|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 19, 2020 14:06:45 GMT
What are gameboy’s words that you want me to justify? I have a source but I need to see gameboy’s words - from you. I already quoted him, but to humor you I'll do it again: "The story is important because it's a declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden...I don't understand why both theists and atheists miss the point. The story is clearly about a Hebrew declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden."I asked him if had any expert support, and he replied, "LOL no, it's just my opinion."
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 14:19:02 GMT
What are gameboy’s words that you want me to justify? I have a source but I need to see gameboy’s words - from you. I already quoted him, but to humor you I'll do it again: "The story is important because it's a declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden...I don't understand why both theists and atheists miss the point. The story is clearly about a Hebrew declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden."I asked him if had any expert support, and he replied, "LOL no, it's just my opinion." He should have said HUMAN SACRIFICE. In Judaism, human sacrifice of people at any age is considered an abomination. Here is where CHABAD (incredibly well-respected Hasidic group that missionizes to JEWS ONLY to help them keep in touch with Judaism) ties this into the binding of Isaac. Keep in mind that devotion to God is primary, this does tie into the idea that the Torah forbids human sacrifice. Skeptic: I know. In the end Isaac isn't killed. But that's almost besides the point.
Believer: No, that is the point. Or at least a very important point of the story. After Abraham demonstrates the depth of his faith and commitment to G‑d with his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, G‑d commands Abraham, "Do not reach out you hand to the lad! Do not do anything to him!" G‑d makes it clear that He does NOT want us to offer human sacrifices to Him.
This gets repeated many times throughout the Torah. The Torah expressly forbids human sacrifice, and calls it an "abomination." We serve G‑d by living a G‑dly life and giving life to others, not by dying and killing. Judaism celebrates life and mourns death, not vice versa.
Skeptic: Ok, so let's say that G‑d wants to make the point that He's a G‑d who desires life, not death. Why does He have to go through the whole sadistic spiel of getting Abraham to truss up his beloved child like a lamb and lift the slaughtering knife over the kid's outstretched neck, before announcing, "No, never mind, I don't want you to do this"? He could simply have revealed Himself to Abraham and said: "Abraham, I know that all your neighbors are heavily into this, sacrificing their kids to their gods, but listen, that's not what I want. I want you to be the father of a people who shun this kind of thing, and teach everyone else how bad it is."
Believer: But if G‑d did only that, what would everyone have said? "Oh, that's Abraham, with his no-sacrifices-needed religion. He calls it a "life-affirming" faith, but he's just a wimp. The simple truth is that he's not as committed as we are. He's like those limousine liberals with "principles"--until it affects their own pocket or comfort."
Skeptic: Hey, I resent that.
Believer: Sorry. Seriously, do you know what Hassan Nasrallah said?
Skeptic: You mean that Hezbullah guy?
Believer: Yes. He said, "We're going to win this fight. You know why? Because the Jews want to live, and we want to die."
Skeptic: I hate to say this, but the guy has a point. They'll always have that advantage over us—that they're happy to die for what they believe in, and we're not.
Believer: No, he's wrong. If the reason we desired life and did everything in our power to avoid death was that we're a bunch self-absorbed spoiled rich kids who cannot imagine anything more important than our own puny existence, then he'd be right. But the Akeidah proves him wrong. The Akeidah shows that our commitment to life comes from a place no less powerful and absolute—indeed, far more powerful and absolute—than the suicide bomber's pursuit of death and destruction.
Abraham demonstrated that we are prepared to give our life for G‑d—that we recognize that there is a truth and reality that is greater than our own existence and we are absolutely committed to serving this higher truth. So when G‑d tells us that that's not what He wants from us—that He wants us not to die and kill for Him but to live and nurture life as His "partner in creation"--our pursuit of life is motivated and empowered by our commitment to G‑d, and is as absolute and as powerful as its source.
Skeptic: But wouldn't all this be true also if G‑d and Abraham hadn't staged their scary little show on Mount Moriah?
