Funny, I have a close friend who believes in ghosts because of evidence from the Bible. I forget what passage but it involves a scam-artist fortune teller who actually does manage to bring back a prophet or someone significant from the dead.
Also, I don't think avoidance of talking about God is an indicator of a subconscious belief in God. I think you're looking from this from a perspective of someone a little more open minded about confronting what you disagree with (which I whole heartedly support finding out about what you disagree with!), but not every one is like that. My same friend who believes in ghost refuses to ever take a biology class because she doesn't believe in evolution, doesn't want to hear about evolution, doesn't want to have to waste her time thinking about evolution, and it's not because she has deep seeded doubts about it, but because she's so convinced evolution is false, that even learning about it is a waste of life, if not an insulting one, for her. A friend from her church feels the same way, and she's a bio-engineer! I guess it's the mindset of people who feel that acknowledging it enough to warrant studying it is acknowledging that it could exist, which is why it is to be avoided.
Not at all to put your friend down, or challenge her directly, but just to give you a little more information on the passage and what other beliefs on it are:
I do believe in the existance of "ghosts", but not as Christians see them. The story she's referring to is Saul, when he went to the witch of Endor to bring back "Samuel" the prophet. It's from Samuel 28. There's actually a number of texts from the bible that prove that the "spirit" brought back COULD NOT be Samuel. First of all, the spirit came up from the ground. Nowhere else in the bible do we find those previously in heaven coming up from the ground. Only demons and devils and Satan come up from the ground. And, many Christians believe that you go straight up to heaven when you die (which also isn't in the bible, incidently). If we were to assume that's true, then why would a prophet of God be arising from below the ground, where "hell" is? It doesn't make sense. There are also MANY texts in the bible that mention that mediums cannot truely raise people from the dead, and that the dead are in fact dead and know nothing. So, with all the surmounting evidence, it makes much more sense that it's actually a demon posing as Samuel. So I believe in "ghosts" as the devil's angels, but not truely the spirits from the past. That's another instance where modern tradition has taken the place of actual biblical facts, and where people will use one passage to support an entire belief even though there's many many other passages that say otherwise.
Also, one more point. The story is: Saul, first king of Israel, has turned his back on God, and God therefore is punishing him by sending out an army of philistines to destroy him. So, afraid, Saul doesn't go to God...he tries to get to Samuel through a method that is forbidden specifically by God. So, when "Samuel" comes UP from the ground, he says, "Dude...you're screwed. Tomorrow, you and your sons are joining me." Now...if you believe this is REALLY Samuel, then you also have to believe you go straight to Heaven or Hell when you die because otherwise the dead are just sleeping. If that's the case, then why would the good guy (Samuel) be in Hell? And if he's not in Hell, and he's in heaven, why would Saul, whom God condemned for turning his back on Him, go to Heaven after he died? See, it doesn't make sense that this is really Samuel.
And I argue that there IS some sort of self-conscious doubt deep down that keeps her from really wanting to go and explore it. But we'll never know, because people like that will never admit it. And honestly, name me a general in an army that won without ever studying the other side's tactics? Never. It's very important to learn exactly what others believe, if not to cement your own beliefs, then to be able to counter theirs.
:shrugs: people read different versions of the Bible different ways. I don't really have an opinion one way or another, I just find it interesting two of the most devout people I know can come to such completely different conclusions from reading the same text.
And honestly, the same people who you feel have doubt for not learning about others have argued that one must have doubt for being interested enough to explore something they don't believe in. And would probably also come to the same conclusion "we'll never know, because people like that will never admit it." ...not sure if they came to that conclusion, I had to leave the conversation. Not saying one mindset is better than the other, but just two different ways of viewing the world.
Okay, I DO personally believe being open minded about things is a better, but I try very hard not to look down on people who aren't open minded (appreciating closed-minded people is part of appreciating diversity!).
But that same open/closed minded mentality is found in all walks of life. Like close-minded archeologists who don't believe in Atlantis (or other myths) who refuse to even humor myths and legends about it because they so strongly don't believe it, or possibly fear losing academic credibility, versus open-minded archeologist who don't believe in Atlantis (or other myths) but still bother to learn about it since they're likely to encounter it.
Or closed minded doctors who don't want to look to Eastern medicinal practices or tribal medicinal practices for answers because they don't believe anything that's not Western scientific medicine versus open minded doctors who will learn about other cultural practices.
