WorldlingWatcher wrote:Once again, it all comes down to what information you'll subjectively countenance and how you frame the problem.
First of all, that's utterly no different from you or anyone else. Do you recognize that?
Second, I don't frame the problem. I'm neither the motivator nor the arbiter of these differences of opinion that have resulted in these various sects. So how is it my
obligation here to "frame the problem"?
Imagine if the Supreme Being did something miraculous, like, delivered a clear unequivocal message?
WW wrote:You view the world through a lens which assumes anything worth believing must be universally observable, supported by repeatable experimentation and agreed upon univocally by everyone
Not true. I recognize, for instance, there are emotions which is feeling-based and not "universally observed" (and how they are felt is highly subjective). Beauty ugliness, these are subjective perspectives which are to be believed in yet do not fall within your above categories of epistemology. What I do, however, is make a clear distinction between that which is believed
, as opposed to that which is known
. I have no quarrel with the Christian who says he or she believes
in god or messiahs, or resurrection, etc. however, if they insist they know
these things-- that then trips the ""Demonstrate / prove it" lever.
WW wrote:and you conclude that because Christians don't answer every question the same way all the time they must be wrong. How you get from some of them are wrong to all of them must be wrong is anyone's guess.
I don't get from "some" to "all". None of you can
answer basic questions about your doctrine. That's not my problem, nor is it my burden to carry. This entire forums exists because Christians are incapable of promoting a model that doesn't collapse upon even light investigation -- and again, this is not my
fault, burden or responsibility. I'm just one of the growing number who is willing to point out the self-collapsing nature of your model. Blame not us, look to your model.
WW wrote:The most ironic aspect of this is you consider yourself a disciplined thinker.
Well, when someone makes it their goal to misunderstand, misrepresent, twist, and mangle someone's perspective, it shouldn't be a surprise you'd think it ironic that I consider myself a disciplined thinker. However, I'm not the one who invokes:
An eternal non-created Supreme Entity that cannot be accessed.
An existence that can be defined as a solipsism.
A being who creates everything but lacks some things
A pre-ordained future that magically allows choice, volition and free will
A place of eternal reward (boring) or eternal punishment (torment) from an eternally good god
A dogma that has, amongst its own proponents fractured over and over and over again, shatteirng under its own weight of incomprehnsibility.
A demi-god who "died" knowing he's not going to die, and somehow this is a sacrifice of "dying" -- when it isn't
I could continue but-- I think the point is made.
WW wrote:When I survey the range of Christianity I see billions of people trying to grasp texts that are thousands of years old, and commentary and criticism from everyone with a mouth, and I am amazed at how little divergence there is in core beliefs across denominations after 2,000 years. If you ever took the time to really examine and compare denominations, you would find there's really not much difference in what they believe about Jesus; the vast majority of disagreement is about the implications of who Jesus was and what he said, and how we should organize and govern his church.
And I am amazed at the rivers of blood these beliefs have fostered and continue to foster today.
I guess we're just amazed by different things.