A right to believe?

I found this interesting:
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/mark-rowlands-the-right-to-believe/

If only for the clarification of what a 'right' is.

Yes, it was interesting. One of the author's beliefs is You have an evidential right to your belief if you can provide appropriate evidence in support of it. and clearly believes that this is the primary way you can gain a right to a belief. But what evidence does he have for the belief that evidence is the primary way you can gain a right to a belief? None that I can think of. Does he thus have a right to that belief? Perhaps he should be arguing that he has a moral right to that belief, and thus that a moral right to a belief trumps an evidential right to a belief.

I didn't persevere through the whole article, I confess. Too many words. It seems self-evident to me that we all have the right and the obligation to seek the truth - and if and when we find it, we have the obligation to live the truth that we find.

Christian revelation simplifies this search. Truth is more than mere facts, hence wisdom is more than logically derived conclusions from facts. Truth is a Person - Jesus is eternal God made man, "the way, the truth and the life." Wisdom is gained in personal communion with this Truth, this Person. Faith, or "belief," rightly finds its object in Him, and rightly orders the believer into ever greater personal coherence with this Truth.

rightly orders the believer into ever darkness. (I can hear cattle trucks and whip lashes.)

>4 vy0123: "rightly orders the believer into ever darkness. (I can hear cattle trucks and whip lashes.)"

Is that your belief, vy?

If so, is it justified by evidence? And if so, is it evidence seen in light or in darkness, and how do you know the difference?

And does that belief not self-condemn you?

>1 zangasta: From the article:

Instead, the student’s assertion seems to be what we might call a moral right to believe. The student is asserting that he has a moral right to believe what he will, even if there is not sufficient evidence to establish that belief — indeed, even if the preponderance of the available evidence suggests the belief is false. This moral right to believe is a truly curious beast.

Since everyone has a right to believe anything they like, and since no one can force you to believe something you don't want to, I think what is really being discussed here is the right to self-expression, the right to act on your beliefs. And in that sense it is always a compromise because you are among others who have the same right you do.

That anonymous student in the article's example could have gone through his Philosophy 101 class with perfect serenity, secure in his belief irregardless of the questions that put it to the test. Instead, he didn't want to be challenged (which begs the question of why he was in a philosophy class in the first place).

We tend to give religion wide latitude for expression precisely because it is so deeply personal and important to its followers, and because such terrible harm has been done in its name in the past. But ultimately, all "right to believe" questions come down to a kind of negotiation among the people involved:

Is there room in your world view for me to exist as I am?

Is there room in my world view for you to exist as you are?

If the answer to either of those questions is "no" then a compromise must be sought. Although I'd suggest that the solution presented in the article--to stop asking the supposedly offensive questions altogether--was a really bad one because it denied the rest of the class their own "right to expression."

#6

I am in almost complete agreement with you there. However, if one person's beliefs are truly offensive to a majority of a particular community, a government sponsored institute of learning for example. Say they had extreme racist, homophobic or sexist views, would that person's "right to expression" be tolerated? Would they be allowed to ask offensive questions in class. I think not. So I think you are right in that is comes down to a negotiation of what beliefs people have a right to express and a compromise must be sought. But who sets the standards?

>6 southernbooklady: "Since everyone has a right to believe anything they like, and since no one can force you to believe something you don't want to, I think what is really being discussed here is the right to self-expression, the right to act on your beliefs. And in that sense it is always a compromise because you are among others who have the same right you do. "

When you say "everyone has a right to believe anything they like," do you mean that without exception? Suppose a person believes something harmful to himself - does he have the "right" to believe this even if you "know" he is wrong? For example, suppose a 17-year-old "believes" her life is ruined and she has no reason to live and she ought to kill herself. Does she have the right to "believe" this - even if you "believe" she is completely wrong? Is there room in your world view for her to exist as she is - or would you rather she believe differently? Indeed, would you - if you could - try to help her change her beliefs?

>7 rrp: Say they had extreme racist, homophobic or sexist views, would that person's "right to expression" be tolerated?

"Tolerated" does not mean "exempt from challenge." What is tolerated is your right to think what you want. You also can say what you want, of course. but others can say stuff right back at you.

But who sets the standards?

You ask that like there should be only one answer. It's a compromise between all parties. In terms of racist language, for example, Paula Deen can call black people whatever she wants. We can refuse to buy her books or watch her show. Her advertisers can cancel their contracts. What we can't do is arrest her.

>8 ThomasRichard: Is there room in your world view for her to exist as she is - or would you rather she believe differently? Indeed, would you - if you could - try to help her change her beliefs?

In that case I'd say there isn't room in her world view for her to exist as she is. Not a scenario I covered.

But yes, I would certainly try to convince her not to commit suicide. Death is very final and a terrible waste of potential. But just as she is allowed to believe she is worthless, I am allowed to believe she is not. And thus, once again....we compromise. Hopefully, it doesn't get to the point where she is committed against her will.

After all, if that 17 year old girl is terminally ill and faces a short span of time in terrible pain only to exist kept alive on medical equipment with no dignity left to her...perhaps her decision to die would be a better compromise than my insistence she stay alive.

Edge cases are always challenging, but do not invalidate the general principle.

>6 southernbooklady:: "Is there room in your world view for me to exist as I am?

Is there room in my world view for you to exist as you are?"

