Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[Guest end3]

To clarify, my goal is to understand that brief statement of your beliefs as opposed to testing them to see if they hold water. The words you used can mean different things. You know what you mean, but other people don't. So if you can give examples or write some more explanation or answer questions about your definitions, then at least we will all be discussing the same beliefs.

 

For example, Jesus means different things to different people. You mentioned Jesus, so who do you think Jesus was exactly? What parts of the NT do you think are true and what parts do you think aren't? ... That's just an example of the kinds of questions I have. Maybe you have already answered them in earlier threads.

I haven't in awhile D. But I will make an attempt. I will try to start by answering one of those three you asked the other day. Thx.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

I have absolutely no interest in being "holy".

 

Yes, people can empathize with each other, but that isn't an effect of religion. Why do you want to keep putting simple human interactions in religious terms? It's forcing a paradigm that doesn't fit.

 

Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none.

 

Would you like me to go over the many many verses in the Bible and explain how they are saying empathy though different terms/language?

 

It fits perfectly.

 

Please give me an example of how you think it doesn't fit. .....a very specific example so that I might understand your point.

 

This is BAA's point about the subjective. YOU have to tie this to religion to make it work. Other people don't. Empathy is human nature.

 

Glory, I tie it to religion. Many people have found that their ties to religion failed. Now there are many ties to science to fulfill that lack of fulfillment. Your point? Would you like to go through the step of how perfect babies become selfish adolescents? What should they tie to in order to find fulfillment?

 

What do you mean by "fulfillment?" I'm not following you. We usually need each other for fulfillment (in the way I understand the word), that's what makes us human. People can be fulfilled without Christianity, indeed without any religion. You don't need religion to make you not be selfish.

 

It's human nature to cooperate with others, which is the opposite of selfish. Adolescence is a phase that people grow out of; childhood is not a good metaphor to use when referring to adult behavior.

[Ravenstar]

"Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none."

 

 

​This is the difference for me… I don't normally have to practice empathy - I naturally have empathy as a human being for others (and animals too) and through my experiences have come to see that we all feel pain and have hard times and I can NEVER know how difficult something is to another. To be kind, to try to listen and give others my attention without preconception - that is the measure of me as a decent and compassionate person. It's humanism at it's core, I guess.

 

Religion never gave me empathy for others... just judgement.

[Guest end3]

What do you mean by "fulfillment?" I'm not following you. We usually need each other for fulfillment (in the way I understand the word), that's what makes us human. People can be fulfilled without Christianity, indeed without any religion. You don't need religion to make you not be selfish.

 

It's human nature to cooperate with others, which is the opposite of selfish. Adolescence is a phase that people grow out of; childhood is not a good metaphor to use when referring to adult behavior.

"We need each other for fulfillment" Your words. (Needing each other is a relationship btw). How do I find fulfillment? A myriad of different ways, but I am yet to think I am finished with my fulfillment attempt to fill full the glass I would like to give humanity. In other words, I would love to be much more in many different ways, ways that benefited lives.

 

It's just perspective and how we view different methods to approach self growth. I choose Christianity, or it chose me somewhat.

 

I guess the question is source or cause. You say human nature. I say God made humans so he defined human nature.

[Guest end3]

"Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none."

 

 

​This is the difference for me… I don't normally have to practice empathy - I naturally have empathy as a human being for others (and animals too) and through my experiences have come to see that we all feel pain and have hard times and I can NEVER know how difficult something is to another. To be kind, to try to listen and give others my attention without preconception - that is the measure of me as a decent and compassionate person. It's humanism at it's core, I guess.

 

Religion never gave me empathy for others... just judgement.

Thank you. My life took a different route. My hurt turned to anger then to hate in a matter of years when I was a child and didn't even know it was happening. Now I am proficient at anger and hate. I have always had Innate good, I just have to practice.

[sdelsolray]

End3 has expanded his vocabulary of woo woo words from two (relationship and grace) to three words (relationship, grace and communion).

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

You say human nature. I say God made humans so he defined human nature.

 

 

Please explain, using logic and evidence, why you believe that "god made humans".

 

 

 

Thank you. My life took a different route. My hurt turned to anger then to hate in a matter of years when I was a child and didn't even know it was happening. Now I am proficient at anger and hate. I have always had Innate good, I just have to practice.

 

 

You should see a therapist about that.

[Guest end3]

End3 has expanded his vocabulary of woo woo words from two (relationship and grace) to three words (relationship, grace and communion).

