I agree with your article. Excellent piece and I particularly liked the community - individual precedent discussion. I haven't heard that before.

the mention of 'taking' oath..brought to mind a comment i heard on talk-back radio..[re kevin rudd not holding a bible when he took oath]
the bible of course FORBIDS..the taking of oath..[3 times]

anyhow back to your article

there is a link beteen god and truth
[im not taking about religion which is about control/creed]
god is love grace mercy,,thus truth..BUT those who call oath before god..are being abused..[as god needs no oath]..

he knows all truth..plus all lies..its man that abuses..
nay..demands..not god..good/god who allows even the most vile their living..proving his infinite love..to be true.

anyhow..thats my comment on the first paragraph
our rights come from god..all abuses by deceivers..[ie man-kind][and the fake constitutions of men..that have turned rights into privledges

"They should be concerned about what is true, a major topic in the gospels..."

Peter, anyone who is concerned about what is true would never read the gospels which are nothing more than a collection of old wives tales and scraps of wishful thinking and bizarre imaginings by those who, without conscience, advantage themselves by defrauding the gullible.

Truth and theology are mutually exclusive and you, well-meaning and misguided though you may be, are nothing but a conman.

" . . . individual choice is king . . . Truth is relativised to the individual. . . various new rights are invented . . ."

When people reject belief in God it is inevitable that the above become the new reality.

If there really is no God then there is no logical reason why each individual should not live their life entirely for their own ends according to their own chosen conception of truth and rights.

We are seeing a generation growing up for whom this is their reality. It is going to be 'interesting'.

We are “in a secular society that refuses to recognise the connection between God and truth.”
If this point is your primary reason for writing the article, David G shows you are right - but I think your effort might have been directed at uncovering more important truths. Unfortunately, in David G’s case (“anyone who is concerned about what is true would never read the gospels”) and as you acknowledge in regard to our secular society generally, I think that in trying to communicate things of great importance you have shot yourself in the foot by your attempt to proselytize.

I think this is regrettable because otherwise your article had a great deal to offer.

While I agree that “Christians do not or should not reduce faith to utilitarianism in the hope that belief will provide some benefit.”, in trying to communicate about matters of truth, I think it would have been wiser to recognise that not all readers would be Christian. The statement “… we believe … that the truth in Scripture is a touchstone of all truth” is pretty alienating. It's hard to understand why you would do that at the outset, or at any stage.That approach is not gentle or wise.

There is also truth to be recognised and developed through a more pragmatic and utilitarian pathway. I think your otherwise excellent and thought provoking article could have used this path to bring all readers to wonder more about the fullness of truth.

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

I think Peter, albeit unconsciously, thinks the goal of creation was to create us, i.e. the human race, to me this appears as conceit.

Peter likes to reflect and write about human self evaluation; in this case I think it has little to do with reality.

Peter fails to understand the natural world in which we live and the artificial world humans have created. Religion per se is classic case of this misunderstanding.

Recent psychological studies have shown for the first time the brain regions associated with the successful spread of ideas. The research has a broad range of implications.

The results of the study clearly show people are regularly attuned to how the things they're seeing will be useful and interesting, not just to themselves but to other people.

The study also suggests humans always seem to be on the lookout for whom else will find this helpful, amusing or interesting, therefore Peter is always looking for how his ideas can be interesting or somehow useful to other people.

A very interesting concept if you ask me.

If this is true I think it is remarkable, however in Peter’s case he will be writing despite the fact that his idea or ideas may not make sense or whether he is right or wrong. Therefore his reality has nothing to do with the popularity or rationality of his ideas.

I think Peter’s post is a classic case in point. Humans love fantasy.