sojurner said:
It is not my intent to be either smug or self-assured about my faith. It is not my intent to garner your envy. And if you think that confidence in belief is in any way "facile" or cheap, you apparently don't understand the dynamics involved in the life of faith.
"You can't possibly understand..."
Oh, I
know.
It's both the first and last line of the apologetic believer. The
only way to understand "faith", is to experience it for
oneself.
If this premise were even
remotely valid argument, then we would fairly
demand that
only cancer survivors be engaged in research to treat and cure cancer.
How could any research scientist "understand" cancer, if they have not
personally experienced it for themselves?
If I have
never been poor, then how can I
possibly relate to the travails of inherent poverty itself (not really an unfair question)?
If I have never committed a societal crime, then how can I relate to the motivations of a criminal mind and intent?
For whom shall (or should) the "believer" retain greater comapssion and support? The convicted rapist that--just today!--confessed of His sin and is subsequently "redeemed"; or the unrepentant and heretical female victim of the rapist's actions, whom coincidentally--on the very same day--perishes in some senseless and daily automobile accident?
May god save the rapist, and to Hell with the victim. She shoulda' known better.
[I would readily concede that in each cited instance related previously, I can espouse no first-hand knowledge of how it "feels" to be cancer-stricken, utterly impoverished, or a wanton criminal. But I can both readily study and observe (in effort to "understand") the effects of such circumstances, and still substantially conclude that they all remain both undesirable and ethically unpleasant.]
Faith-based rationales are the
epitome of special-pleading rationalizations.
Yet, virtually every "believer" claims to "know" and "understand (all too well)" living with an
absence of faith as if it were some uniquely invaluable and inevitable expertise borne of hard-earned (and subsequently lent) wisdom. Excepting of course, the inevitable faith-testimonies bemoaning such a
lack of "true understanding" within a life absent of faith, typically wherein the "witness" declares/testifies that: "I was lost"; "I had a hole in my heart"; "I was lonely"; "I was afraid"; "I was at wit's end"; "I was at death's door"; I was forty, and never been laid by either man or woman...", etc.
Thank goodness that faith and belief ameliorate
all human fears, frailties, and doubts about the human condition and trivial personal concerns. Christians and other earnest adherents of faith-based beliefs must never again face feelings of non-direction, dread, emptiness, loneliness, fear, doubt, illness, debilitation (or death), or some lifelong virginity!
Whew!
With
that kind of assurance, one can only wonder why anything less than a 99.9% adherence to faith-based beliefs amongst the entirety of humankind today
doesn't exist!
"Heaven".
Dozens of youthful, awaiting vestal virgins...
...By god...now
there's something to die for...
If only faith-based beliefs focused upon really good reasons to live, instead of good reasons to die...
I have
seen the effects of faith-based rationales. I have
known those that espouse such faithful "feelings", and taken
account of their choices and subsequently relevant consequences therefrom.
I have
read the histories (both contemporary and ancient) that account of the significant motivations and actions of adherent faith-based crusading "explanations" and rationales.
I claim neither expertise, nor any definitive determination in/of the merits or "value(s)" of faith-based beliefs, I
do know that simply "having faith" has
not bettered the human condition (neither figuratively nor litterally); nor has it effected any enduring peace, justice, or accepting tolerance of divergent/alternate cultures/societies/perspectives/religions.
And perhaps most pointedly, "faith" has offered
little to nothing in terms of
new ideas, innovation, or humanistically progressive ideologies. "Faith" is
almostportrayed always (and with very rare exception) as
entirely self-serving, self-promoting, and self sustaining--in utter rejection of what can be (or might be otherwise) naturally observed, explained, and understood--and always claims/protests of some "ultimate understanding" in exclusion of any other possibilities.
What "true believers" and earnest adherents of faith-based religions/beliefs
should contemplate instead is the very fact that "unbelief" (in and of itself) places
no constraints,
no mitigations,
no rote acceptances, no creedal dogma nor doctrine--of ANY kind--as a matter of disbelief of faith-based claims/beliefs. NONE. It's never a matter of moral choice in "rejecting" your faith-based claims as being superior, or "correct", or "true/TRUTH"--it's a matter of (and the difference between) how you "feel" about something, and what you can knowledgeably understand (and preferably explain) about something.
It makes no difference to me if your faith dictates an expression of compassion/personal guilt towards the poor or homeless, or if your personal conscience motivates you to act as a matter of basic humanity and shred mortal existence...as long as both your "feelings" and/or your "motivations" exact meaningful results.
If you didn't want your parade rained on, why did you insist upon holding it in my street?
Didn't you see my parka and umbrella? I always expect rain on the day of a parade. I love the rain, especially when I'm prepared for the potential consequences of getting wet. Parading down your street, come rain or shine, is partly both celebration and instigation...to remind the comfortable and self-assured that both discomfort and doubt are part of the human condition, and that fear, ignorance, wishful thinking, and superstition are not the only remedies available as solution to either global issues or personal feelings.
[PS. It's not YOUR street, it's OUR street. Have your own parade, and pray for good weather. If it rains, then...oh well.]
You assume too much, and you know what happens when you assume...
Yep. I often confirmed in my suspicions, and I wish that less of my suspicions were less predictably fulfilled...
What you call "pointed inquiries" were manifested more in the form of self-superior rants of anger, disguised as reasonable arguments.
Deflection. Self-serving characterization. Non-responsive non sequitur.
I have no wish to engage with that sort of -- as you put it -- "discussion."
Shall we not engage in
debate then, instead--Is that
not the main thrust and goal of such a forum as REF? If you wish to confine yourself to online forums of gratuitous back-slapping and confirming validations of shared beliefs, there are certainly plenty to choose from that would serve you most acceptably. If challenge to your "observances" makes you uncomfortable, or if your lone retort to such impugnations resides within some personalized rationalization that presentation of legitimately differing perspectives is tantamount to "hatred", "contempt", narcissism, or irrational behavior--then you are to be applauded for your steadfast convictions in irrevocably entrenched opinion. Indeed, why would any sane person debate or deliberate upon serious issues of the day with a certifiably amoral nutjob awaiting his place in some purgatory room of rubber walls?
I merely pointed out my own observances of your copious outbursts of contempt, acknowledging them for what they were, understanding that there is no argument to be found in this sort of ego-driven drivel. Emotionalism and self-superiority creates the vacuum from which I am expected to fashion a reasonable argument. It can't be done.
Your characterizations of my commentary as being: "copious"; "drivel"; "contempt(uous); "ego-driven"; and "self-superior" are noted in kind as non-responsive deflection of the questions previously put before you.
Attacking the questioner in seeking to impugn his inquiries as such does not absolve you from the intellectual integrity in providing cogent reply. My ego (or any sense of "self-superiority") is moot. My "emotional" behavior is moot. Manifest characterizations either within the content or context of my pointed inquiries provide neither discredit nor illumination upon any prospective rebuttals you might provide in answer. You might as well just point an accusatorial finger at me in a public forum and exclaim, "He's a Heretic!", and allow mob rule to have it's jurisprudent way with me ("We're gonna have a fair trial...then a first class hangin'").
Forgive me for not previously illustrating that neither "Emotionalism and [nor] self-superiority" are in and of themselves fallacious rebuttal rationale (these are but characterized motivations that may, or may not, color substantive opinion/perspective), nor do such characterizations provide any aspect of reasoned and substantial reply. You can call me "crazy", "delusional", or "egomaniac" till the cows come home. It don't make such claims either valid or accurate, and it certainly doesn't provide you with any testable burdens of proof, beyond mere allegation alone. Just 'cause you say it's so, don't make it so.