Believer: No, it wouldn't. It may be true in theory, but theories don't necessarily mean anything in real life. Unless Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for G‑d was actually experienced by him in the most tangible way, the first Jew could not have forged a commitment to life that's as powerful as the evildoer's worship of death.
The whole point of Judaism is not to die for G‑d, but to live for G‑d. But unless you're prepared to quite literally die for G‑d, you cannot truly live for G‑d.www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/326392/jewish/Sacrifice-Your-Son.htm |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 14:27:46 GMT
P.S. Abraham was THE FIRST JEW so when Chabad talks about his neighbors committing human sacrifice, they’re talking about PAGANS.
Abraham’s father was an IDOL BUILDER. A pagan.
One day while the father was gone, Abraham destroyed an idol and put a weapon in another idol’s hand.
Abraham told his father that one idol killed the other.
His father said this was impossible since idols can’t move.
“So why do you think they are gods?”
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 19, 2020 14:39:19 GMT
I already quoted him, but to humor you I'll do it again: "The story is important because it's a declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden...I don't understand why both theists and atheists miss the point. The story is clearly about a Hebrew declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden."I asked him if had any expert support, and he replied, "LOL no, it's just my opinion." He should have said HUMAN SACRIFICE. In Judaism, human sacrifice of people at any age is considered an abomination. Here is where CHABAD (incredibly well-respected Hasidic group that missionizes to JEWS ONLY to help them keep in touch with Judaism) ties this into the binding of Isaac. Keep in mind that devotion to God is primary, this does tie into the idea that the Torah forbids human sacrifice. Skeptic: I know. In the end Isaac isn't killed. But that's almost besides the point.
Believer: No, that is the point. Or at least a very important point of the story. After Abraham demonstrates the depth of his faith and commitment to G‑d with his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, G‑d commands Abraham, "Do not reach out you hand to the lad! Do not do anything to him!" G‑d makes it clear that He does NOT want us to offer human sacrifices to Him.
This gets repeated many times throughout the Torah. The Torah expressly forbids human sacrifice, and calls it an "abomination." We serve G‑d by living a G‑dly life and giving life to others, not by dying and killing. Judaism celebrates life and mourns death, not vice versa.
Skeptic: Ok, so let's say that G‑d wants to make the point that He's a G‑d who desires life, not death. Why does He have to go through the whole sadistic spiel of getting Abraham to truss up his beloved child like a lamb and lift the slaughtering knife over the kid's outstretched neck, before announcing, "No, never mind, I don't want you to do this"? He could simply have revealed Himself to Abraham and said: "Abraham, I know that all your neighbors are heavily into this, sacrificing their kids to their gods, but listen, that's not what I want. I want you to be the father of a people who shun this kind of thing, and teach everyone else how bad it is."
Believer: But if G‑d did only that, what would everyone have said? "Oh, that's Abraham, with his no-sacrifices-needed religion. He calls it a "life-affirming" faith, but he's just a wimp. The simple truth is that he's not as committed as we are. He's like those limousine liberals with "principles"--until it affects their own pocket or comfort."
Skeptic: Hey, I resent that.
Believer: Sorry. Seriously, do you know what Hassan Nasrallah said?
Skeptic: You mean that Hezbullah guy?
Believer: Yes. He said, "We're going to win this fight. You know why? Because the Jews want to live, and we want to die."
Skeptic: I hate to say this, but the guy has a point. They'll always have that advantage over us—that they're happy to die for what they believe in, and we're not.
Believer: No, he's wrong. If the reason we desired life and did everything in our power to avoid death was that we're a bunch self-absorbed spoiled rich kids who cannot imagine anything more important than our own puny existence, then he'd be right. But the Akeidah proves him wrong. The Akeidah shows that our commitment to life comes from a place no less powerful and absolute—indeed, far more powerful and absolute—than the suicide bomber's pursuit of death and destruction.
