What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Skepdick]

Thank you. Actually, I'm sticking with the one that is best supported by the evidence.

Is it falsifiable, or is it a Philosophy?

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you. Actually, I'm sticking with the one that is best supported by the evidence.

Is it falsifiable, or is it a Philosophy?

It's aesthetic. As such, it's not falsifiable, and not verifiable. It's just a matter of taste, like picking flavours of ice cream.

He thinks that's how it works. If you contradict him, he'll tell you you're only proving he's right.

[tillingborn]

Thank you. Actually, I'm sticking with the one that is best supported by the evidence.

Is it falsifiable, or is it a Philosophy?

Of course it's falsifiable. All Immanuel Can has to do is show he understands the point I am making.

It's aesthetic. As such, it's not falsifiable, and not verifiable. It's just a matter of taste, like picking flavours of ice cream.

He thinks that's how it works. If you contradict him, he'll tell you you're only proving he's right.

It might take a while though.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Well, no, it's a grammatical rule. It's called Standard English. But we can let that be. It was merely trivial of me even to point it out.

IC's approach to understanding, life, and the universe is via rules. Modern teachers reserve rule -based training solely to team games.

Who knows, Mannie, how you can enjoy certain hymn lyrics!

[Immanuel Can]

IC's approach to understanding, life, and the universe is via rules.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong, B.

[Belinda]

IC's approach to understanding, life, and the universe is via rules.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong, B.

Such rules as are in The Bible. Right wing rules such as those you hallow .

[Immanuel Can]

IC's approach to understanding, life, and the universe is via rules.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong, B.

Such rules as are in The Bible.

That's like saying, "male characters are in a novel," therefore there are nothing but male characters in a novel...no female characters, no plot, no meaning, no setting, no descriptions or literary figures, style, conflicts or grammatical structures...nothing else. The point of novels is male characters."

Would you say such a thing? Of course not.

It would be worth your while to take a closer look, if you surmise that "rules" are what the Bible contains. It's not really rule book: the "rules" part is pretty much contained in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Most of the Bible is primarily narrative, but also poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, history, descriptions, themes and pre-eminently a message...none of which you seem to have noticed so far. But the "rules" bits are actually comparatively small, and serve the larger narrative. Check it out, and you'll see.

[tillingborn]

It would be worth your while to take a closer look, if you surmise that "rules" are what the Bible contains. It's not really rule book: the "rules" part is pretty much contained in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Surely the point is not where they are, but how seriously you take them.

[Immanuel Can]

Surely the point is not where they are, but how seriously you take them.

No: the point is that they are elements in a narrative that makes sense of their meaning. Where they are, and what they are doing where they are, is fundamental to knowing what it would even mean to "take them seriously."

[Belinda]

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong, B.

Such rules as are in The Bible.

That's like saying, "male characters are in a novel," therefore there are nothing but male characters in a novel...no female characters, no plot, no meaning, no setting, no descriptions or literary figures, style, conflicts or grammatical structures...nothing else. The point of novels is male characters."

Would you say such a thing? Of course not.

It would be worth your while to take a closer look, if you surmise that "rules" are what the Bible contains. It's not really rule book: the "rules" part is pretty much contained in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Most of the Bible is primarily narrative, but also poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, history, descriptions, themes and pre-eminently a message...none of which you seem to have noticed so far. But the "rules" bits are actually comparatively small, and serve the larger narrative. Check it out, and you'll see.

I mostly agree except that The Bible is not mostly narrative; so much of it is devotional and is currently used by Christians as devotional. It is just that you seem to be so sure your interpretation of the poetry, prophecy, wisdom, descriptions, and themes is the only right one.That is what I meant by your being bound by rules.

[Immanuel Can]

I mostly agree except that The Bible is not mostly narrative;

Actually, it is. But you would need to read it in order to know that. It contains poetry, instruction, description, wisdom, prophecy, and yes, some rules; but they are set in a narrative context. They don't appear in isolation.

Think of it this way. Somebody comes to you and says, "Get your car washed regularly." That's a "rule," one might say...something you have to do.

And you respond, "Okay, I'll wash it today."

And he says, "No, not today; I meant after a snowstorm, to get the salt off it. And I didn't mean you personally, because it's summer where you live; I was talking to Tom, who lives in Minnesota."

Now, how has your view changed? It is ignoring the rule now, if you don't get your car washed right away? But it it useful information, if you're ever driving in the north of the US during January? Sure.

So rules have a narrative context that makes their applications clear. And it can make a profound difference to the rule what that narrative context happens to be.

It is just that you seem to be so sure your interpretation of the poetry, prophecy, wisdom, descriptions, and themes is the only right one.

You mean you think that knowing about the narrative context makes a person "rule-bound"? It's hard to see how that would follow.

Or do you mean that being definite about one's answers is wrong? But if that were so, then it would be the case that nobody would really "know" anything, no matter how hard they studied it...education would then be impossible. So that's also got to be wrong.

What's your thought there, B?

[Belinda]

I mostly agree except that The Bible is not mostly narrative;

Actually, it is. But you would need to read it in order to know that. It contains poetry, instruction, description, wisdom, prophecy, and yes, some rules; but they are set in a narrative context. They don't appear in isolation.

Think of it this way. Somebody comes to you and says, "Get your car washed regularly." That's a "rule," one might say...something you have to do.

And you respond, "Okay, I'll wash it today."

And he says, "No, not today; I meant after a snowstorm, to get the salt off it. And I didn't mean you personally, because it's summer where you live; I was talking to Tom, who lives in Minnesota."

Now, how has your view changed? It is ignoring the rule now, if you don't get your car washed right away? But it it useful information, if you're ever driving in the north of the US during January? Sure.