Though I think it's more complicated than this, precisely because most religions--as well as many New Age "self-help" philosophies that are "spiritual but not religious"--take as their premise that the novice adherent to the religion/philosophy is in some way damaged, misled, blind, ignorant or deceived about their true nature. The religion/philosophy, in turn, promises the freedom of the adherent from that damaged, blinded, ignorant state to one of (w)hol(i/e)nes, enlightenment, salvation.

Thus, the transformative power of religious/spiritual belief is often essential: I'm not supposed to stay "as I am", but be transformed for the better.

>11 nathanielcampbell: Thus, the transformative power of religious/spiritual belief is often essential: I'm not supposed to stay "as I am", but be transformed for the better.

But such transformations can never be imposed from without. They must always be effected from within.

>12 southernbooklady:: Certainly.

>10 southernbooklady: "But just as she is allowed to believe she is worthless, I am allowed to believe she is not." And does it stop there? Are you content with her "right" to believe she is worthless, even though you "believe" she is not? Or do you owe her something; is she due something from you and me to help her?

Maybe my troubled spirit here is a result of the value, depth and importance of the word "belief", or "faith." For some, "to believe" means simply "to have an opinion." Thus, "I believe I am worthless" may be as transient a reality as, "I have a headache." For others, "to believe" is grounded in its religious meaning, and suggests profound, deep and pervasive attitudes affecting everything in life. For that person, "I believe I am worthless" is a confession of ultimate despair, and is very close to a decision for suicide. NOT as an act of euthanasia, but as as act of self-directed violence and hatred.

In my judgment, this case is not so "on the edge" as you seem to judge, but rather it is a typical example. Many, many choices that we make are either choices for life, or choices for death. Many chose in ignorance, not knowing where life is, or where death is - that is, not knowing how to live, or how to oppose death. Many choose bondage, thinking they are choosing in freedom.

The Christian revelation clarifies what has become greatly obscured by the confused consciences, spiritual perceptions and moral discernment of man.

Well you are correct that the word "belief" has many nuances and multiple meanings--some of which continue to muddle conversations about the nature of "belief." It's not like any one group holds the patent on the definition. The best we can do is endeavor to be as clear as possible in our intent and meaning when we use such words.

But I am not really following your queries. You ask if I think such despairing woman has a "right" to her belief in her own worthlessness. In my experience a suicidal person who is determined to end their life will find a way to do so, despite any intervention from others. It is a "right" that such a person claims for himself or herself.

But as I have already said that my conviction of the worth of staying alive would cause me to intervene anyway--in the hope that such a person might be dissuaded from such a terrible course of action, I am unsure what you expect me to say?

> 14. Many, many choices that we make are either choices for life, or choices for death. Many chose in ignorance, not knowing where life is, or where death is - that is, not knowing how to live, or how to oppose death. Many choose bondage, thinking they are choosing in freedom. The Christian revelation clarifies what has become greatly obscured by the confused consciences, spiritual perceptions and moral discernment of man.

A very popular book that has apparently helped many suicidal teens is Hello Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws, by Kate Bornstein, a transgendered writer who advises the reader to consider everything from taking drugs to baking cakes to "moisturizing." Here are some of the alternatives she offers: "Make a wish", "Shatter some family values", "Deal with the dead and gone", "Get laid. Please," "Eroticize the pain," "Go completely batty," "Tell a lie", "Give up nouns for a day" and "Make it bleed" (cut yourself.) All are deemed better than suicide. For each alternative, Bornstein offers a scale of safety (from one to four skulls), and effectiveness (from one to four umbrellas).

Lots of school and public libraries think twice about putting this book on their shelves, even though there are many testimonials to its effectiveness in changing minds.

edited to try to force touchstones to work

>16 jburlinson: "Lots of school and public libraries think twice about putting this book on their shelves"

Thanks be to God, that insanity has not taken over yet.

>15 southernbooklady: "my conviction of the worth of staying alive would cause me to intervene anyway--in the hope that such a person might be dissuaded from such a terrible course of action"

I am very happy and relieved to hear you say this.

>18 ThomasRichard:

I don't see why you would have been alarmed in the first place.

#3: Christian revelation simplifies this search.

Things that simplify the search for truth too much aren't to be trusted; history shows many more have been mislead by them then have had things revealed to them.

Wisdom is gained in personal communion with this Truth, this Person.

The voices in my head vote no (like, 4-0, with one abstaining.)

I find it interesting in response to some of the gay marriage stuff. Yes, you have a right to believe that gay marriage is wrong. No, you don't have a right to expect that others won't find that extremely offensive and refuse to associate with you.

>16 jburlinson: Lots of school and public libraries think twice about putting this book on their shelves, even though there are many testimonials to its effectiveness in changing minds.

That's fascinating (I just ordered the book from my bookshop), and a good example of why I distrust edge case arguments in a philosophical debate. Is cutting a better alternative to suicide as long as it keeps you alive? Sure. Is cutting healthy or a good way to deal with things? Of course not. If you are in favor of making such a book available, does that mean you are in favor of cutting? Nope. Would you rather find out your son or daughter was cutting than find them dead? Yes, you would.

So you know what the mere existence of such a book says to me? That we--as a society--absolutely suck at identifying, reaching out to, and helping kids that are in real trouble. That it is so bad for some of our kids that someone wrote a last-ditch triage guide for every teenager who has been thrown to the wolves or left to deal with the crap that is their life on their own.