It was fun to confirm that my relationship ideology was backed up by the rigid definition of communion.....so I added it. As bro Jeff would say, Glory!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters. In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

It can't, End.

And that's the whole point.  You've rejected it as a way of giving you the 'right' answer.  But what about Directionless?  This is a dialog, right?  What if he wants to use science to explore your beliefs?  What then?  What common ground can you find with him that's objective, yet doesn't use science?

 

Christianity?

Sorry, but that's a subjective and supernatural belief system.  

 

Holiness?

Subjective and supernatural again. Sorry.

 

Communing?  Producing a bond?  Feelings?  Grace?  Understanding?  Empathy?  

These are your subjective buzzwords, aren't they?  Not his, right?

 

Ok, you haven't even responded to him.

But when you do - do you really think he's going to agree with your subjective beliefs about holiness and Christianity?  With any of YOUR subjective interpretations of your favorite buzzwords?  

 

Like I said before, if Directionless wants an objective debate - you're ****ed!  

.

.

.

Anyway, I'm gonna grab so popcorn and watch how you and he 'commune'.

 

It should be, "Fascinating."  

 

I haven't rejected science at all.

 

You did it in post # 48.

 

There is a stark difference in rejecting and allowing for the current lack of capability.

 

Since #48, you practice the the former.  Saying otherwise would be backpedaling on your part. 

 

Matter of fact, I have come here repeatedly attempting to demonstrate a similarity in Christianity and the natural world.....only to be mocked to some wonderful level.

 

Yes.  The objective level.  

Christianity is subjective, but the natural world isn't.  A basic point you can't seem to comprehend.

 

And to Directionless BAA, I haven't even responded to his inquiries yet and you are accusing me of responding outside of his interests.

 

By isolating yourself in your subjective, religious p.o.v. you ARE responding outside of his interests.

 

And THEN claiming that if I DID respond, that it wasn't for his benefit.

 

How can it be?  These are YOUR subjective views, not his and not something you both have agreed on.

 

Again, this is the entire point. If I were omniscient, then I could respond with the EXACT response he needed to understand, find life and joy. But I am not, nor is anyone of us. Hence the need for faith in our responses.

 

Nobody needs to be omniscient in this thread - just objective.

And so long as you tie everything to religion (thanks Orbit) you aren't being objective - you're being subjective.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters. In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

It can't, End.

And that's the whole point.  You've rejected it as a way of giving you the 'right' answer.  But what about Directionless?  This is a dialog, right?  What if he wants to use science to explore your beliefs?  What then?  What common ground can you find with him that's objective, yet doesn't use science?

 

Christianity?

Sorry, but that's a subjective and supernatural belief system.  

 

Holiness?

Subjective and supernatural again. Sorry.

 

Communing?  Producing a bond?  Feelings?  Grace?  Understanding?  Empathy?  

These are your subjective buzzwords, aren't they?  Not his, right?

 

Ok, you haven't even responded to him.

But when you do - do you really think he's going to agree with your subjective beliefs about holiness and Christianity?  With any of YOUR subjective interpretations of your favorite buzzwords?  

 

Like I said before, if Directionless wants an objective debate - you're ****ed!  

.

.

.

Anyway, I'm gonna grab so popcorn and watch how you and he 'commune'.

 

It should be, "Fascinating."  

 

I haven't rejected science at all.

 

You did it in post # 48.

 

There is a stark difference in rejecting and allowing for the current lack of capability.

 

Since #48, you practice the the former.  Saying otherwise would be backpedaling on your part. 

 

Matter of fact, I have come here repeatedly attempting to demonstrate a similarity in Christianity and the natural world.....only to be mocked to some wonderful level.

 

Yes.  The objective level.  

Christianity is subjective, but the natural world isn't.  A basic point you can't seem to comprehend.

 

And to Directionless BAA, I haven't even responded to his inquiries yet and you are accusing me of responding outside of his interests.

 

By isolating yourself in your subjective, religious p.o.v. you ARE responding outside of his interests.

 

And THEN claiming that if I DID respond, that it wasn't for his benefit.

 

How can it be?  These are YOUR subjective views, not his and not something you both have agreed on.

 

Again, this is the entire point. If I were omniscient, then I could respond with the EXACT response he needed to understand, find life and joy. But I am not, nor is anyone of us. Hence the need for faith in our responses.

 

Nobody needs to be omniscient in this thread - just objective.

