A little question to christians: [Spirituality & Religion]
If god was the evil one and the devil was the good one, how would you know?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
Haha. I've asked this qiestion to Christians before. Their answer is boring. "I know."
You can't use logic with a paranoid schizophrenic. At least, not when they're tripping balls. Using logic on insane people is approaching from a different realm. They only understand belief and are stuck in their absolutes.
You can't use logic with a paranoid schizophrenic. At least, not when they're tripping balls. Using logic on insane people is approaching from a different realm. They only understand belief and are stuck in their absolutes.
MetalGreymon · 36-40, M
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@MetalGreymon Maybe. Probably the unconscious barrier which protects their minds from the emotional instability of doubt, rather than stupidity, though. Delusions which default deny any possibility of being wrong, to protect themselves.
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@puck61 I think you're projecting your own ideas onto me. I have no feelings whatsoever towards religious people. Except maybe a bit of pity. I'm curious. What made you think I had any anger or bitterness, whatsoever? I simply exolained the reasoning behind Christian close-mindedness. There were 0 emotions, except perhaps some muted amusement.
I'd say you sound a lot more angry and bitter than I do. Even if you attempt to shroud it with amusement.
I typically don't, but I like the rationale of the question he asked and was interested, since it's a thought I've had which I don't see many other people express.
I'd say you sound a lot more angry and bitter than I do. Even if you attempt to shroud it with amusement.
I typically don't, but I like the rationale of the question he asked and was interested, since it's a thought I've had which I don't see many other people express.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@Tatsumi Sorry, but I did not know your poor command of language and of logical inferences prevents you from understanding I was addressing the implications of your position that you were too insincere or intellectually incapable of voicing openly. However, your reply does prove my "assumptions" to have been correct.
You must perforce consider yourself a morally superior person to feel "pity" for anyone who des not share your world view. You have just made my point. You must feel it is too bad there are (billions) of people who are not as morally and intellectually enlightened as you are, this you "pity" them.
Thus you sit hunched over your little computer screen "pitying" such people like Chesterton, Belloc, Michelangelo, Johnson, John Paul II whom had you had the great good fortune to know them you would have "pitied" they were not as gifted as you are.
Really the "pity" is you cannot smell the stench of your own moral arrogance. As for assumptions, prove all mine by the hatred contained in your last two sentences - the mask of "moral supremacy" you affect is finally a little too heavy for you to wear at the end unless calling people you disagree with "stupid" is for you a sign of your moral superiority? Or is it a sign of moral supremacy to call people you "pity" (inter alia, uneducated, unsophisticated, trilingual medical professionals who happen to be Christian) stupid? If THAT is a sign of a superior moral position I think I will keep the one I have.
Here endeth the lesson.
You must perforce consider yourself a morally superior person to feel "pity" for anyone who des not share your world view. You have just made my point. You must feel it is too bad there are (billions) of people who are not as morally and intellectually enlightened as you are, this you "pity" them.
Thus you sit hunched over your little computer screen "pitying" such people like Chesterton, Belloc, Michelangelo, Johnson, John Paul II whom had you had the great good fortune to know them you would have "pitied" they were not as gifted as you are.
Really the "pity" is you cannot smell the stench of your own moral arrogance. As for assumptions, prove all mine by the hatred contained in your last two sentences - the mask of "moral supremacy" you affect is finally a little too heavy for you to wear at the end unless calling people you disagree with "stupid" is for you a sign of your moral superiority? Or is it a sign of moral supremacy to call people you "pity" (inter alia, uneducated, unsophisticated, trilingual medical professionals who happen to be Christian) stupid? If THAT is a sign of a superior moral position I think I will keep the one I have.
Here endeth the lesson.