The reason that book should be on the library shelves isn't just so kids might use it to save themselves. It should be there to goad us, to remind us that if we don't do better, this is what our kids might be reduced to doing just to stay alive.

#9 You also can say what you want, of course. but others can say stuff right back at you.

Paula Deen can call black people whatever she wants. We can refuse to buy her books or watch her show. Her advertisers can cancel their contracts. What we can't do is arrest her.

But the subject being constrained was not a celebrity but a teacher whose employer was told he did not have the "right to expression" in the classroom. I think you would agree with me that a teacher does not have a right to extreme racist, homophobic or sexist views in the classroom. Does the employer have the right to set the standard of what can and cannot be expressed by the teacher? Would an employer who allowed racist expression by a teacher be right? Who gets to decided what sort of expressions by teacher are allowed?

Once again, rrp, you ask questions like you expect there to be one universally correct and "right" answer. Would it make you feel better if I gave you one? How about me? I think all such questions should be run by me for final determination on "what's right." ;-)

>20 prosfilaes: - Ah! I vote for the one abstaining. (Don't lose track of that one.)

>19 southernbooklady: - Really? In our world today life can be very cheap - is cheap for many, when it is the life of someone else involved, and when that person "doesn't count" for one "reason" or another. Please don't take my alarm or relief personally. I don't know you, or much at all of your values. But I am greatly relieved that you have not lost - as many have - a sense of the value of life. Nor the "hope" for that "other person."

>21 prosfilaes: - I've learned not to "expect" anything from men - but I have learned to "keep hope alive!" in the (true) words of Jesse Jackson. I hope that one day men will return to the right understanding of the human body and its part in the expression of holy love.

>26 ThomasRichard: In our world today life can be very cheap - is cheap for many, when it is the life of someone else involved, and when that person "doesn't count" for one "reason" or another.

I am inclined to agree with The Doctor:

"You know that in nine hundred years of time and space and I've never met anybody who wasn't important before."

>28 southernbooklady:
"You know that in nine hundred years of time and space and I've never met anybody who wasn't important before."

Corresponding Christian thought in street-language:
"God doesn't make junk."

#25: And can you make a non-self-serving argument for that? You haven't argued for letting self-doubts into your thoughts; is there any reason I should besides the fact that you disagree with my current belief system?

In any case, it's not like she's for you; she's bigger on not wasting time on this discussion.

>30 prosfilaes: - Doubt is good when it is a warning against falsity; self-serving is good when it is a serving of truth. My experience is this: essential to the search is the discovery that there IS TRUTH. Just the discovery that truth exists is radically transformative. Until that is discovered, everything is a marshmallow-firm choice among opinions.

So I'm glad to hear it is recognized as merely your "current belief system" - and not the truth as yet unfound.

>31 ThomasRichard: So I'm glad to hear it is recognized as merely your "current belief system" - and not the truth as yet unfound.

See, here is what I don't get about those absolute moral systems, those "This is TRUTH" systems: they can't be known. Man is limiited. If you are a Christian, then he is fallen. If you are an atheist, then he is a bag of chemicals with a short existence and inadequate resources.

So any pretense at an absolute morality is flawed from the start. And any moral system invented is, by definition, relative.

>32 southernbooklady: - Thank you for the challenge - it is a thoughtful, reasonable and important one. (And that is NOT a patronizing statement from me. It is simply the case.) The challenge is answered by an interior knowing that truth, absolute and eternal, truth, IS. Truth exists! Truth IS whether you or I ever know it, or hear about it, or for that matter if we ever exist: Truth exists; Truth is. That discovery - and it is a discovery, not a conclusion, not a premise, not a speculation - that discovery radically changes everything for a person previously immersed in a culture of mere opinion, mere "truth for me" or "truth for you."

If there is absolute and eternal Truth, then a subjective belief - common in our culture - that "my truth is true for me, and your truth is true for you," is objectively not true. Such relativism/subjectivism indeed presumes that there is NOT an absolute and eternal truth. Such a presumption seems reasonable, for persons who have not discovered that Truth IS - such a presumption is unreasonable to one who has discovered that Truth IS.

God is Truth. This is part of the self-identification of Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life."

You wrote, ""This is TRUTH" systems: they can't be known."

Please bear with me long enough to consider this: If there is God, and if God has created human persons because of love as Christians assert, then Truth CERTAINLY can be known because human persons are created specifically TO know, by God who IS truth. God - who IS Truth - WANTS to be known.

Please just listen to the personal testimony of John the apostle of Jesus. He is one who knew, and knows, "first-hand":

1 Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life--
1 Jn 1:2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
1 Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1 Jn 1:4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.
....................
1 Jn 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.
1 Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
1 Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

Thanks be to God, that insanity has not taken over yet.

It's good to know that you are in favor of suicidal kids killing themselves.

Jn : Jesus nut

>33 ThomasRichard: Thomas, I could summarize your entire explanation thusly:

me: I don't see evidence for an absolute Truth
you: Truth exists

me: man is fallen and/or man is limited, so how can he ever know Truth?
you: God (Truth?) fixed it so he can

me: I don't believe in god (or absolute truth). I don't see any evidence for it.

....

and so on, and so on....

In short, your explanation was more of an exhortation. But you are preaching to the non-converted here.

Preaching on the internet is like fucking for virginity.

#24 I think all such questions should be run by me for final determination on "what's right."

Forgive me in advance if the tone of this comes out wrong (as my posts are wont). I am asking not to criticize but for clarification.

I thought that the quote did indeed represent your position. You have said that you ultimately take the responsibility for deciding for yourself what is right and wrong, that when you post on a topic such as this, we are to take your comments not as a definitive statement of the truth on some moral position, but as your own personal opinion on the topic, and that the reason you share your opinion is that you hope that your opinion will be respected, that is generally and universally adopted.

>36 southernbooklady: Truth must be discovered - explanations will not place it inside another person. It can and will be discovered by anyone who will dare to hope for it, and seek it with the willingness to live it, once found. It deserves to be sought, no matter the cost! Truth does not admit of compromise: it is what it is. What it is, however, is completely good. What is fearful is to die without truth, apart from truth, drowning in phoniness and hypocrisy, lies and duplicity, in an embrace of nothing but cold and empty darkness.

39: What is fearful is to die without truth, apart from truth, drowning in phoniness and hypocrisy, lies and duplicity, in an embrace of nothing but cold and empty darkness.

Which is what you have chosen, by deciding to live your life extolling Iron Age superstitions.

>38 rrp:

You are ignoring context, rrp. You asked who should decide about a philosophy class. You asked who decides in a specific situation.

I have pointed out that any decision is necessarily a compromise between the parties involved. Obviously, I'm not involved in a philosophy class's dilemma at an unnamed university, so my answer was tongue in cheek. (So irresponsible of whoever invented the internet not to equip it with a sarcasm font).

I am, as you say, the final and only authority over what I think is right. And so is everyone else. And thus when you put us all in the same room, we have to compromise. Case by case, situation by situation.

>39 ThomasRichard: Truth must be discovered - explanations will not place it inside another person

Then why bother to talk to another person?

So any pretense at an absolute morality is flawed from the start. And any moral system invented is, by definition, relative.

With the noted exception that there is one absolute moral truth--all morality is relative. That would be the only absolute truth that is not flawed from the start.

Unless of course the study of ethics is a lot more complicated than most people seem to think it is.

>39 ThomasRichard: John said it well:
1 Jn 1:3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1 Jn 1:4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Because there is one Creator of all, all are brothers and sisters. We are family - estranged members though we may be.

44: Your post has no more substance than a comic book fan claiming that we are all saved because Superman came from Krypton to protect us.

>43 Arctic-Stranger: "So any pretense at an absolute morality is flawed from the start. And any moral system invented is, by definition, relative.
With the noted exception that there is one absolute moral truth--all morality is relative. That would be the only absolute truth that is not flawed from the start. "
++++++++++++
The flaw begins with "any moral system invented." The right moral system is not any one that is invented - the one due our concern is the one that pre-exists us, the one that is our call to find and to follow.

The right moral system is not any one that is invented - the one due our concern is the one that pre-exists us

Then it is inhuman, alien, and we should not follow it.

#41

A sarcasm font. Now there's an excellent idea.

Sure, we are talking about a philosophy class. And there a compromise was reached; the Dean told the teacher to desist. So we are all OK with compromises?

A while ago, we were talking about allowing teachers to discuss creationism in the classroom. Those who pay the teachers get together, compromise and, since a majority approve, allow it. So we are all OK with compromises?

But it not just when you put all of us in the same room, we have to share a planet. And then the situation sometimes calls for you to compromise when someone else in the room has brought a very large and powerful army as a negotiating tool. In fact, the compromise decided upon is that from hence forth there will be no more compromises. You OK with that?

>48 rrp: You OK with that?

I'm "OK" with having the freedom to continue to argue for my position and what I think is right. Do you think that when a compromise is made, the situation is somehow finalized and set in stone?

You seem to want some statement of final determinism. I can't give you that because my life is a constantly shifting set of circumstances that require constant diligence and new compromises.

>47 StormRaven: - "Then it is inhuman, alien, and we should not follow it."

That's funny. True, it is of non-human source, from one not of this world. Considering the mess that humanity has made so far, those are two strong recommendations to at least listen!

50: The religious texts you put so much store in were written by men, just like every other text. And they aren't special, and don't communicate any message that didn't predate them by hundreds of years.

The creature described in your text is a vain, petty, vindictive, bloodthirsty monster. Why should anyone think that was a good "source" for any kind of moral system?

Further, the moral system you put so much store in has held sway over western culture for the better part of two thousand years, so any amount of mess that men have gotten in to is the result of the moral system you tout. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

#49 No. I think I understand. But I think it ultimately comes down to an exercise of power. A community of individuals, each with their own view of what is right is vulnerable to a more powerful community of individuals who organize around a single vision of the right. (Think barbarians at the gate.) I would recommend that you join a team that believes in at least one absolute right, even if it is that each person has the right to their own view of what is right.

>52 rrp: I think it ultimately comes down to an exercise of power

You're a glass half empty person, aren't you? ;-)

I would recommend that you join a team that believes in at least one absolute right

No, thank you. That would be dishonest of me. I don't think that would be right. :)

>51 StormRaven: The story goes that Gandhi was favorably impressed with Christianity as demonstrated by Christ - but Christians he met? No so much.

