Maintaining a Current Belief?

[Andrewn]

Yes, they all had their own beliefs. And, if Christianity is true, they were wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

You sound exactly like the young man in the Bible. He went away sadly when Jesus told him to give all he had to the poor. I don't blame him, or you. I would have been sad too.

slave-owners justified their actions by the Bible. In fact, I'll go further - slave owners justified their actions by the Bible, and they were right. The Bible clearly does endorse slavery, in both the Old and New Testaments.

According to you, the Bible teaches that all people should give up all there possessions except that they can own slaves!!!

This is what happens when an atheist reads the Bible and completely butchers what it says. You know just enough to hurt yourself.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

According to you, the Bible teaches that all people should give up all their possessions except that they can own slaves!!!

Think about it.
You can own slaves but you should give up all your possessions.
Can you see that these two things are not mutually exclusive?

This is what happens when an atheist reads the Bible and completely butchers what it says. You know just enough to hurt yourself.

Nice to meet you too.

 

[Rachel20]

So yes, you basically just acknowledged A is more likely to enter heaven, verses B. This completely excludes moral predicates; unless you wish to argue faith/belief is a moral/immoral concept, verses an amoral one? And also wish to argue that belief is a choice?

I actually do believe these 2 things. Faith in God is accounted as righteousness is straight from scripture. If you want to claim this makes it a moral concept, I'm ok with that (though I sense a trap). I also believe that belief in him does ultimately boil down to choice. How can it not when there's no proof either way and there seems to be reasonable arguments from both directions? All things being equal, and the choices mutually exclusive, yet one must be true - then we choose. The intellectuals will prefer that they reason from, and weigh, the arguments. But ultimately I believe we choose based on an underlying bias - what we want to be true. And I actually think that makes God a genius, because if he is so against wickedness, he would know the wicked would never want him to exist. The God of the Bible was always primarily concerned with the heart.

 

[cvanwey]

I actually do believe these 2 things. Faith in God is accounted as righteousness is straight from scripture. If you want to claim this makes it a moral concept, I'm ok with that (though I sense a trap).

Funny

I'm aware the Bible tells you to have faith and to believe. How does this make faith and belief a moral predicate, verses amoral? Is it simply because the Book tells you it is "righteous" to do so?

I also believe that belief in him does ultimately boil down to choice.

I respectfully disagree, and will demonstrate below.

How can it not when there's no proof either way and there seems to be reasonable arguments from both directions?

The exact same argument can be said for Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, an alien sighting, a claimed haunted house, etc... You likely start off by assuming none of these claims are valid. Meaning, none of them are validated claims. If the evidence should convince you otherwise, then you may have no choice, but to recant your prior belief.

I doubt you CHOOSE to believe they are real, based on nothing but the rogue claim itself You cannot help but to have serious doubt, until proven otherwise.

I'll explain more below...

All things being equal, and the choices mutually exclusive, yet one must be true - then we choose.

As with the examples given above, until sufficient evidence demonstrates to the contrary, you have no choice but to reject/doubt the claim.

The intellectuals will prefer that they reason from, and weigh, the arguments. But ultimately I believe we choose based on an underlying bias - what we want to be true.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I have a feeling your present bias has more-so to do with emotion(s), verses evidence. You want it to be true. Am I close?

And I actually think that makes God a genius, because if he is so against wickedness, he would know the wicked would never want him to exist.

Satan knows He exists apparently. All the claimed fallen angels. Adam knows He exists. Eve knows He exists. All the claimed people, whom spoke to Him directly. All the claimed gnostic theists, whom claim to speak to Him today. etc....

******************

In summary, you will need to demonstrate belief is a choice. And you can demonstration this claim simply.

Without any newly given demonstration, or new evidence of any kind; no new catalysts what-so-ever, will yourself to believe the earth is a flat disk.

If you cannot, just like I cannot, then God deems unwillful acts under the umbrella of "morality" --- which does not seem too 'genius', if you ask "little old me"

 

[cvanwey]

I don't see the NT condoning slavery.

It does in many Verses: 1 Timothy 6:1-2, 1 Peter 2:18, Titus 2:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-8, etc....

A slave who is treated as a brother, as a Christianity demands, is practically an employee.

