Lol. A non-response for a non-responder. your bait won’t work, but if this is really the position you want to take, let’s approach this in general. Here are your arguments:
I’m pointing out that there are often personal reasons...other than pure reason...that may influence one’s perspective and/or bias. It’s important to realize that rather than ignore the fact and sweep it under the rug.
[The] emotions connected with those close to [one] seem to be driving [their] non-belief in religion and/or God. If so, my concern is just how often this happens among non-believers. I think it’s unfortunate that anger would get in the way of developing a relationship with God and seeing religion in a friendly light.
You seem to be trying to identify this as a “bias” non-believers have.
Are you arguing that believers in religion are NOT influenced by emotions and feelings when it comes to their belief in religion? That this “bias” of human emotions and feelings only affects the decision process of non-believers?
Are you arguing that believers in religion are NOT influenced by emotions and feelings when it comes to their belief in religion? That this “bias” of human emotions and feelings only affects the decision process of non-believers?
No. But what you seem to be saying is that in some form or fashion your family and/or other individuals had an effect in regards to your views towards God and/or religion. Is this true?
Are you arguing that believers in religion are NOT influenced by emotions and feelings when it comes to their belief in religion? That this “bias” of human emotions and feelings only affects the decision process of non-believers?
No.
Oh. So in a discussion of bias you admit everyone experiences said bias, but you would like to single out one group and call them biased. I’m getting some deja vu here.
But what you seem to be saying is that in some form or fashion your family and/or other individuals had an effect in regards to your views towards God and/or religion.
No, that’s not what I was talking about in my original post, as I already stated above. Are you saying this is your experience? In that case, by your definition, you are biased. More deja vu. Your bias argument fails again.
Oh. So in a discussion of bias you admit everyone experiences said bias, but you would like to single out one group and call them biased. I’m getting some deja vu here.
But what you seem to be saying is that in some form or fashion your family and/or other individuals had an effect in regards to your views towards God and/or religion.
No, that’s not what I was talking about in my original post, as I already stated above. Are you saying this is your experience? In that case, by your definition, you are biased. More deja vu. Your bias argument fails again.
Good to hear that you don’t have any negative bias towards religion or God. Your words seemed to point in a different direction but words can be tricky, right?
Indeed. To that point, I didn’t see an answer to the question about your experiences, so let me try again. Based on your words here you seem to be singling out one group as being influenced:
I’m pointing out that there are often personal reasons...other than pure reason...that may influence one’s perspective and/or bias. It’s important to realize that rather than ignore the fact and sweep it under the rug.
[The] emotions connected with those close to [one] seem to be driving [their] non-belief in religion and/or God. If so, my concern is just how often this happens among non-believers. I think it’s unfortunate that anger would get in the way of developing a relationship with God and seeing religion in a friendly light.
But, when asked if you are
“arguing that believers in religion are NOT influenced by emotions and feelings when it comes to their belief in religion? That this “bias” of human emotions and feelings only affects the decision process of non-believers?“
your response was no.
So, in a discussion of bias you admit everyone experiences said bias, but you would like to single out one group and call them biased. In your attempt to identify “bias,” you have really only identified something common to humans, correct? Something you yourself experience?
I’ve been reading the General Handbook: Serving in The in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this church publication, I’ve read that the Bible is to be interpreted through the lens of the Book of Mormon, POGP, D&C. Then you have references to the JST, etc. Anyway, in reading the General Handbook and knowing where the doctrines of the church come from, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the church even puts the name Jesus Christ in the name of the church.
For those raised in the church and having been taught, and likely viewing or interpreting the Bible through the lens of the PoGP, Book of Mormon, D&C (mostly PoGP and D&C), and the words of the prophets, result in those LDS who come to reject the truth claims of the church, prevented by having this engrained view of the Bible from reading the Bible without the lens of these other publications? Does one ever sever this engrained LDS approach to the interpretation of the Bible?
"The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them.” Psalm 145:18-19 ESV
I’ve been reading the General Handbook: Serving in The in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this church publication, I’ve read that the Bible is to be interpreted through the lens of the Book of Mormon, POGP, D&C. Then you have references to the JST, etc. Anyway, in reading the General Handbook and knowing where the doctrines of the church come from, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the church even puts the name Jesus Christ in the name of the church.
For those raised in the church and having been taught, and likely viewing or interpreting the Bible through the lens of the PoGP, Book of Mormon, D&C (mostly PoGP and D&C), and the words of the prophets, result in those LDS who come to reject the truth claims of the church, prevented by having this engrained view of the Bible from reading the Bible without the lens of these other publications? Does one ever sever this engrained LDS approach to the interpretation of the Bible?
I don't think a person is able to avoid reading the Bible and interpreting it through the lens they have. That's why most Christian churches hold Bible study groups - to foster a particular understanding of the Bible. It's why religious studies programs at universities layout an entire set of tools for seeking understanding of the Bible that have to be learned and affect the way a trained Bible Studies student comes to view and read it.
It holds for everybody. And as one leaves the church it seems how that filter changes is unique to the individual. Speaking for myself only, it included a period of biblical literalism that was replaced with a more critical reading lens.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa