Squeers,

[This suggests a compromise; you said you believed in a "biblical God", and now you're admitting the Bible is an "anthology compiled by men", and throwing universals and historcism into the mix to boot!]

Here we agree on the facts but disagree on the meaning or result of those facts.

The Bible is a collection of books written by men, and compiled by men into one book which we now call the Bible. That's basic Bible history which everyone knows! No one that I'm aware of claims that the Bible dropped out of the sky- no, it was written by various authors. Why is this "admitting" something? It's simply stating two historical facts. What you haven't explained, is why you believe there is an inherent conflict between understanding this and also believing that it contains a divinely directed message.

[I didn't say it was "irrational", I implied it wasn't 'thinking' in any legitimate, enquiring sense, but merely derivitive. But since you ask, how is it rational (not to mention ethical), for instance, to rationalise that your personal and caring God is preoccupied with spoiled westerners, while simultaneously indifferent to the wholesale suffering, misery and death in the third-world part of his creation? Don't you think he should get his priorities in order?]

I do not believe this, so therefore it doesn't apply to me. And it isn't a prerequisite to "Believing in the Biblical God" (using the definition I gave in my last post) to believe this either. Therefore I don't see the relevance to the conversation?

(cont'd)

[Sorry Trav, I have no wish to take the p!ss, but you can't have it both ways. You're either a believer or a thinker, the two don't mix.]

I would appreciate it if you explained why you believe this, in more detail.

[And if I may add, without false modesty, I'm not "someone who prides themself on being a thinker"--and I see the limitations of thought!]

Yes- I did realise, after I posted, that this was an incorrect description of you (based on a prior comment you made) but I was unable to correct my error due to the 4 post limit. So my apologies for that.

Trav,

I think it's entirely relevant to your belief, and to your thinking, that you interrogate inconsistencies, such as why "God is preoccupied with spoiled westerners, while simultaneously indifferent to the wholesale suffering, misery and death in the third-world part of his creation". You say "I do not believe this". Presumably you mean you don't believe God's indifferent? But he's God, how can he allow it? Children step on land-mines and starve to death around the clock, and it's as banal as the ATX.
If you're a thinker, don't you wonder about that?

And Trav, there are plenty of people who think "the Bible dropped out of the sky", or at least that it contains the literal word of God. Which is why they dismiss evolution, insist the world's only 6,000 years old, deny the fossil record etc.
That's why I asked if you believed in a "Biblical God", because to me that means fundamentalism.
I can relate to feelings of awe, mysticism and even deep conviction. I have a deep conviction that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of by empiricism, but I don't claim to know what they might be. All I know is I don't know and don't pretend to know.

"...believing that it [the Bible] contains a divinely directed message".
Believing so is to under-estimate Humanity.
I've read and studied literature all my life and been inspired by many texts. I could assert that Shakespeare was divinely inspired, but then divinity would have to be his corpus, and it's not. Shakespeare was inspired by the Reformation and neo-Classicism; his are founding texts of, and testament to, Humanism. All literature is of its time and place and humanly inspired. As soon as we call one text divine, we divide and despise unbelievers.
"Divine" texts are the instruments of States, that's why religion is always close to power. Better to have devout servants than slaves. Oppression and force are inefficient, precarious and unpleasant. Ideology is more convenient all round; the oppressors "and" the oppressed put it all down to God. That's my thinking.

Squeers, Yes I do think and wonder about many questions all the time. And I do sometimes look at some of my fellow believers and wonder why they seem to lack the same level of self reflection as I do (I hope that doesn't come across as arrogant).

But to suggest that one couldn't "Believe in the Biblical God" whilst simultaneously wondering about such things strikes me as odd. One doesn't need complete certainty about everything to hold certain beliefs. One doesn't need to think they have crossed every t and dotted every i to hold a belief. Here I mean this quite generally, and not just about someone's religious belief or lack thereof, although that is a particularly pertinent example.

Note: I do have some thoughts about the specific point you raised re: God's appearance of being uncompassionate towards the plight of those who are suffering. I didn't go into it here as it was only one example you chose to make your point (but if you want to discuss my thoughts on that I would be happy to do so).

(cont'd

I'm interested in a couple of comments you've made.

"Believing so [that the Bible contains a divinely directed message]is to under-estimate Humanity".

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that the literary genius of the Bible is very much human, in a similar way to what shakespeare is?

If that's what you believe, I wouldn't disagree that Shakespeare may or may not be just as brilliant (from a literary point of view) as The Bible, because I'm not really qualified to comment.

But I'd add that in the context of the Bible's inspiration, I don't believe it is inspired because of it's literary genius, so I wouldn't see that point as being relevant to my own personal belief in inspiration or as being relevant to the question of whether there is a conflict between a "thinker" believing in inspiration because a thinker could potentially utilise other arguments for inspiration that do not rely on the brilliant of literary structures and what not.

"As soon as we call one text divine, we divide and despise unbelievers".

Are you saying here that this would count against the Bible's inspiration, and would provide support for the idea that one can't believe the Bible was written by men and also believe it contains a divine touch as well? If so, how?

Trav:

"to suggest that one couldn't "Believe in the Biblical God" whilst simultaneously wondering about such things strikes me as odd. One doesn't need complete certainty about everything to hold certain beliefs. One doesn't need to think they have crossed every t and dotted every i to hold a belief".

You seem to be rearranging the terms of our debate. Remember we're talking about the (my) alleged incongruity between "thinking" and "believing", not about "wondering". Also, in my stated view the essence of thinking "is" uncertainty; remember my quote "nothing is certain except nothing is certain"? I'm arguing we can't have "complete certainty"; if we could, thinking would be redundant, no?

When I say believing the Bible is divinely inspired underestimates humanity, I don't say that therefore the Bible is "not" divinely inspired, only a) that there's no way to establish this, b) that it naively underestimates how religious texts are used as instruments to encourage conformity and hegemonic compliance. And c) that it underestimates and devalues the extent to which human beings are idealistic creatures, and capable of great flights of fancy.
I quickly add that I don't think this human propensity is "necessarily" based on nothing, but a) that there's no way to know--with thought--or to prove it, b) that it's dangerous to claim to know via subjective convictions and beliefs, because ideas are contagious and often translated into action, inaction, oppression and tyranny, and c) that allowing this ideological aspect to our natures to dominate diverts us from biological/material realities and the manifest exigencies we face.

I have no time for "belief"; it's "mental starch" and antithetical to thought. Thought is benign and humble in essence, though prone to existentialism, a feature of thwarted idealism I think; belief is potentially malignant and intolerant.
Both belief and thought are potentially hazardous, should be indulged with caution, and shouldn't prevent us from acting rationally in the world according to the "material" conditions we are subjected to.
Idealism adds another dimension to life, but it's a mixed blessing, endowing life with meaning and illusion.
These are not assertions, just thinking.