

Is there any observable irrefutable evidence that the exodus did not actually take place?

I read an article in Time magazine citing some archeological experts who criticized the accuracy of the account of Abraham's life in the Old Testament. I don't remember the details but, loosely, the descriptions of places and events were wrong since during that time period there was archeological evidence of different trade routes, cities, populations, etc.

Presumably their evidence is observable phenomena.

But there are many reasons why encountering such an article I would not "throw out the whole ball of wax."

First, I would want to conduct a more detailed study of countervailing authorities on the subject for myself and weigh their evidence. I have yet to be convinced that the Bible is false from such investigations.

Second, such historical discrepancies could have occurred due to human error (typos, difficulty in translation, cultural differences in the importance placed on attention to detail in time and place).

Third, even if such historical discrepancies exist in the Old Testament, this is consistent with the Old Testament being divinely inspired if one accepts that a prophet can be divinely inspired yet his own expression of God's word be - since they are written by a human being, a being with free will -imperfect.

I have yet to encounter any irrefutable argument or evidence - i.e. objective proof - that Abraham did not exist, that the exodus did not occur, etc. If there was such evidence I guess there would be fewer Catholics.

If an "objective analysis" cannot disprove Catholicism (and I am suggesting it cannot) nor prove it, we are left with subjective reasons for choosing or not choosing. Ultimately I do not think subjectivity can be divorced from religious experience nor from human experience generally anyway.

For the record, I don't think the exodus is a myth. However, I can't really see how even if the Church's account of it is not as 'accurate' as you'd like, that the whole 'ball of wax' is a myth. Perhaps you'd like to construct that syllogism for review?