Abraham demonstrated that we are prepared to give our life for G‑d—that we recognize that there is a truth and reality that is greater than our own existence and we are absolutely committed to serving this higher truth. So when G‑d tells us that that's not what He wants from us—that He wants us not to die and kill for Him but to live and nurture life as His "partner in creation"--our pursuit of life is motivated and empowered by our commitment to G‑d, and is as absolute and as powerful as its source.
Skeptic: But wouldn't all this be true also if G‑d and Abraham hadn't staged their scary little show on Mount Moriah?
Believer: No, it wouldn't. It may be true in theory, but theories don't necessarily mean anything in real life. Unless Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for G‑d was actually experienced by him in the most tangible way, the first Jew could not have forged a commitment to life that's as powerful as the evildoer's worship of death.
The whole point of Judaism is not to die for G‑d, but to live for G‑d. But unless you're prepared to quite literally die for G‑d, you cannot truly live for G‑d.www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/326392/jewish/Sacrifice-Your-Son.htmOK, an expert opinion on the topic, there we go, thank you.
The opinion essentially is, "God doesn't want us to actually commit an abomination, He's just happy to know that we're WILLING to commit an abomination at His instruction.
That explanation doesn't answer the problem than many (like me) have about the story, namely that it's a pretty monstrous desire of a god that people are supposed to love and look up to.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 14:44:59 GMT
He should have said HUMAN SACRIFICE. In Judaism, human sacrifice of people at any age is considered an abomination. Here is where CHABAD (incredibly well-respected Hasidic group that missionizes to JEWS ONLY to help them keep in touch with Judaism) ties this into the binding of Isaac. Keep in mind that devotion to God is primary, this does tie into the idea that the Torah forbids human sacrifice. Skeptic: I know. In the end Isaac isn't killed. But that's almost besides the point.
Believer: No, that is the point. Or at least a very important point of the story. After Abraham demonstrates the depth of his faith and commitment to G‑d with his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, G‑d commands Abraham, "Do not reach out you hand to the lad! Do not do anything to him!" G‑d makes it clear that He does NOT want us to offer human sacrifices to Him.
This gets repeated many times throughout the Torah. The Torah expressly forbids human sacrifice, and calls it an "abomination." We serve G‑d by living a G‑dly life and giving life to others, not by dying and killing. Judaism celebrates life and mourns death, not vice versa.
Skeptic: Ok, so let's say that G‑d wants to make the point that He's a G‑d who desires life, not death. Why does He have to go through the whole sadistic spiel of getting Abraham to truss up his beloved child like a lamb and lift the slaughtering knife over the kid's outstretched neck, before announcing, "No, never mind, I don't want you to do this"? He could simply have revealed Himself to Abraham and said: "Abraham, I know that all your neighbors are heavily into this, sacrificing their kids to their gods, but listen, that's not what I want. I want you to be the father of a people who shun this kind of thing, and teach everyone else how bad it is."
Believer: But if G‑d did only that, what would everyone have said? "Oh, that's Abraham, with his no-sacrifices-needed religion. He calls it a "life-affirming" faith, but he's just a wimp. The simple truth is that he's not as committed as we are. He's like those limousine liberals with "principles"--until it affects their own pocket or comfort."
Skeptic: Hey, I resent that.
Believer: Sorry. Seriously, do you know what Hassan Nasrallah said?
Skeptic: You mean that Hezbullah guy?
Believer: Yes. He said, "We're going to win this fight. You know why? Because the Jews want to live, and we want to die."
Skeptic: I hate to say this, but the guy has a point. They'll always have that advantage over us—that they're happy to die for what they believe in, and we're not.
Believer: No, he's wrong. If the reason we desired life and did everything in our power to avoid death was that we're a bunch self-absorbed spoiled rich kids who cannot imagine anything more important than our own puny existence, then he'd be right. But the Akeidah proves him wrong. The Akeidah shows that our commitment to life comes from a place no less powerful and absolute—indeed, far more powerful and absolute—than the suicide bomber's pursuit of death and destruction.