So rules have a narrative context that makes their applications clear. And it can make a profound difference to the rule what that narrative context happens to be.

It is just that you seem to be so sure your interpretation of the poetry, prophecy, wisdom, descriptions, and themes is the only right one.

You mean you think that knowing about the narrative context makes a person "rule-bound"? It's hard to see how that would follow.

Or do you mean that being definite about one's answers is wrong? But if that were so, then it would be the case that nobody would really "know" anything, no matter how hard they studied it...education would then be impossible. So that's also got to be wrong.

What's your thought there, B?

Biblical narratives have important themes. The theme of a Biblical narrative as intended by the author or the editor can be a different theme from the theme preferred by a modern Biblical scholar .

I broadly agree with your example about the car washing 'rule'. My agreement is not a big deal as I am not really a Biblical scholar. The Story of Ruth was at one time explained to me sentimentally as about affection between a daughter in law and her mother in law. Later on the same story was explained to me as an example of duty to Levirate marriage rules. Therefore you can say that the theme of duty to tribal tradition is hallowed by inclusion in the OT.

By contrast the parables of Jesus contain modern moral themes.

[Immanuel Can]

My agreement is not a big deal as I am not really a Biblical scholar.

Well, that's not really a problem, B. As one literature professor pointed out to me, the Bible has been studied pretty intensively by all kinds of people, far more than any other book in the history of the world. And still there are things to discover about it. It's got that much content and depth there. On the other hand, it is also so comprehensible that practically nobody is incapable of getting the basic meaning of what it teaches, so it's also been a guide to the simple. And most of us, we must confess, are somewhere between those extremes.

The Story of Ruth was at one time explained to me sentimentally as about affection between a daughter in law and her mother in law.

On one narrative level, it is that.

Later on the same story was explained to me as an example of duty to Levirate marriage rules.

Yes, it is also a demonstration of Levitical Law. That is also true.

But that is not all. It is also several other things, depending on which narrative "strand" you reach for, because they all run through it. It's an exposition of matrilineage, as well -- Ruth being a progenitor of Israel's great king, David, and through him, of the Messiah. Or you can think about it nationalistically, because Ruth is saved, blessed and brought into Israel's mainline, purely by her faith in the Jewish God -- though a Gentile herself by birth. It's also a prophetic foretelling of the salvation of Israel, with implications even future today. There is a lot that can be said about that book.

That's the point, B. There's a level on which you can "get into" the narrative, merely by thinking about the relationship between the two women. But there's another level when you think about their nationalities. There's another when you think about their religions. There's another when you realize who the women actually are, and another if you think about what they symbolize...and so on. All of these are legit strands of the same narrative, and all are agreeing. When you look at it that way, it becomes quite obvious that something very special is going on in that book, short as it is.

I suggest there's simply no book like the Bible on Earth. I have read the works of Shakespeare, and complex as they are, they are actually simple by comparison. Shakespeare himself paid frequent tribute to his greater source, quoting its words and themes frequently in his plays. So have most great authors of the Western tradition, actually. Its reach and range are quite unique.

The Bible is like a mountain with its top in the clouds. You can get ahold of it firmly at the base, or climb a bit and get more, or climb higher still and get more...but the top, the absolute completeness of it has been eluding the worlds brightest scholars for thousands of years, so there's always more to get.

[Belinda]

I mostly agree except that The Bible is not mostly narrative;

Actually, it is. But you would need to read it in order to know that. It contains poetry, instruction, description, wisdom, prophecy, and yes, some rules; but they are set in a narrative context. They don't appear in isolation.

Think of it this way. Somebody comes to you and says, "Get your car washed regularly." That's a "rule," one might say...something you have to do.

And you respond, "Okay, I'll wash it today."

And he says, "No, not today; I meant after a snowstorm, to get the salt off it. And I didn't mean you personally, because it's summer where you live; I was talking to Tom, who lives in Minnesota."

Now, how has your view changed? It is ignoring the rule now, if you don't get your car washed right away? But it it useful information, if you're ever driving in the north of the US during January? Sure.

So rules have a narrative context that makes their applications clear. And it can make a profound difference to the rule what that narrative context happens to be.

It is just that you seem to be so sure your interpretation of the poetry, prophecy, wisdom, descriptions, and themes is the only right one.

You mean you think that knowing about the narrative context makes a person "rule-bound"? It's hard to see how that would follow.

Or do you mean that being definite about one's answers is wrong? But if that were so, then it would be the case that nobody would really "know" anything, no matter how hard they studied it...education would then be impossible. So that's also got to be wrong.

What's your thought there, B?

You are too trustful towards the editors of The Bible. The King James Bible is aesthetically great in parts, all editions of Bibles are inspiring in parts, The Bible hugely affected history, it can make us reflect on rights and wrongs, it is a worthy anthropological or historical source for scholars. Unlike Shakespeare The Bible largely lacks immediate entertainment value as The Bible tells the bare narrative of stories. Because of its historical relevance The Bible is useful for devotional purposes , and is a main source of European and Middle Eastern law.

For philosophers and others, it is sometimes best to discuss the merits and demerits of a single book within The Bible .

As for being sure one is right, it would be cumbersome to continually hedge. However you should not worship anything with your whole heart and soul , not a scientific or philosophical theory and not a work of art, nor any human artefact such as The Bible.

[Immanuel Can]

The Bible tells the bare narrative of stories.

You already just denied this.

Were you not the one who first insisted it was a "rule" book? And were you not the one who just said you realized that Ruth was more than a "bare narrative"? Didn't you say it was about Levirate marriage, at the very least? And don't you recognize it's also about the other things I listed?