The Original Poster (O.P.
Nerfball) was going somewhere there for a second, then took a complete U-turn. The middle of the O.P.'s discussion seemed to be leading up to an honest take on epistemology never held before, then suddenly the post became a
completely ignorant hypocrisy sandwich.
The O.P. has gone back and doubled-down on a personalized idea, a concept he had criticized before, but no longer because it now includes a personally chosen constitution-of-sorts for him to interpret in order not to have to think critically on his own or research widely.
If not singularly invented, they have still rejoined-into a belief system to please themselves, if not in terms of belief-about-belief-comfort, but in terms of belief-about-truth-comfort.
Sure, although
"
I like the idea, therefore it is true"
is by no means an acceptable standard,
"
It is less palatable, therefore it is true"
is not either, by any means, a more accurate measure of truth.
The misleading Christian writer, Descartes, seems to have hammered into the O.P. a great deception, that is:
"the truth can be unhappy, therefore believe in my unhappy anthropomorphic god."
You can perhaps find the truth by re-stumbling upon it or serendipitously re-discovering/re-inventing it, but one might bet that it is easier to discover a better approach to the truth
through real effort and testing.
Arrogance (as self-importance) and pride (as self-satisfaction) can be bad at their excess, but their opposites are also bad at their excess: timidity (as self-effacement) and masochism (as self-opprobrium). Qualities which can allow good people to be misled into doing bad things. Indeed, Christianity as a religious movement is arrogant and prideful and wants its followers to aim to be timid and masochistic in order to further allow it's arrogance and pride as a social movement to hidden and moot. But to say that Christianity/Islam/Hinduism etc is not important/self-satisfied-with-itself is to say that Christianity/etc is not Christianity/etc to say.
Nerfball wanted a God who was the way they thought he should be, a God who was worthy of their allegiance. Although they don't seem to realize it now, their real God was not merely themselves but was the best version of themselves they could imagine/conceive (the "re-discovered & ancient" New Age "Higher Self").
Nerfball did not have enough experience with other religions to believe that they were the closest to the Truth of the available options. So they gave up researching, thinking, and experimenting.
He now accepts a God from a personal and socially-influenced idea about a book with many versions and of obvious human creation, editing, and publishing. Indeed, it is wise to accept that Reality doesn't work the way we small humans might wish... and that our thoughts might not correlate with the outside Reality, but there are troubling and puzzling passages/concepts and problematical doctrines and teachings that
one could find in all religions.
Quote:
|
I follow Christianity, not “Christianity as modified to suit my tastes.”
|
This line above demonstrates an ultimate lack of self-awareness.
What about the icky-oo doctrine of Biblical Fundamentalism? It is nowhere to be found in any Christian canon. Yet "for the Spirit gives life, but the letter kills [the spirit?]" is indeed found in most.
Yet here we find more than handfuls of self-claimed Christians who know (that is, they believe that they know) that a document containing within it a document with a mention that some documents are "good for instruction, research, and reproach" means that the document later-on woven together with it is the only arbiter of Truth. That the final edited Document they physically hold in their hands is the Truth, the Way, the Light, and the Life. An extension of a character that a major storyline within in the Document instead mentions as being such.
They accept that which they know in their hearts is bad and that which they don't understand nor expect to
in the hopes of attaining that which they see as good for themselves: the Truth and
the Promises.
By the O.P.'s standards, since nothing is wholly pleasing,
then everything should be convincing.
Their current idea is an obvious and dangerous joke. Their argument reduces itself to absurdity and being fallible fools, we often stop seeing the fault of our arguments when we think of ourselves as too wise to discuss the counters.
The Truth can always be less demanding, less judgmental, and less threatening than a false religion... and a false religion can always be made to be more convincing to the prideful, self/tribally-assured people by being more so. A lie is a lie, and they have no restrictions.
The harsh religions may get their followers through the night, but I don't think they will get their followers any closer to the Truth. And one can just as easily find a path of delusion from ordering the pleasing bits from an Italian menu, as from ordering everything from a generally pleasing one.
Quote:
|
Some seem irked that I no longer engage on threads I start. Indeed I don't. I've finally accepted the wisdom of a popular Christian author who advised, "Say what you have to say and move on. Don't even go back and look."
|
Advertising tactics and ignorant sophistry are common to Christian/Muslim/etc apologetic/conversion tactics.
Quote:
|
I try to toss out ideas that I think may be helpful or worthy of discussion as time allows and the inspiration strikes me. If they aren't helpful or worthy, so be it.
|
Another example of you still doing as you please and lacking self-awareness
Quote:
|
Take all the snide potshots you want - I guarantee you I won't see them.
|
We won't do it for your attention and can't do it for the bad "tl:dr" reader, but
we do it for the honest researchers out there.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