Christianity has been truly lived by few. If you want to get its measure, go to Christ. Or the few, if you can find them. Try it, and you will understand, and perhaps become more patient and compassionate toward those who do earnestly try to follow Him.

54: Christianity has been truly lived by few.

That is evidence that it is a moral system that is flawed and unsuitable for actual use.

#54

You're a glass half empty person, aren't you?

No. I am the sort of person who thinks we should have chosen a glass of the right size.

> 55. That is evidence that it is a moral system that is flawed and unsuitable for actual use.

So the best moral system is an easy one that lots of people have no trouble following?

>57 jburlinson: Is something "more moral" because it is harder to do?

57: A moral system that almost no humans are capable of following is demonstrably not suitable for humans.

#57: So the best moral system is an easy one that lots of people have no trouble following?

There seems to be a long history of religion setting up all sorts of complex rules and then the average people don't even feel they apply; they're not a monk and aren't going to reincarnate this cycle, or they'll go to absolution on Sunday. It seems like when you throw a huge number of prohibitions at someone, people stop caring about the difference between don't eat meat on Thursdays and don't prostitute your daughter.

>59 StormRaven: "A moral system that almost no humans are capable of following is demonstrably not suitable for humans."

No, we are speaking of a moral system that is finally and fully true. Man was created for truth, and deeply hungers for truth - but this same man is also deeply broken within. A chasm of confusion is deep in the core of man, pulling him first one way and then the other, because of a brokenness that has continued from the beginning.

God allows this brokenness to continue, while at the same time now offering man the power to overcome it - to live truth - in the gift of inner righteousness. God allows and works with such an interior battle in man: man who wants to do right but finds himself doing the very thing he does not want. God allows and works with this interior battle in those who seek truth, because the cause of man's brokenness is pride, and the result of this interior battle is humility - the very medicine needed to put pride to death and bring righteousness to perfection.

Thus, by the gift of God's grace, His moral Truth - that almost no humans are capable of following - is precisely the only one worthy of humans, and is the only one that can finally satisfy the thirst in man for truth, for holiness, for justice, indeed for God.

Tell me something ThomasRichard, do you happen to be one of those people who believe that the "old testament" is literally and historically true?

>62 zangasta: Why do you ask?

>63 ThomasRichard: Well, for instance, if you are, you might be interested to know that Arctic-Stranger thinks you're a "yahoo". Others here might not use that actual word, but the majority of theists on this forum claim to be "too sophisticated" to believe it to be completely literal.

Personally, I don't think such people are "yahoos". I simply think they are misinformed.

>61 ThomasRichard: A chasm of confusion is deep in the core of man, pulling him first one way and then the other, because of a brokenness that has continued from the beginning. God allows this brokenness to continue, while at the same time now offering man the power to overcome it - to live truth - in the gift of inner righteousness

You know, when a person tells us that the bruises they carry from their relationship were "really their own fault" and that "they deserved it" and that "they just need to learn to be better" and that other partner "really loves me" -- we usually try to help them get the hell out of that relationship.

>65 southernbooklady: If you try to judge God by what you know of broken men you will misjudge God.

>66 ThomasRichard: Alas, Thomas, I am only myself and can only judge by what I know of myself.

>64 zangasta: The question requires a careful answer, and I may not be able to answer it this morning, and on this forum. But I will try. Question: Do I "believe that the "old testament" is literally and historically true?"

I believe that the Old Testament is true, and that it teaches and communicates truth to those who read it correctly. It is possible to misread the Old Testament! Parts of it are probably simple and literal history. Parts are parabolic expressions of historical truth. Parts are parabolic expressions of moral and/or supernatural truth.

Perhaps your question had to do with specific parts of the OT - which is, of course not a book but a collection of books. But if your question is, which parts of the OT do you consider "simple and literal history," I would have to say I don't know, and I don't think it is important to know. I am much more concerned with theological history, than with chronological and materialistic history.

When I read the OT, however, I do not enter such academic issues: I read it as true - as it is written, saying what it says - as written to be read with simple child-like faith. Read in that way, I believe, is the way it is intended to be read. Read in that way, it can do what it is intended to do - not to feed scholars, but to feed souls.

>67 southernbooklady: That is why the Gospel means "Good News." Jesus came to reveal His Father to men who could not otherwise learn what God wants us to know.

No, we are speaking of a moral system that is finally and fully true.

1. You have yet to demonstrate that. No, you can't quote the Bible to do so.
2. Even if it is true, it is obviously unsuited to humans in practice, and as a result it doesn't matter how "finally and fully true" it is.
3. Even if it is true, attempting to implement it has resulted in the world today which you describe as a "complete mess", which seriously calls in to question its worth.

>70 StormRaven: "1. You have yet to demonstrate that."

I would not even try - I am almost certain that it would be a waste of time. Need we talk more?

>68 ThomasRichard:

Right, you're just really, really, really fond of Harry Potter stories. Good to get that out of the way. (And I thought you did rather well, quite frankly.)

Or... ummm, we're not quite out of the woods yet, are we?

Did 'Jesus' exist as a real, historical figure? You know, flesh, blood, bowel movements. Did he die on a cross? Was there a resurrection?

>72 zangasta: - Please explain your reference to Harry Potter. I've never read the stuff, and have no idea what you are trying to say.
"Did 'Jesus' exist as a real, historical figure? You know, flesh, blood, bowel movements. Did he die on a cross? Was there a resurrection?"

Absolutely, yes, yes and yes. And notice how often Jesus taught Truth by way of parables, and by the actions of His life.

BUt - what is your point? Where are you trying to go with these questions?

73: Absolutely, yes, yes and yes.

Prove it. No Bible quotes allowed. Otherwise I'll "prove" that Harry Potter is a real flesh and blood wizard.

>73 ThomasRichard: Just as an aside: What's the difference between 'Truth' and 'truth'?

Maybe I have no more point than following my curiosity.

You seem to be terribly convinced of the existence of these characters called 'God' and 'Jesus', and I'm curious about this phenomenon of believing extraordinary claims for which there seems to be absolutely no evidence what. so. ever.
- William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman - Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? (1:54:52)

For instance, why would I believe that 'Jesus' wasn't simply an invention of Paul?
- Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind (1:00:05)

> 62 > 63 >64 zangasta: >68 ThomasRichard:

If ThomasRichard would answer "yes" or "no" to whether he believes each of these 10 people were actually and literally raised from the dead, then no one will be in the dark as to whether he is a "yahoo" or whether he is a sophisticate like A-S, jtf, ts, etc.

https://bible.org/illustration/accounts-people-raised-dead -

1. Elijah raised the son of the Zarephath widow from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-22).

2. Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite woman from the dead (2 Kings 4:32-35).

3. A man was raised from the dead when his body touched Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20, 21).

4. Many saints rose from the dead at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:50-53).

5. Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5, 6).

6. Jesus raised the son of the widow of Nain from the dead (Luke 7:11-15).

7. Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Luke 8:41, 42, 49-55).

8. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

9. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

10. Eutychus was raised from the dead by Paul (Acts 20:9, 10).

>74 StormRaven: "Prove it. No Bible quotes allowed. Otherwise I'll "prove" that Harry Potter is a real flesh and blood wizard."

I tried to say to you before that it would be a waste of time to try. I may as well try to play a three-dimensional game, say, basketball, on a two-dimensional space, say on a chessboard. There is no "up" on a chessboard - and we'd need an "up" to do it.

The proof, as I tried to say earlier on this site, is an interior reality that either is or is not there. If it not there, we may as well be discussing the nuances of color in a world of the color-blind, or Mozart among the deaf. That is the reason that Jesus had to come and die for us: to enable an interior power that could not exist in a man until God put it there.

Faith is a gift, and there is no cause for boasting in a man who has been given it - it was not his doing. But it is a gift that can be sought, and wanted, and asked for. And everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. For everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. So ask! Seek! Knock! But to sincerely do so, you have to take a great personal risk - you have to want it.

I tried to say to you before that it would be a waste of time to try.

In other words, you can't. Because you've got nothing. Your claims are worthless.

>76 JGL53: "no one will be in the dark as to whether he is a "yahoo" or whether he is a sophisticate like A-S, jtf, ts, etc."

Can you explain to me why such a decision should matter?

>77 ThomasRichard: This " interior reality" wouldn't happen, by some remote chance, to be somewhat like that of Eben Alexander would it?

Or maybe like this?

You seem to be of the opinion that because you can't explain it, no one else can either. Self-delusional much? As you see above, our science (in the meaning of knowledge) is growing rapidly.

>81 zangasta: sorry, z, but I'm not going to follow blind links. Explain yourself if you would like a response.

>77 ThomasRichard: Allow me to perform some copy-editing, eh?

"[Self-delusion] is a [Trojan horse], and there is no cause for boasting in a man who has [succeeded] - it was not his doing. But it is a [']gift['] that can be sought, and wanted, and asked for. And everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. For everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. So ask! Seek! Knock! But to sincerely do so, you have to [m]ake a great personal [mistake] - you have to want it."

Clearer now?

Don't worry, I don't charge for my services. It's pro bono.

>82 ThomasRichard: "blind links"? What does that mean?

>82 ThomasRichard: Wait a second...

You "Explain yourself if you would like" to be taken seriously.

Thanks.

and lol

>77 ThomasRichard: & 82

"it would be a waste of time to try. I may as well try to play a three-dimensional game, say, basketball, on a two-dimensional space, say on a chessboard. There is no "up" on a chessboard - and we'd need an "up" to do it."

Or... some twaddle about how I might as well try to explain a video to someone who refuses to watch it; or explain the motions of the stars to someone who refuses to look through a telescope*.

Oh, except of course that videos and telescopes actually are there to be examined. lol Whereas there are laws against examining the inside of your skull. And I'm not asking and taking your word for your answer, or knocking on your skull (again probably illegal). Even seeking your skull would come under anti-harassment laws, I'm sure.

_____________

*Unnnfortunately probably didn't happen. Though they sure took their time in acknowledging said motion. Didn't they?

>86 zangasta: zangasta, I'm sorry but I cannot follow what you are talking about. Maybe someone else here would like to talk with you. Goodbye.

> 81. You seem to be of the opinion that because you can't explain it, no one else can either.

But you seem to be of the opinion that because you can explain it, it doesn't exist.

>88 jburlinson: Say whaaat?

I'm of the opinion that because I (via someone else) can explain evolution, evolution doesn't exist?

Could you quote me on saying something like that? My command of the English language must be poorer than I've allowed myself to believe...

> 89. Could you quote me on saying something like that?

