King Solomon was wise to understand the experience identified today as of ‘Psychological Set’
Definition if Psychological Set
An experience by making people especially sensitive to specific kinds of information. A perceptual set, also called perceptual expectancy, is a predisposition to a “perception” in a certain way.
Sets can be created by “motivations” and so can result in people interpreting ambiguous situations so that they see what they want to see.
Example of King Solomon’s Awareness of Psychological Set
In a novel excerpt, I surmised how King Solomon, based on his proverbs, may have explained to the Queen of Sheba about two conflicting ambiguous situations. The novel is a contemporary application to relate the wisdom of ancient proverbs and wise sayings to our modern world.
Excerpt
“Solomon, I noticed you studied the writings closely before you solved the riddle. Why did you do that?”
“We have a saying. Sometimes you must gaze upon details for a time in order to better comprehend a problem.” I replied.
“We also have a saying. Gaze not overmuch, and let thy vision be dimmed. It seems we have two contradictory sayings Solomon.”
“I do not believe so. My saying means that sometimes we need to study the details of a problem closely in order to find a solution. Your saying states that if you look at a problem too closely for too long, you may become distracted in meaningless details and fail to comprehend what is most important.” I replied.
“I was hoping you would say that Solomon. I believe there is a problem we most discuss candidly to prevent us from becoming distracted from the reason of my visit.”
Atheism
“In the past year I have tread a number of blog comments of atheists on various blogs. The atheist writers express their views well with clear concise writings, an indication of their intellect. Many seem to have acquired a lot of knowledge about the Bible and often refer in critical terms why they believe certain writings in the Bible to be offensive to them.
Why is it when an atheist “gazes” at the Bible, they see the writings differently than a faith believer does? Is it because of “psychological set” or is there another reason? Perhaps the answer is contained in this Excerpt.
Excerpt
“Bilqis, we believe that the belly is the deepest part of a human’s character that resides in this chamber. The belly is the repository of all thoughts, motives, words and actions of a person. Both good and evil reside within the belly.”
Modern Beliefs
Three thousand years later, scientists believe good or evil resides in the mind rather than the belly. Modern psychologists have numerous theories of how perceptions of good and evil thoughts enter our minds. Are there good and evil spirits roaming around trying to enter within us? This question seems to be the principal difference in faith believers or atheists and choices to control their actions.
Faith believers” gaze” at Bibles to try to find good advice how to find solutions to guard or control their actions. Atheists do not believe in evil spirits. They prefer to “gaze” in a mirror of their mind and reflect on their intellect to control their actions.
Many atheists make statements to infer that religion is the major cause of war. Which beliefs, or non-beliefs have a better good or evil conduct scorecard in history? You can decide for yourself by “gazing” at in the statistics in this brief blog post. After reading, you may want to also consider if Psychological Set may be a factor when someone asks this question.. Why is Religion Responsible for So Much War HERE
Question to Answer
Now consider again the above definition of psychological set.
“Sets can be created by “motivations” and so can result in people interpreting ambiguous situations so that they see what they want to see. “
Then answer this question. Who do you believe creates “motivations” to atheists to see what they want to see?
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Source:
As A Lily Among Thorns – A Story of King Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, and the Goddess of Wisdom
Now available as an Ebook at most sellers. View at link below.
http://amazon.com/gp/search?field-author=rudy+martinka&index=books
.
Rudy u Martinka 
No psychologist was ever that wise!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. Thanks for your comment.
Regards snd goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
If Solomon was a psychologist, who was Bilqis?
😀
Actually, that’s a scary thought. Can you imagine laying on a couch and answering Solomon’s questions?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting thought for a novel. Thanks.
Rgards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Thanks again. I obtained the idea for this post after reading the post from your site.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Applying a ‘psychological set’ dealing with ‘motivation’ to the atheist rather than the believer indoctrinated into believing in the unbelievable is rich in irony… not that your ‘psychological set’ would ever allow you to grasp this brute fact..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I will pray for your vision to improve. Thanks for your comments, they are very revealing.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
Oh, and excerpting anything from I5:35 demonstrates a blatant lack of intellectual integrity concerning what’s true; James has none when it comes to non belief. He distorts, misrepresents, and even lies outright to promote the vilification of atheists and then bans those of us who dare to try to inform him of what’s actually the case.
The link you make is a perfect example: he uses information about the stated cause for an armed conflict and subtracts those strictly religious to arrive at the statistics that suit his purpose (never mind all the conflict past and current and future that would not to the same scope and extent if the religious component were removed entirely). Then he turns right around and uses a different standard for atheists: he assumes (incorrectly) that if a conflict is not strictly religious then it must be ‘atheist’ (synonymous only in his mind with totalitarianism)… as if non belief were the motivating factor when this is not true.
This is a long refuted religious trope that is not historically valid. In fact, it is a lie concerning every example he uses to justify it. He is factually wrong and will not correct himself. And he spreads this factually incorrect claim again and again without ever once dealing with reasons and historical justifications why it is not true. In effect, James is lying. And he continues to lie because he thinks it somehow honours Jesus. So he bans and censors and moderates into oblivion legitimate critical voices.
This Is who you are using as an authority and this demonstrates your lack of respecting intellectual integrity and historical veracity. If you did not share the same religious belief, you would have no cause to respect such historical distortions, misrepresentations, and factually incorrect claims. James breaks one the commandments on a regular basis and lies. That you go along like a sheep with this method of vilification concerning non believers speaks volumes about how much you value what’s actually the case versus what you want to believe is the case.
This raises an important issue about you and your intellectual integrity. Your approach is a guaranteed method to fool yourself and think such gullibility and credulousness in the name of piety is a virtue. It’s not. It’s the worst kind of vice because you presume your religious certainty is unquestionably true because you believe it is true and then cast aside both any means to know if you’re mistaken while dismissing the role reality plays in adjudicating these kinds of factual claims made about it. This method you use – believing in your belief – is the necessary foundation for what religious folk call ‘evil’ to thrive. And that observation should cause you a great deal of angst… especially when it rests on you going along with those willing and able to break the commandment about bearing false witness and calling it ‘pious’ and ‘righteous’.
LikeLike