And so long as you tie everything to religion (thanks Orbit) you aren't being objective - you're being subjective.

 

 

Why do you feel the need to answer for Directionless? Can he speak without you. He as shared that you understand his views and are to speak for him? You alright BAA?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters. In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

It can't, End.

And that's the whole point.  You've rejected it as a way of giving you the 'right' answer.  But what about Directionless?  This is a dialog, right?  What if he wants to use science to explore your beliefs?  What then?  What common ground can you find with him that's objective, yet doesn't use science?

 

Christianity?

Sorry, but that's a subjective and supernatural belief system.  

 

Holiness?

Subjective and supernatural again. Sorry.

 

Communing?  Producing a bond?  Feelings?  Grace?  Understanding?  Empathy?  

These are your subjective buzzwords, aren't they?  Not his, right?

 

Ok, you haven't even responded to him.

But when you do - do you really think he's going to agree with your subjective beliefs about holiness and Christianity?  With any of YOUR subjective interpretations of your favorite buzzwords?  

 

Like I said before, if Directionless wants an objective debate - you're ****ed!  

.

.

.

Anyway, I'm gonna grab so popcorn and watch how you and he 'commune'.

 

It should be, "Fascinating."  

 

I haven't rejected science at all.

 

You did it in post # 48.

 

There is a stark difference in rejecting and allowing for the current lack of capability.

 

Since #48, you practice the the former.  Saying otherwise would be backpedaling on your part. 

 

Matter of fact, I have come here repeatedly attempting to demonstrate a similarity in Christianity and the natural world.....only to be mocked to some wonderful level.

 

Yes.  The objective level.  

Christianity is subjective, but the natural world isn't.  A basic point you can't seem to comprehend.

 

And to Directionless BAA, I haven't even responded to his inquiries yet and you are accusing me of responding outside of his interests.

 

By isolating yourself in your subjective, religious p.o.v. you ARE responding outside of his interests.

 

And THEN claiming that if I DID respond, that it wasn't for his benefit.

 

How can it be?  These are YOUR subjective views, not his and not something you both have agreed on.

 

Again, this is the entire point. If I were omniscient, then I could respond with the EXACT response he needed to understand, find life and joy. But I am not, nor is anyone of us. Hence the need for faith in our responses.

 

Nobody needs to be omniscient in this thread - just objective.

And so long as you tie everything to religion (thanks Orbit) you aren't being objective - you're being subjective.

 

 

Why do you feel the need to answer for Directionless? Can he speak without you. He as shared that you understand his views and are to speak for him? You alright BAA?

 

Way to ignore all of BAA's points and try to deflect.

[Fweethawt]

BAA always attempts to keep the threads on track, End. He is even doing so when he raises points with your correspondence with others. If the other person has a problem with it, its up to them to ask BAA to not respond in that manner.

 

How about -- just once -- HONESTLY address the points BAA brings up when he continuously takes the time to thoroughly reply to you?

[bornagainathiest]

FTNZ and Fweethawt can see it, End.

I daresay others can see it too.  Shame that you can't or won't.  It's just sad that any attempt on my part to get you to think objectively is always interpreted by you in the wrong way.  I just don't know if you can't help yourself or if you do this deliberately.  

 

However, what I do know from experience, is that you wrongly interpret my calls for objectivity with me seeking to control you in some way.  

That's not what objectivity is.  Objectivity isn't being controlled - it's self-control.  I'm asking you to control yourself, End. To actively put aside your subjective thinking and meet Directionless on equal and objective terms.  I reckon that he can think objectively... but I've yet to see if you can.  And to show you that I'm not trying to control you, look at what I posted ten days ago.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/page-19#.VGMMq_msUuk (# 362)

 

I can give you no proper answer, End.

The way you use words, concepts and terminology is so radically removed from the accepted standards most of us choose to conform to, that I cannot be sure that what you mean by a certain word is what most of agree it means.

 

Until and unless you join us by accepting and conforming to common standards of logic, meaning and word usage there can be (imho) no constructive communication between us.  For you, that would mean giving up your subjective, individual and highly idiosyncratic take on things.  That means being objective -  a concept which I'm not sure you even understand.

 

Please prove me wrong, End.

 

Right now, based on the evidence of this thread and your past posting history, I just don't think you have it in you.

Nor do I think that you want to have it at all.  Instead, I think the only way you can take reality is on your own, highly subjective terms.