False. Brothers and employees are not bought and sold for life. They are not treated as property for life. They are not beaten, at will, for life. They are allowed to leave. Special rules do not apply to one specific race, which can be changed if they are tricked; by being provided with a companion. Among other notables....

St Paul as ked Philemon to welcome Onesimus not only as a brother but even as he would welcome St Paul himself.

Gal 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

The passages you cite above do not abolish slavery practices. And even if they did, you have to try and square that with all the other Verses, which look to condone slavery practices in the OT/NT.

Using the passage above, you could then also argue that you are no longer male or female

I believe Jesus is the Word of God:

Why? In your own words please.

I ask again, are you covenant based? If so, your covenant with God condones slavery forever.

 

[Rachel20]

I'm aware the Bible tells you to have faith and to believe. How does this make faith and belief a moral predicate, verses amoral?
Is it simply because the Book tells you it is "righteous" to do so?

If the Book is true, acknowledging truth may be the moral imperative. I believe it's true.

The exact same argument can be said for Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, an alien sighting, a claimed haunted house, etc... You likely start off by assuming none of these claims are valid. Meaning, none of them are validated claims. If the evidence should convince you otherwise, then you may have no choice, but to recant your prior belief.

"If the evidence should convince me" - I think I make that choice as well. Everyone has their own standard of evidence.

I doubt you CHOOSE to believe they are real, based on nothing but the rogue claim itself
You cannot help but to have serious doubt, until proven otherwise.

I don't see why doubt can't be involved in a belief that is chosen (desired) as opposed to a belief you just feel, or reasoned intellectually, etc... Until, like you say, proof appears. But then belief is no longer involved. Paul argued that when he said that which is seen is no longer hope.

As with the examples given above, until sufficient evidence demonstrates to the contrary, you have no choice but to reject/doubt the claim.

What about those examples require choice not be involved? The underlying bias for my choice may be a desire not to look foolish.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I have a feeling your present bias has more-so to do with emotion(s), verses evidence. You want it to be true. Am I close?

I want it to be true, yes. But I wouldn't call it emotion. I'd call it preference. As far as evidence, things seem pretty equal - no proofs on either side, reasonable arguments on both.

Satan knows He exists apparently. All the claimed fallen angels. Adam knows He exists. Eve knows He exists. All the claimed people, whom spoke to Him directly. All the claimed gnostic theists, whom claim to speak to Him today. etc....

I don't think you understood my point. It goes to the heart of "why faith?" Why did God reject wisdom and signs, but choose faith? What's different about it? If faith is a choice, and if our choices ultimately boil down to our desires/biases (what we want to be true), then faith reveals our hearts. Something the other two could never do. Something the Biblical God has always been primarily concerned with: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for ..."

 

[cvanwey]

If the Book is true, acknowledging truth may be the moral imperative. I believe it's true.

Why do you choose for this assertion to be true?

"If the evidence should convince me" - I think I make that choice as well. Everyone has their own standard of evidence.

Everyone certainly has their own standard of evidence. This leads me to my point. Let's again look at the examples prior. (i.e.)

- The Loch Ness Monster exists
- Big Foot exists
- So-and-so was abducted by an alien and then returned
- That house is completely haunted

1) Is it reasonable to take any of those assertions as true, based merely upon the above assertions alone?

2) Additionally, does there exist some preemptive mechanism you use to decipher [a choice] of whether or not you are going to decide to have blind faith in the above assertions, or, do you instead automatically doubt all seemingly far-fetched claims, without some type of evidence to support the claim?

I don't see why doubt can't be involved in a belief that is chosen (desired) as opposed to a belief you just feel, or reasoned intellectually, etc... Until, like you say, proof appears. But then belief is no longer involved. Paul argued that when he said that which is seen is no longer hope.

But then Paul no longer needed hope, because he had seen If it's good enough for Paul, and a host of others, why not for all?

What about those examples require choice not be involved? The underlying bias for my choice may be a desire not to look foolish.

Your belief and non-belief is [not by choice]. Again, if it is, simply will a current opposing belief, without any new given catalyst.

I want it to be true, yes. But I wouldn't call it emotion. I'd call it preference. As far as evidence, things seem pretty equal - no proofs on either side, reasonable arguments on both.