I just think your argument doesn't account for how stubbornly close-minded people operate. And I argue it's stubbornness, or maybe even arrogance, but not doubt.
Possibly true. I don't know myself, I haven't seen it in enough cases. The few pieces I've seen have definately been clear examples of running from something they have doubts in. But I'll keep an open mind about it... ^_~
Also, I don't think avoidance of talking about God is an indicator of a subconscious belief in God. I think you're looking from this from a perspective of someone a little more open minded about confronting what you disagree with (which I whole heartedly support finding out about what you disagree with!), but not every one is like that. My same friend who believes in ghost refuses to ever take a biology class because she doesn't believe in evolution, doesn't want to hear about evolution, doesn't want to have to waste her time thinking about evolution, and it's not because she has deep seeded doubts about it, but because she's so convinced evolution is false, that even learning about it is a waste of life, if not an insulting one, for her. A friend from her church feels the same way, and she's a bio-engineer! I guess it's the mindset of people who feel that acknowledging it enough to warrant studying it is acknowledging that it could exist, which is why it is to be avoided.
Reply
I do believe in the existance of "ghosts", but not as Christians see them. The story she's referring to is Saul, when he went to the witch of Endor to bring back "Samuel" the prophet. It's from Samuel 28. There's actually a number of texts from the bible that prove that the "spirit" brought back COULD NOT be Samuel. First of all, the spirit came up from the ground. Nowhere else in the bible do we find those previously in heaven coming up from the ground. Only demons and devils and Satan come up from the ground. And, many Christians believe that you go straight up to heaven when you die (which also isn't in the bible, incidently). If we were to assume that's true, then why would a prophet of God be arising from below the ground, where "hell" is? It doesn't make sense. There are also MANY texts in the bible that mention that mediums cannot truely raise people from the dead, and that the dead are in fact dead and know nothing. So, with all the surmounting evidence, it makes much more sense that it's actually a demon posing as Samuel. So I believe in "ghosts" as the devil's angels, but not truely the spirits from the past. That's another instance where modern tradition has taken the place of actual biblical facts, and where people will use one passage to support an entire belief even though there's many many other passages that say otherwise.
Also, one more point. The story is: Saul, first king of Israel, has turned his back on God, and God therefore is punishing him by sending out an army of philistines to destroy him. So, afraid, Saul doesn't go to God...he tries to get to Samuel through a method that is forbidden specifically by God. So, when "Samuel" comes UP from the ground, he says, "Dude...you're screwed. Tomorrow, you and your sons are joining me." Now...if you believe this is REALLY Samuel, then you also have to believe you go straight to Heaven or Hell when you die because otherwise the dead are just sleeping. If that's the case, then why would the good guy (Samuel) be in Hell? And if he's not in Hell, and he's in heaven, why would Saul, whom God condemned for turning his back on Him, go to Heaven after he died? See, it doesn't make sense that this is really Samuel.
And I argue that there IS some sort of self-conscious doubt deep down that keeps her from really wanting to go and explore it. But we'll never know, because people like that will never admit it. And honestly, name me a general in an army that won without ever studying the other side's tactics? Never. It's very important to learn exactly what others believe, if not to cement your own beliefs, then to be able to counter theirs.
Reply
Reply
And honestly, the same people who you feel have doubt for not learning about others have argued that one must have doubt for being interested enough to explore something they don't believe in. And would probably also come to the same conclusion "we'll never know, because people like that will never admit it." ...not sure if they came to that conclusion, I had to leave the conversation. Not saying one mindset is better than the other, but just two different ways of viewing the world.
Okay, I DO personally believe being open minded about things is a better, but I try very hard not to look down on people who aren't open minded (appreciating closed-minded people is part of appreciating diversity!).
But that same open/closed minded mentality is found in all walks of life. Like close-minded archeologists who don't believe in Atlantis (or other myths) who refuse to even humor myths and legends about it because they so strongly don't believe it, or possibly fear losing academic credibility, versus open-minded archeologist who don't believe in Atlantis (or other myths) but still bother to learn about it since they're likely to encounter it.
Or closed minded doctors who don't want to look to Eastern medicinal practices or tribal medicinal practices for answers because they don't believe anything that's not Western scientific medicine versus open minded doctors who will learn about other cultural practices.
I just think your argument doesn't account for how stubbornly close-minded people operate. And I argue it's stubbornness, or maybe even arrogance, but not doubt.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment