Not really. It’s all claims without warrants.
No, I think my understanding supports my respect of him and his reactions to his situation.
You still believe that it is distorted which indicates you have an objective reference point to Reality.
“Objective”
I do think the Bible does make a good case for some points it posits. I don’t think it’s true for every point, and the text has been raped over and over for every other dogmatic, masturbatory argument, but taking the work as a front-to-back read, I do think it does come up with some arguments
Disagreed. Most of the things are left as an exercise to the reader - how come you didn't argue that in the math books?
I have an objective reference point to my reality, yes. If I were in his situation, I would be hard pressed to find clarity.
Pretty sure biblical studies assert there is an objective reference point. You're trapped in a double bind: either there's no objective reference point and, thus, all the underpinnings of his beliefs are wrong, or there is an objective reference point he doesn't meet
I don’t think the unsubstantiated claims are “exercise to the reader”, more so points from which confirmation bias can affirm them
What do you mean by biblical studies? Do you think you - or they know more than god?
The only objective reference point is God’s view of reality which nobody can have - which means there is none.
I say that my second major was philosophy, but, at my school, it was actually a major in philosophy and religion. I took maybe 4 classes analyzing the Bible as a philosophical text, and it really doesn’t hold up. It’s mostly the later monks that provided the philosophical underpinnings.
I think you need to read more about Christian philosophy
Why? What does that have to with god?
or religion as a whole even.
Don’t you think it’s confirmation bias for you to believe that?
I agree with you there, the bible wouldn’t be what it is without the work of those early didacts, and moreover, the constant changes made throughout translation, but there are definite parts of the bible that form an argument, even if they are very few.
I find it depends heavily on the individual being discussed/interviewed
Jack Bogle was excellent
Some others (the reddit chick comes to mind) maybe not so much
All of the arguments you’ve presented have their roots in Christian philosophy: if you violate some of those key arguments in your assertions (you still haven’t made an argument), you invalidate the basis of all your arguments. Try again later (or don’t)
No. I believe that everything is neutral until I assign it meaning, and I urge myself at every moment to take my experiences as completely neutral. Try it as I may, reading a single dogmatic piece of work and finding points in my life to make sense of it would fly in the face of rational thinking.
Why are you associating what I or Terry might say with other people’s ideas? You are very trapped in your texts - as you put the books you’ve read in school on too high of a pedestal.
I have presented my argument multiple times - but you try to intentionally dismiss it and gaslight me.