Preference is emotion, not evidence. You prefer for it to be true. You hope it is true. You have faith it is true. Maybe because you deem life to have no meaning, due to the contrary. Or maybe, you want to live forever in bliss. Or maybe because you want to see your loved ones again? Who knows?

Some of these 'preferences' drove your current belief. These existing 'preferences' are not by choice.

I don't think you understood my point. It goes to the heart of "why faith?" Why did God reject wisdom and signs, but choose faith? What's different about it? If faith is a choice, and if our choices ultimately boil down to our desires/biases (what we want to be true), then faith reveals our hearts. Something the other two could never do. Something the Biblical God has always been primarily concerned with: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for ..."

I've said this to others in the past. "Faith" can be directly interchanged with both hope and belief. Faith is a very loose term.

You cannot control what you hope for... Just like you cannot control what you believe. Hence, God bases His decisions about His peeps, based upon something His peeps do not choose. You cannot pretend to have faith, and vise versa.

 

[Rachel20]

...

Your whole argument in a nutshell is that it's more rational to dismiss a claim in the absence of proof or evidence than to "blindly" believe it. I agree with the basics of that, though I think agnosticism is more appropriate. But I've never claimed (or known a Christian who does) that there's no evidence or reasoning involved. I admit freely that I hope the God of the Bible exists. But try as I may, I wouldn't be able to sustain that hope very long without reason & evidences. But I think, at least in my case, hope preceded these. I didn't find God intellectually. These followed as I sought to know if my hope were possible. And what I found is that God put enough reason in front of us to choose to believe him if we desire. And enough reason to choose not, if we desire. So I concluded we see what we desire. That's why you see slavery in the Bible as prescriptive, whereas I see it as descriptive. We're both confirming our bias. Only difference, I admit it.

 

[cvanwey]

My argument with you, has not changed. God's judgement, upon His creation, seems contradictory. Lack in the ability to choose seems neither moral nor immoral. And yet, His judgement upon His creation seems based upon so-called [free will / free choice]. Well, emotion is not a choice. Emotion - "faith"/trust/hope/desire are all not mere choices, for which you can manifest on a whim.

Your whole argument in a nutshell is that it's more rational to dismiss a claim in the absence of proof or evidence than to "blindly" believe it.

Have you ever heard the statement, "the more extra-ordinary the claim, the more extra-ordinary the evidence necessary" ???

By default, claims for UFO abductions, Big Foot, resurrection claims, and such others, are quite extra-ordinary. Thus, a basic rationale tells us to 'blindly' dismiss such claims, without any 'evidence'.

I already admit we all may have a differing standard for "evidence". But I must ask...

Is YOUR standard for the presented evidence consistent across the board? Or, do you harbor a 'special emotional place', or present special pleading/special circumstances for one claim in particular?

But I've never claimed (or known a Christian who does) that there's no evidence or reasoning involved.

I have to again ask you, in earnest. Was the provided 'evidence', that compels you about the claims to a resurrection any 'stronger' than that of any other claims you reject? If so, how so?

I admit freely that I hope the God of the Bible exists.

I kind of already knew this And everything said there-after, speaks volumes. But here's the kicker... I wanted it to be true, as well. But as soon as I started to investigate for myself, I had NO choice but to doubt. If you continue to accept the proposition, I doubt it is even a choice to spontaneously 'change' your mind It's not your choice. Some catalyst would need to transpire. Just like you cannot choose to believe or to have faith the earth is a 'flat disk'. You can't.

But try as I may, I wouldn't be able to sustain that hope very long without reason & evidences.

Right, because you would never accept such an extra-ordinary proposition, without some sort of perceived evidence. But here lies the kicker... I doubt it's evidence. I think it's emotion, as mentioned prior. And as we know, 'emotion' - in all it's varying forms, is not a choice.

I didn't find God intellectually.

Just as you would never denounce God, based upon intellect. It's about 'emotion'. And 'emotions' are not something you can control. Sure, you can attempt to suppress them, but that is a completely separate conversation.

These followed as I sought to know if my hope were possible. And what I found is that God put enough reason in front of us to choose to believe him if we desire. And enough reason to choose not, if we desire.