Abraham demonstrated that we are prepared to give our life for G‑d—that we recognize that there is a truth and reality that is greater than our own existence and we are absolutely committed to serving this higher truth. So when G‑d tells us that that's not what He wants from us—that He wants us not to die and kill for Him but to live and nurture life as His "partner in creation"--our pursuit of life is motivated and empowered by our commitment to G‑d, and is as absolute and as powerful as its source.
Skeptic: But wouldn't all this be true also if G‑d and Abraham hadn't staged their scary little show on Mount Moriah?
Believer: No, it wouldn't. It may be true in theory, but theories don't necessarily mean anything in real life. Unless Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for G‑d was actually experienced by him in the most tangible way, the first Jew could not have forged a commitment to life that's as powerful as the evildoer's worship of death.
The whole point of Judaism is not to die for G‑d, but to live for G‑d. But unless you're prepared to quite literally die for G‑d, you cannot truly live for G‑d.www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/326392/jewish/Sacrifice-Your-Son.htmOK, an expert opinion on the topic, there we go, thank you.
The opinion essentially is, "God doesn't want us to actually commit an abomination, He's just happy to know that we're WILLING to commit an abomination at His instruction.
That explanation doesn't answer the problem than many (like me) have about the story, namely that it's a pretty monstrous desire of a god that people are supposed to love and look up to.
Shake it up baby, TWIST and shout those words. How many people speak directly to God and get answered by the Supreme Being Himself? It was a test of faith. Abraham TOLD the other men that he and Isaac would return. Abraham TOLD Isaac that God would provide a lamb to sacrifice. He knew the inherent goodness in the Creator and trusted that things would turn out to be part of that goodness. Meanwhile, it’s another reminder NOT to do human sacrifice. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 19, 2020 14:53:48 GMT
OK, an expert opinion on the topic, there we go, thank you.
The opinion essentially is, "God doesn't want us to actually commit an abomination, He's just happy to know that we're WILLING to commit an abomination at His instruction.
That explanation doesn't answer the problem than many (like me) have about the story, namely that it's a pretty monstrous desire of a god that people are supposed to love and look up to.
Shake it up baby, TWIST and shout those words. How many people speak directly to God and get answered by the Supreme Being Himself? It was a test of faith. Abraham TOLD the other men that he and Isaac would return. Abraham TOLD Isaac that God would provide a lamb to sacrifice. He knew the inherent goodness in the Creator and trusted that things would turn out to be part of that goodness. Yes, we KNOW it's a test of faith. It's the NATURE of the test, testing one's willingness to commit an abomination, that's problematic. The idea that refusing to slaughter Isaac would have made Abraham somehow lesser in God's estimation is the problem.
Suppose God had tested Abraham's faith without telling him to commit an abomination? I sure God could have thought of a suitable way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 19, 2020 14:54:47 GMT
OK, an expert opinion on the topic, there we go, thank you.
The opinion essentially is, "God doesn't want us to actually commit an abomination, He's just happy to know that we're WILLING to commit an abomination at His instruction.
That explanation doesn't answer the problem than many (like me) have about the story, namely that it's a pretty monstrous desire of a god that people are supposed to love and look up to.
Shake it up baby, TWIST and shout those words. How many people speak directly to God and get answered by the Supreme Being Himself? It was a test of faith. Abraham TOLD the other men that he and Isaac would return. Abraham TOLD Isaac that God would provide a lamb to sacrifice. He knew the inherent goodness in the Creator and trusted that things would turn out to be part of that goodness. Meanwhile, it’s another reminder NOT to do human sacrifice. Abraham also TOLD us that some time in the future on that mountain the Lord WILL provide. 2000 years ago the Lord did provide his only begotten Son as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sins bringing a blessing to all the nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 14:57:28 GMT
Shake it up baby, TWIST and shout those words. How many people speak directly to God and get answered by the Supreme Being Himself? It was a test of faith. Abraham TOLD the other men that he and Isaac would return. Abraham TOLD Isaac that God would provide a lamb to sacrifice. He knew the inherent goodness in the Creator and trusted that things would turn out to be part of that goodness. Meanwhile, it’s another reminder NOT to do human sacrifice. Abraham also TOLD us that some time in the future on that mountain the Lord WILL provide. 2000 years ago the Lord did provide his only begotten Son as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sins bringing a blessing to all the nations. Jesus wasn’t born on the mountain. Abraham was NOT talking about your religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 19, 2020 14:59:51 GMT
Abraham also TOLD us that some time in the future on that mountain the Lord WILL provide. 2000 years ago the Lord did provide his only begotten Son as a sacrifice to redeem us from our sins bringing a blessing to all the nations. Jesus wasn’t born on the mountain. Abraham was NOT talking about your religion. The text doesn’t say whatever will be provided will be “born on the mountain”, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 15:01:23 GMT
Jesus wasn’t born on the mountain. Abraham was NOT talking about your religion. The text doesn’t say whatever will be provided will be born on the mountain, does it? Believe whatever you want. It has nothing to do with the religion Abraham started that still exists to this very day. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 19, 2020 16:56:26 GMT
I love that story since it inspired an awesome video game.
(The Binding of Issac)
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 19, 2020 17:12:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 19, 2020 17:54:52 GMT
"No, I wouldn’t. Probably because I’m certain Allah does not exist." Yes, as I'm certain the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That’s interesting, I thought atheism wasn’t a belief system? Anyway, the reason there’s a misunderstanding and a difference between the Muslim and the Abraham story is that unlike Abraham the Muslim cannot fall back on the time his child was born miraculously through the power of God. Or the times when God appeared to him and told him that he would judge certain cities and later witness their miraculous destruction. God had also already given Abraham a guarantee that through Isaac his descendants would come. That means Abraham would have have expected a temporary death for Isaac and a future resurrection. Nice dodge. But wasn’t my question. If you were the greatest conceivable being in existence, all-powerful, all-knowing and the creator of the universe you telling me you wouldn’t have an ego? God knew, but did Abraham? I don’t see how. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn’t still freely choose the other option. "That’s interesting, I thought atheism wasn’t a belief system?" It's not, rejecting a belief doesn't count as a "belief". As someone whose argued with atheists for years, I figured you would at least understand the basics. "Nice dodge." Not sure how that was a "dodge", I addressed your argument. "If you were the greatest conceivable being in existence, all-powerful, all-knowing and the creator of the universe you telling me you wouldn’t have an ego?" We're not talking about you or me, we're talking a supposed perfect, inafliable God that could destroy the universe. So yes, ideally I would not want him to have an ego, as that could lead to rather dangerous behavior. "I don’t see how. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn’t still freely choose the other option." If he essentially created everything and pretty much knows in advance what will happen and can change that however he feels, then yes the "free will argument" pretty much goes out the window.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Mar 19, 2020 18:19:19 GMT
Cody, I am Jewish. This is my religion’s Bible, not yours. You can interpret what you wish in your religion, but it has no bearing on our 3300 year old Jewish understanding of our own scriptures. No offense meant, but our Jewish understanding of our Bible is not affected in any way by yours. The first Christians were Jewish. Most of the writers of the NT were Jewish. Let me ask you a question. In Genesis 22:13-14 it says this: “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.””This is a future prophecy being made. What exactly will the Lord provide on that mountain? The passage was written during the first Temple long after the Abraham/Isaac is supposed to have taken place. It refers to Solomon’s Temple as the place where Abraham’s sacrifice takes place being the Temple Mount. Therefore, the Torah is legitimizing Mt Moriah as the true Temple site vs all the other temples competing with the one in Jerusalem at the time. There is no evidence though that Solomon’s Temple existed on that site where the Second Temple later stood.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 19:53:59 GMT