Well, I got the impression reading # 81 that you were saying that experience of God was basically temporal lobe activity -- isn't that what your links meant? I was just assuming that you were discrediting these experiences on that account. Maybe I was wrong about that?

>89 zangasta:: You seem to be of the opinion that because you can "explain" religion (though it has already been shown that your "explanations" are woefully inaccurate to the actual substance of faith), therefore God doesn't exist.

> 79 '...no one will be in the dark as to whether he is a yahoo or whether he is a sophisticate like A-S, jtf, ts, etc.' "Can you explain to me why such a decision should matter?"

Why are you dodging the questions? It is a simple "yes" or "no" or "I'm not sure - maybe." for each of the 10 people.

I answer "no" to each one. I do not believe anyone anytime has ever been "raised from the dead". But I'm an atheist so that goes without saying.

I think your answers do matter. Some people here - your fellow religionists, allegedly - want to write you off as a yahoo who thinks every story in the bible is literal history.

So answer the questions. Otherwise we may have to assume you are a yahoo, and unworthy of any real consideration.

Don't you want to be taken seriously?

Then answer the questions.

On this day, July 4th, I choose to continue my belief system in a Christian context. In my opinion, I have a right to believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him.

> 93

In my mind I just replaced "Christian" in your statement with "Scientologist" and the words "Jesus Christ" with "L. Ron Hubbard".

Guess what? Those changes did not reduce the cognitive content of your asseveration one freaking iota.

Have a nice day.

>94 JGL53:: "Those changes did not reduce the cognitive content of your asseveration one freaking iota."

Wow. The failure to even perceive the differences between Christianity and Scientology is indicative of some serious cognitive defects in the author. Perhaps he should seek help for that.

>95 nathanielcampbell: "Those changes did not reduce the cognitive content of your asseveration one freaking iota."

does NOT equate to:

There are no "differences between Christianity and Scientology".

After all, the one talks of 'Xenu', the other of 'Jesus'. lol

>89 zangasta: "evolution"; "evolution"

>91 nathanielcampbell: "religion"; "God"   lol

>90 jburlinson: Well, at least you seem to have followed my "blind links", or maybe you already knew of poor Eben?...

Anyway, you're doing the same thing Nathaniel is doing: "experience of God"; "temporal lobe activity" They're two different things, with two very different sets of claims.

What I am discrediting, is the claim that temporal lobe activity, or LSD trips, or frozen waterfalls are in any way manifestations of that fictional character invented by Xenophanes.

"je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette" extraneity. (With apologies to Laplace.) (And with sincere hopes that Wikiquote isn't messing with me by giving me incorrect French... o_O)

>96 zangasta:: Is not "cognitive content" a descriptor for, "what one thinks as a Christian" / "what one thinks as a Scientologist"? And are not the contents of those two thought-complexes different?

The failure to even perceive the differences between Christianity and Scientology

There is a difference: Scientology is more plausible.

>98 nathanielcampbell:

First, I'd like to apologise to JGL for jumping in and hijacking his sub-thread.

Second, I'll admit that I misunderstood JGL.

Third, "Second" doesn't matter, because No to your first question, and because your two questions are in fact getting at two different things. (That bit after my last comma could do with clearer English, but I'll hand this back to JGL now.)

> 95 > 98

The cognitive content of the two are of the same type - i.e., imaginative myths taken as historical fact with no basis in reality to justify such a leap of naked faith.

Believe in the reality of the myths of scientology.

Believe in the reality of the myths of christianity.

Believe in the reality of the myths of astrology.

Believe in the reality of the myths of aboriginal animism.

Believe in the reality of the myths of mormonism.

Believe in the reality of the myths of hinduism.

Pick one. One is just as likely to be real instead of imagination as the next.

This is because they are all naked beliefs based on wish and hope and fear and other emotional reactions to life. So six of one, half a dozen of the other.

The religious "authority" vouching for one religion has nothing more to offer than the other claims from other allegedly religious authorities.

The mouthing of the R.C. pope = the mouthing of the top voo doo priest in Haiti = any other set of "supernatural" claims. Prove any of them right. Prove any of them wrong. You can't. They are non-falsifiable beliefs, worthless and meaningless to anyone who is not a dupe of ( ______ fill in the blank with name of one of ten thousand religions)

On this day, July 4th, I choose to continue my belief system in a Christian context. In my opinion, I have a right to believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Thanks everyone, but, I am still believing in Jesus and will not change because my salvation is through him.

> 97. "experience of God"; "temporal lobe activity" They're two different things, with two very different sets of claims.

That's odd -- I thought the implication of # 81 was that they were the same thing.

At any rate, now you're stating definitively that "experience of God" is NOT manifestation of temporal lobe activity -- is that right?

On this day, July 4th, I choose to continue my belief system in a Christian context. In my opinion, I have a right to believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Thanks everyone for your input but I am still continuing in my belief of Jesus as my true savior.

>104 JaneAustenNut: - good choice! Hang in there.

> 102. On this day, July 4th, I choose to continue my belief system in a Christian context.

Isn't that true of other days as well -- or has the 4th of July been a religious holiday all this time without my realizing it?