 

Anyway, please prove me wrong on this.

 

Thanks,

BAA.

 

See that?

Twice I ask you control yourself, to put aside your subjectivity and to think objectively.  So I hope we're clear on this.

I'm not trying to control anyone.  Not you, not Directionless, not anyone.  And to answer your question, Yes... I'm quite alright thank you.

 

 

BAA.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

These should help you out, End.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/objectivity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/objectivity

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

 

https://www.wordnik.com/words/objectivity

 

http://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/objectivity

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/objectivity

 

 

 

[gall]

These should help you out, End.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/objectivity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/objectivity

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

 

https://www.wordnik.com/words/objectivity

 

http://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/objectivity

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/objectivity

 

this has got to be getting old at this point eh?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

These should help you out, End.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/objectivity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/objectivity

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

 

https://www.wordnik.com/words/objectivity

 

http://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/objectivity

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/objectivity

 

this has got to be getting old at this point eh?

 

Don't like it, don't read it.  Simple.

[gall]

 

 

These should help you out, End.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/objectivity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/objectivity

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

 

https://www.wordnik.com/words/objectivity

 

http://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/objectivity

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/objectivity

 

this has got to be getting old at this point eh?

 

Don't like it, don't read it.  Simple.

 

 

wow thanks I didn't mean this as an attack just an observation that the rhetoric from END and the responses that go unanswered by him grow old. he is a broken record and if you don't like reading my obsevations then don't read them simple... Not sure why you think this is directed at anyone but END and if you are defending him well I really don't know what to say to that.

[directionless]

BAA, I sympathize with what you said in the quote below regarding objectivity, but my hope is to simply understand End3's beliefs. I don't care if End3 uses "relationship", "communion", and "grace" in uncommon ways as long as he explains his definitions. Also I don't care if his beliefs are totally ridiculous.

 

I've been watching these discussions with End3, and I still don't have a clue what he believes. Maybe others know what he believes from past discussions, but I'm puzzled and curious.

 

The way you use words, concepts and terminology is so radically removed from the accepted standards most of us choose to conform to, that I cannot be sure that what you mean by a certain word is what most of agree it means.

 

Until and unless you join us by accepting and conforming to common standards of logic, meaning and word usage there can be (imho) no constructive communication between us.  For you, that would mean giving up your subjective, individual and highly idiosyncratic take on things.  That means being objective -  a concept which I'm not sure you even understand.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, I sympathize with what you said in the quote below regarding objectivity, but my hope is to simply understand End3's beliefs. I don't care if End3 uses "relationship", "communion", and "grace" in uncommon ways as long as he explains his definitions. Also I don't care if his beliefs are totally ridiculous.

 

I've been watching these discussions with End3, and I still don't have a clue what he believes. Maybe others know what he believes from past discussions, but I'm puzzled and curious.

 

The way you use words, concepts and terminology is so radically removed from the accepted standards most of us choose to conform to, that I cannot be sure that what you mean by a certain word is what most of agree it means.

 

Until and unless you join us by accepting and conforming to common standards of logic, meaning and word usage there can be (imho) no constructive communication between us.  For you, that would mean giving up your subjective, individual and highly idiosyncratic take on things.  That means being objective -  a concept which I'm not sure you even understand.

 

 

Good luck with trying to understand what End3 believes, Directionless.

.

.

.

As to anyone else understanding his beliefs from past discussions... perhaps someone will volunteer with their thoughts..?

.

.

.

My approach is to apply logic to what he writes, to take his words to their logical conclusion and then to inform him of the result.  He doesn't seem to understand this and/or doesn't agree with my conclusions.  But at least others (hopefully, the lurkers, too) can see my logic and follow me when I do this.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do.

 

Yes, but knowing that person allows for more likelihood of allowing them to have life....or pursue life. If I just randomly picked some guy and disagreed with his lifestyle vs. understanding why he lives the way he lives, I am more likely to be less condemning.

 

I still don't quite see why you need religion to do this.  Couldn't you just do it because you're a nice person?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

BAA, I sympathize with what you said in the quote below regarding objectivity, but my hope is to simply understand End3's beliefs. I don't care if End3 uses "relationship", "communion", and "grace" in uncommon ways as long as he explains his definitions. Also I don't care if his beliefs are totally ridiculous.

 

I've been watching these discussions with End3, and I still don't have a clue what he believes. Maybe others know what he believes from past discussions, but I'm puzzled and curious.

directionless, this thread may help you understand where End3 is coming from:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59084-questions-for-end3/

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do.