The first Christians were Jewish. Most of the writers of the NT were Jewish. Let me ask you a question. In Genesis 22:13-14 it says this: “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.””This is a future prophecy being made. What exactly will the Lord provide on that mountain? The passage was written during the first Temple long after the Abraham/Isaac is supposed to have taken place. It refers to Solomon’s Temple as the place where Abraham’s sacrifice takes place being the Temple Mount. Therefore, the Torah is legitimizing Mt Moriah as the true Temple site vs all the other temples competing with the one in Jerusalem at the time. There is no evidence though that Solomon’s Temple existed on that site where the Second Temple later stood. Actually, the Torah story ends at the point where the Hebrews reached the Promised Land but didn’t go inside yet. Moses died without seeing it. It was supposed to have been written during his lifetime. Remember they spent 40 years in the desert after leaving Mt Sinai where Moses got the commandments, etc. They knew about places in the Promised Land because their ancestors had lived there before going to Egypt. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 20, 2020 1:15:29 GMT
Yes, Abraham was troubled. He was a crackpot if he felt a voice told him to sacrifice his own son to prove his faith and devotion to a schizo voice in his head. Not to mention the mutilation of his own penis, which then became a custom to sexually mutilate all other baby boys. What a whacko!
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 20, 2020 1:49:50 GMT
No one has to believe the story or believe in God, but it is a story about someone who conversed with the real Supreme Being.
There’s no point in rewriting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Mar 21, 2020 2:00:17 GMT
Lol. No. It's just my opinion. Well, if I had an opinion about something that generations of scholars in the field have researched, studied, parsed, and debated about, I would want to know if my opinion had any expert support. And if it had none, I would realize that my opinion is a baseless and ignorant one, and one that any scholar in the field could likely demolish in an instant.I'm saying that if your opinion had merit, at least one or more experts would get it the way you do. As far as we both know, none do. I have a real problem with your response and let me tell you why. I have no desire to be a Bible scholar. It seems like you believe no opinion can be expressed unless we can add footnotes and links. I also wonder how many Bible scholars can dance on the head of a pin. I wish would you address my statement based on it's merits, without looking for some erudite source to give the okay. It is very evident to me that story of Abraham and Isaac was invented to contrast Hebrew wisdom and compassion against the barbarous human sacrifices of the Canaanites. I do know that most religious Jews agree with me. Modern Judaism does not believe the Bible is to be taken literally. The essence of the story is not that god wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son and not that Abraham showed great faith. It was quite literally a statement against human sacrifice. Judaism is very practical. One can be an atheist and faithfully attend synagogue.
|
|
|
|
Post by You_Got_A_Stew_Goin_Baby on Mar 21, 2020 2:16:56 GMT
Not a good look for ol’ Abe.
Kind of makes him look like a cunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 21, 2020 3:17:14 GMT
Isaac wasn’t a child. The whole point of the story was that HUMAN SACRIFICE is totally wrong and should never happen. HUMAN SACRIFICE was the bread and butter of the pagan world. God was saying that the pagans were dead wrong to do this and that the Hebrews were on a totally different path. Animals could be sacrificed instead until ancient people were weaned off needing to sacrifice animals, too. Replace "child" with "son". That's irrelevant. I agree with you. But the story is not "unsettling", it's ennobling. And it's really not about a test of Abraham's faith. It was a political directive about law and social reform. My point is both theists and atheists are concentrating on the idea that god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. That is not the point of the story at all. It's not as if god asked for a human sacrifice and then changed his mind. There is only one point to the story: Human sacrifice as practiced in Canaan and the Middle East was now BANNED. I'm an atheist. You see it as a religious issue. I see it as a step forward in human rights. You have taken a more enlightened and intelligent approach to the parable. The issue is when God gets in the way of giving the directive, it does become and sound warped to many and understandably so. It is an opportunity to mock what God represents, based on the deluded belief as being objective and real.
|
|