This presents nothing more than conformation bias.

So I concluded we see what we desire.

But this statement is false. Many desire to see many things, and never feel they see them. I prayed to God for decades, and felt nothing. Due to emotion, I made excuses anyways.

That's why you see slavery in the Bible as prescriptive, whereas I see it as descriptive. We're both confirming our bias. Only difference, I admit it.

Well, I instead see excuses to protect an existing belief. I lack belief. Hence, it's not really [my] problem. If slavery was never mentioned in the Bible, you would not have to 'justify' it, like you seem to want to

 

[Rachel20]

And yet, His judgement upon His creation seems based upon so-called [free will / free choice].

Yes, it does. But free will acceptance or rejection of a thing first requires knowledge/experience of it. I believe scripture allows for true blindness (John 9:41) and varying degrees of light (Luke 12:48) and that God takes these into account.

Well, emotion is not a choice. Emotion - "faith"/trust/hope/desire are all not mere choices, for which you can manifest on a whim.

Only if you view emotion as a cause, and not an effect. I don't. Let's say you "feel" great anger at some injustice you see. Is your anger the cause of your moral conclusion that injustice is wrong, or is it the effect?

Have you ever heard the statement, "the more extra-ordinary the claim, the more extra-ordinary the evidence necessary" ???

By default, claims for UFO abductions, Big Foot, resurrection claims, and such others, are quite extra-ordinary. Thus, a basic rationale tells us to 'blindly' dismiss such claims, without any 'evidence'.

I think most recognize the question of Gods existence rises to a different level than that of Big Foot, Loch Ness, etc... The historical (and our current) debate evidences this.

Is YOUR standard for the presented evidence consistent across the board? Or, do you harbor a 'special emotional place', or present special pleading/special circumstances for one claim in particular?

You present that as an exclusive 'or', but I see no justification for that. Why can't both my standards be consistent and I can harbor a 'special emotional place' at the same time (if that's what you want to call it)?

I have to again ask you, in earnest. Was the provided 'evidence', that compels you about the claims to a resurrection any 'stronger' than that of any other claims you reject? If so, how so?

The resurrection would be a claim to "life after death". That's what gives it the "extra-ordinary" quality? But we've both already experienced, first-hand, being dead (non-existent before conception) and then being alive (this life). So the claim is entirely possible based on first-hand experience. The question only remains is this instance of it true (the Lord's resurrection)? That I take by faith, believing the historical witness accounts, because I choose to.

I kind of already knew this And everything said there-after, speaks volumes. But here's the kicker... I wanted it to be true, as well. But as soon as I started to investigate for myself, I had NO choice but to doubt. If you continue to accept the proposition, I doubt it is even a choice to spontaneously 'change' your mind It's not your choice. Some catalyst would need to transpire. Just like you cannot choose to believe or to have faith the earth is a 'flat disk'. You can't.

I believe you when you say you also wanted it to be true. I suspect that's true for many. If I really wanted to believe the earth was a 'flat disk', I could seek out all the sites that present "evidence" for it, and ignore the ones against. I could hang around people that affirmed my belief. Nevertheless, I doubt I could sustain the belief for long, because my personal experiences would contradict it.

Many desire to see many things, and never feel they see them. I prayed to God for decades, and felt nothing. Due to emotion, I made excuses anyways.

Again, you view faith as emotion, and emotion as cause rather than effect.

Well, I instead see excuses to protect an existing belief. I lack belief. Hence, it's not really [my] problem. If slavery was never mentioned in the Bible, you would not have to 'justify' it, like you seem to want to

How does "I lack belief" shield you from the same defense mechanisms, if that's what they really are? I just don't see it. And if slavery was never mentioned in the Bible, you wouldn't have to conclude the Bible condones it, as you seem to want to. This is why atheist arguments fall flat so often - they levy accusations of things they themselves aren't impervious to.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, it does. But free will acceptance or rejection of a thing first requires knowledge/experience of it. I believe scripture allows for true blindness (John 9:41) and varying degrees of light (Luke 12:48) and that God takes these into account.

This response goes directly back to an answer I gave prior, for which you did not address - (post #107). I had even highlighted the question in red.