ThomasRichard: "interior reality" - #77

Yours truly: "interior reality" - #81, quoting #77

Tu: "experience of God was basically temporal lobe activity" - #90

So the reason why you've lost me in #103 is because you've brought your own terminology into (an attempt at) a discussion between Thomas and yours truly. (I've searched Harris' article, but it doesn't include your "experience of God" phrase either...)

For the record I think anyone has a right to believe he or she IS jesus christ, if that makes the person happy and he or she otherwise is a law-abiding citizen.

But if they ever wish to debate the issue - well, that's where I come in.

lol.

I continue to notice that ThomasRichard, who is usually hot to defend and explain his sincerely held religious beliefs to the nth degree, and share them quite openly with all the world, is still not saying whether he believes any of those dead people were raised up to live again.

Why is that, TR? Are you afraid that an honest answer will incur ridicule?

If so, I promise to make NO further comment on the subject.

Just answer the questions. Do believe any of those people were raised from the dead, and if so which ones?

>104 JaneAustenNut: "salvation" meaning what exactly?

For those who do not have the same belief system that I have, it is fine with me. I just think that in a free society, I have the right to believe in Jesus Christ!! Also, being that today is July 4th, I think it is entirely appropriate to state my beliefs in a free and open society. Remember, the right to freedom of speech. I am not trying to convert people, only stating my right to a religious belief system. I am not afraid of GOD or Jesus and am not afraid to express my personal dedication to the Christian faith.

> 107. OK. So let me see if I've got this straight -- "interior reality" is equivalent to "temporal lobe activity", but neither is equivalent to "experience of God", correct?

You see, I'm trying to follow your bread crumb trail of links and gnomic utterances, but I get the feeling I'm missing some essential crumbs. In # 77, ThomasRichard was talking about interior reality, which you then suggested (through your links in # 81) was really nothing more than brain activity. (If you didn't mean to suggest that, why in the world did you supply the links?)

Yet now you seem to be distancing yourself from that implication, and I'm wondering why. Are you now saying that "interior reality" is not brain activity?

> 107. I've searched Harris' article, but it doesn't include your "experience of God" phrase either...

I was assuming that you'd watched the little video that you linked to titled "Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes and God."

111: I just think that in a free society, I have the right to believe in Jesus Christ!!

Sure you do. And other people have the right to tell you that you are silly for doing so.

>113 jburlinson: :-) You assumed correctly. Though you did make another assumption as well...

Good to learn that you aren't hard of hearing. And good that I didn't allow myself to be discouraged by rrp. Which reminds me of something odd he said... Hang on please...

Now, where was I... oh yes

>113 jburlinson:

I'm also glad I got you to watch that video. Isn't it a beaut?

But to make this brief, because it's getting late again:

"experience of God"; "interior reality"? nah

"experience"; "interior reality"? yup

"temporal lobe activity"; "interior reality"? yup

"epileptic seizure"; "interior reality"? yup

"experience of 'God' "; "interior reality"? ummmm

"experience of the word 'God' as Pavlovian stimulus"; "interior reality"? Yeauh... could be...

 
Now consider the following alternatives:
- the word 'Rumpelstiltskin' as Pavlovian stimulus : safer;
- the word 'friends' as Pavlovian stimulus : better;
- actual friends as Pavlovian stimulus : distinctly better;
- frozen waterfalls as Pavlovian stimulus : nice - though I prefer higher temperatures...;

Oooops, this isn't exactly 'brief', is it?

Of course 'Pavlovian stimulus' isn't necessarily the best descriptor for a desirable state, and I certainly wouldn't want all that emotionality of those epileptic seizures, or any epileptic seizures for that matter, but maybe you get my general drift.

You'll probably want to tell me something along the lines that John Sharon "experiences God", but, noting that he has a tendency tho think that he himself is 'God', I'd respond that, no jburlinson, John Sharon experiences himself.

"je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette" extraneity.

"A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts."

- The Ethics of Belief, William K. Clifford
- quoted in The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan

Interesting. I first ran across this story in one of my theological textbooks at Duke. The subject was the failure of imagination. It might have been Ron Thiemann, from Harvard where I first saw it, but I am not sure.

>118 Arctic-Stranger: Note to self: Never board a ship managed by Arctic's ...imagination. o_O

No the failure was that he was a manager, committed to the bottom line. He could not conceive that any other aspect should take precedence over his making the bottom line.

In short, in spite of giving a nod to providence, he was a totally secular man.

>120 Arctic-Stranger: So what you're saying seems to be along the lines that all those people who thank God for this, that, and t'other, are all of them secular?

Like these:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/28/my-take-this-is-where-god-was-in-aurora...

Interesting.

Did you even read what you posted?

...he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy;

He gave a nod to Providence (not necessarily God) as one might tap a bat three times before coming the plate. He could not imagine any form of providence that might possibly counter his expectations of it. Kind of like, "Why should I care about the poor people in midst? Surely Providence will feed them." Where I come from, we call that passing the buck, not faith.

He gave a nod to Providence (not necessarily God)

"Providence" was a fairly common way of invoking God in that era.

>122 Arctic-Stranger: You're trying too hard Arctic.

__________________

Great, YOU call that passing the buck. Now go out and share this wonderful story with all those people who call it ...faith? Convince them of the errors of their ways. Nothing would please me more if you could use this piece in the service of stopping them from passing the buck.

_____________

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Providence

You really are trying too hard.

Maybe but I also think I know the landscape a lot better than you do, seeing as how I lived there for ages.