 

Yes, but knowing that person allows for more likelihood of allowing them to have life....or pursue life. If I just randomly picked some guy and disagreed with his lifestyle vs. understanding why he lives the way he lives, I am more likely to be less condemning.

 

I still don't quite see why you need religion to do this.  Couldn't you just do it because you're a nice person?

 

I would think so. I profess it because it agrees with what I think the Bible is describing. Suppose I had mean tendencies. I expect there are several ways to learn how not to be mean. So I go to church and that particular method makes sense and I become less mean.

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost". I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method. Then I ascribe. Then I become a fundamentalist in that method. And then it takes a long time to move past the fundamental aspect.

 

Then when I get older, I am able to weigh other methods....therapy, science, rationalism, materialism..... After weighing some of these, I still conclude that Christianity is presenting and explaining the human condition better than anything I have found. I'm able to see other points, I just don't think they are as complete.

[florduh]

Then when I get older, I am able to weigh other methods....therapy, science, rationalism, materialism..... After weighing some of these, I still conclude that Christianity is presenting and explaining the human condition better than anything I have found. I'm able to see other points, I just don't think they are as complete.

 

I think that is the best reason for believing I've seen here. I disagree, of course, but that is a logical, cogent argument for your acceptance of the religion.

[Guest end3]

BAA, I sympathize with what you said in the quote below regarding objectivity, but my hope is to simply understand End3's beliefs. I don't care if End3 uses "relationship", "communion", and "grace" in uncommon ways as long as he explains his definitions. Also I don't care if his beliefs are totally ridiculous.

 

I've been watching these discussions with End3, and I still don't have a clue what he believes. Maybe others know what he believes from past discussions, but I'm puzzled and curious.

 

 

 

The way you use words, concepts and terminology is so radically removed from the accepted standards most of us choose to conform to, that I cannot be sure that what you mean by a certain word is what most of agree it means.

 

Until and unless you join us by accepting and conforming to common standards of logic, meaning and word usage there can be (imho) no constructive communication between us.  For you, that would mean giving up your subjective, individual and highly idiosyncratic take on things.  That means being objective -  a concept which I'm not sure you even understand.

 

My belief stems D from asking "what is God". My conclusion is that God is manifested, or the result of a relationship, whether it be a very simple elementary natural relationship or the relationship between larger systems. It's the unseen quality whether it be a good feeling or bad, a chemical bond or something that does not bond.

 

It could well be "god" is a emergent property of the particular organization "humanity". I don't believe that, but it could be.

 

I think even in the generation of personality, we see life and death, or God, in the result. I would think our goal of our own "unfolding" would be life, but it is often death, both in a figurative sense....and physical too.

 

Suppose creation is all rolling out of the mouth of God via the Big Bang, whatever we witness, even ourselves, are both life and death through dynamic relationships.

 

(Top this BS generator)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do.

 

Yes, but knowing that person allows for more likelihood of allowing them to have life....or pursue life. If I just randomly picked some guy and disagreed with his lifestyle vs. understanding why he lives the way he lives, I am more likely to be less condemning.

 

I still don't quite see why you need religion to do this.  Couldn't you just do it because you're a nice person?

 

I would think so. I profess it because it agrees with what I think the Bible is describing. Suppose I had mean tendencies. I expect there are several ways to learn how not to be mean. So I go to church and that particular method makes sense and I become less mean.

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost". I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method. Then I ascribe. Then I become a fundamentalist in that method. And then it takes a long time to move past the fundamental aspect.

 

Then when I get older, I am able to weigh other methods....therapy, science, rationalism, materialism..... After weighing some of these, I still conclude that Christianity is presenting and explaining the human condition better than anything I have found. I'm able to see other points, I just don't think they are as complete.

 

 

Completeness isn't the right criteria to use when selecting which method works best, End.

 

The power to explain is what you should be focusing on.

The objective power to explain reality.  Not the subjective belief that Christianity does explain reality.  

 

Ok, you believe (by faith) that Christianity gives you the best explanation of reality.  

But can you present any objective evidence that it is this best explanation?  

 

Christianity could be just as incomplete as any other method.

Or even less complete than any other method.  So how can you tell if it is as complete as you think it is?  

 

Do you have a reliable and objective method to test Christianity's ability to explain reality?

 

How do you objectively know Christianity is the best explanation of reality, End?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.