"But then Paul no longer needed hope, because he had seen If it's good enough for Paul, and a host of others, why not for all?"

Seems God is inconsistent in His message? He wants to perpetually hide from some, and yet, grants complete full disclosure to others?

In my case, if Christianity is true, as based upon the many Verses I can cite, I will then be in eternal separation/damnation.

Only if you view emotion as a cause, and not an effect. I don't. Let's say you "feel" great anger at some injustice you see. Is your anger the cause of your moral conclusion that injustice is wrong, or is it the effect?

Still does not matter... Your resulted emotion, to a stimulus, is not a choice. You read the Gospel, and you believe it is true. You have faith it is true. You hope it is true. You desire for it to be true. Your 'choice' to conclude it's truth wasn't based upon evidence, it's based instead on emotion - (faith/hope/trust/desires). Your emotions are not your choice. But yes, you can choose to suppress them.

I think most recognize the question of Gods existence rises to a different level than that of Big Foot, Loch Ness, etc... The historical (and our current) debate evidences this.

I would agree. Likely because the proposition for God's existence exposes the alternative, that we are mere finite beings. The 'cost' is not as 'large', to reject or not believe the other asserted propositions (like monsters/aliens, etc). Hence, more emotion often gets involved for the argument of God's existence.

You present that as an exclusive 'or', but I see no justification for that. Why can't both my standards be consistent and I can harbor a 'special emotional place' at the same time (if that's what you want to call it)?

I'm honestly not trying to do any such thing.... You can feel justified for your believe, evidentially, while also being emotional about it as well.

I'll ask again. Does [your] argument for God demand or require the same amount of inferred 'positive' evidence, in which you also require in any other extra-ordinary claim? Or, due to the category of ['emotion' verse 'evidence'], do you instead favor 'truth' in Christianity, without an equal amount of evidence to support the claim?

The resurrection would be a claim to "life after death". That's what gives it the "extra-ordinary" quality? But we've both already experienced, first-hand, being dead (non-existent before conception) and then being alive (this life). So the claim is entirely possible based on first-hand experience. The question only remains is this instance of it true (the Lord's resurrection)? That I take by faith, believing the historical witness accounts, because I choose to.

This is not what I'm talking about, at all. An ancient Book claims a man rose from the dead, to save us. Does your scrutiny, logic, and investigation of the presented 'evidence' reasonably lead you to the conclusion that it actually happened? Or, does emotion weigh in?

I mean, how do we know all other said ancient book claims, about resurrections, are false? Or any other claim(s) to the 'supernatural', or even natural, quite frankly?

I believe you when you say you also wanted it to be true. I suspect that's true for many. If I really wanted to believe the earth was a 'flat disk', I could seek out all the sites that present "evidence" for it, and ignore the ones against. I could hang around people that affirmed my belief. Nevertheless, I doubt I could sustain the belief for long, because my personal experiences would contradict it.

This response is telling. Your "personal experiences", (i.e. discerned 'evidence') would not allow it for long.

And yet, God's decree for salvation is based upon a trait in which we cannot control????

I do not believe Jesus rose from the grave. I cannot control this belief. I would need to discern some sort of 'evidence' to the contrary. I cannot decide to will a change in my current conclusion. Yes, I could pretend, or fool myself, for while. But it would not be genuine.

How does "I lack belief" shield you from the same defense mechanisms, if that's what they really are? I just don't see it. And if slavery was never mentioned in the Bible, you wouldn't have to conclude the Bible condones it, as you seem to want to. This is why atheist arguments fall flat so often - they levy accusations of things they themselves aren't impervious to.

I did not bring up 'slavery', you did

(post #109) - "That's why you see slavery in the Bible as prescriptive, whereas I see it as descriptive. We're both confirming our bias. Only difference, I admit it."

Just like I did not bring up slavery with the other interlocutor (@Andrewn ), whom seems to have now bowed out, thus far; for which you referenced.

Here's MY point on 'slavery'. If God exists, He can prescribe, condone, allow, and/or command whatever He wants. I don't believe this God exists, for many reasons. Hence, for me, it's no different than me reading the book of Scientology, and finding 'odd' things in there of disagreement.

However, you believe one Book to be from God/Jesus. Hence, it becomes YOUR burden to justify it Where-as I merely read the passages, and can state... Well, that seems to be a 'problem' (whether it be 'slavery', 'women as second class citizens', other). But it is not one in which I need to then rationalize, to continue squaring the conclusion that my God is still equal and loving. That's your burden.

 

[Rachel20]

This response goes directly back to an answer I gave prior, for which you did not address - (post #107). I had even highlighted the question in red.

"But then Paul no longer needed hope, because he had seen If it's good enough for Paul, and a host of others, why not for all?"

I thought it was obvious - Paul long believed in God before his Damascus Road experience. It wasn't the basis of his belief. You're basically asking me for Gods motive for choosing faith over wisdom & signs (1 Corinthians 1:21-23) which I already speculated on (my last comment on post #106), but I don't recall you addressing?

 

[cvanwey]

I thought it was obvious - Paul long believed in God before his Damascus Road experience. It wasn't the basis of his belief.

I thought it was obvious, in my prior responses. I believed for decades, and no contact. No consistency. Many claim no belief, then revelation. No consistency. Many claim revelation, but the message conflicts with that of many others. No consistency.

 

[cvanwey]

You're basically asking me for Gods motive for choosing faith over wisdom & signs (1 Corinthians 1:21-23) which I already speculated on (my last comment on post #106), but I don't recall you addressing?

Since you edited your last response, I'll address the addition...

I'm not asking you to answer for God. I know you could not, even if He exists

What I'm stating is that all the discerned 'evidence' looks to be inconsistent. Furthermore, I keep pointing out that your faith/trust/hope/desires/wants are not by choice. Hence, if He decides to choose whom is granted access, based upon something which is uncontrollable, (like 'faith'), then this appears irrational.

 

[Rachel20]

I thought it was obvious, in my prior responses. I believed for decades, and no contact. No consistency. Many claim no belief, then revelation. No consistency. Many claim revelation, but the message conflicts with that of many others. No consistency.

But I think there is contact. You attributed looking back to "old habits dying hard" but I think there's more to it. I think you do hear a small, quiet voice but you're expecting a burning bush or Damascus Road experience, so you don't recognize it?

 

[Rachel20]

Furthermore, I keep pointing out that your faith/trust/hope/desires/wants are not by choice.

That's what we're currently debating. Pointing out your belief doesn't resolve it.

 

[cvanwey]

But I think there is contact. You attributed looking back to "old habits dying hard" but I think there's more to it. I think you do hear a small, quiet voice but you're expecting a burning bush or Damascus Road experience, so you don't recognize it?

"I think" you have absolutely no idea what "I think"

Instead think of me like Leah Remini; whom no longer is in Scientology, but still speaks about it.

It's still a very fascinating topic to discuss. But, I have very little confidence it is actually true.

 

[cvanwey]

That's what we're currently debating. Pointing out your belief doesn't resolve it.

What we are discussing is that God seems to judge you, based upon a belief. If belief is not a choice, as I continue to demonstrate, then I find the entire concept quite odd?

It's likely, that when the pages of the Bible were written, the authors assumed belief is a choice.

 

[Rachel20]

"I think" you have absolutely no idea what "I think"

Likewise to the one who keeps insisting my beliefs are based on emotions

 

[cvanwey]

Likewise to the one who keeps insisting my beliefs are based on emotions

You stated prior, that the 'evidence' [both for and against God looks to be fairly equal], and that you then choose to believe. I disagree. Your conclusion is either made by your preponderance of the evidence, or/and also by the topic of emotion. You yourself also admitted your desire for it to be true.

I then claimed that you cannot choose WHAT you believe. And if you can, to make yourself believe the earth is a flat disk. Since there would really exist little necessary emotion in this claim, for you, it's easier for you to only go by what the 'evidence' suggests. But the existence of God entails much more plausible emotion(s).

I also state you cannot chose your emotions.

1. Can you choose to believe the earth is a flat disk? NO. Hence, belief is a not a choice. And yet, God deciphers your eternal fate, based upon an attribute you cannot control.
2. Can you choose your emotions? NO. God deciphers your eternal fate, based upon attribute(s) you cannot control.