(January 23, 2021 at 1:28 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Catholics will voice superficial assent to the articles of their faith and then disagree with their own official beliefs? Yup.

You are not Catholic, and yet you create uncharitable interpretations about their beliefs, only to call them hypocrites for disagreeing with you. That kind of arrogance is unsettling.

You believe it to be uncharitable, and that's probably what you're arguing against. I stated it and resolved objections to it by accurately communicating the belief as espoused in the official doctrine. I have been frequently and loudly vocal about this belief and it's production being frank and honest of them, not hypocritical. Not an issue of malice, not an issue of control. On and on and on. That is your valuation, an argument that you are having with yourself.

Lets tick off your objections here. I'm uncharitable. I'm insulting. I'm arrogant. Okay, fine, and I leave the toilet seat up too. Am I wrong..though?

You are incoherently wrong. You've weaved a thread across several disconnected points, inflexibly clung to a narrow perspective for each of them, and declared the finished web to be the reality we must all abide by.

It could certainly be the case that popes, bishops, theologians, scientists, historians, stanford reviewers, faithful laypeople and myself are all laboring under a shared misperception of reality.

It would be very interesting to see where we've gotten that wrong, and how, as you see it.

(January 23, 2021 at 2:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: "It could certainly be the case that popes, bishops, theologians, scientists, stanford reviewers, laypeople and myself..."

There's no way this isn't trolling.

Would it help to reconsider that, just as I don't believe in the things you believe, I might not make the same valuations you make?

You appear to be arguing against the uncharitableness of some explanation and the character of the arguer based on that perception of charitability. So let's assume something less drastic. Maybe I don't talk good and stuff, right? Well, okay, fair enough. This is all on me.

Do I think that trinitarian belief doesn't make sense? Not in anything other than some novel sense of explicit commitments to other things and metrics than religious beliefs. These things simply arent like other things. I've been arguing that they do make sense as beliefs, even and especially when that belief is that some things about a god literally wont and can't make sense to man. Just flat out beyond our ken. They could have dissembled here, they could have rambled on in perpetuity...and some inevitably did - but, officially, they straight owned what they believed.

Regardless of whether that belief is true or false in one of those explicit commitments referenced above - it was a show of good character and rational integrity.

That is no longer satisfying to a great many christians... and I understand that -very- well. I think that, charitably, we can say that early christianity wasn't ever really satisfied with it either - it just was (for some is) an accurate description of what they believed. Are you one of those christians? There are people who look at that and they might think that it's wrong, or that it's hypocritical or crazy or a conspiracy of control..or whatever. I'm not one of them. I'm saying that this is what happened, and this is what we see happening, and it looks to me like we have examples of that - from yourself and from tack. Tack is finding that, at least in his community, the creedal expression of trinitarian belief is being improved and fleshed out. That implies that there was some deficit prior. That people said "I believe in x"..sang the songs.... - but then failed to explain or explained not x or anti x when surveyed. As I understand it, he's seen that improve just in his time there. What do you see in your community, and what of any of your earlier comments might you refer to in order to explain whatever it is you're seeing in your community - regardless of what anyone else in any other community or some global community has been seeing, ofc.

Do you think that there's an old guard and a new guard, and that the new guards ideas are progress slowly incoming on the basis of replacement?

(January 23, 2021 at 2:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(January 23, 2021 at 2:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: "It could certainly be the case that popes, bishops, theologians, scientists, stanford reviewers, laypeople and myself..."

There's no way this isn't trolling.

You routinely preach religion on an atheist forum...and have the temerity to call someone else a troll.

How cute.

Yes, I'm serious.

(January 23, 2021 at 2:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(January 23, 2021 at 2:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: "It could certainly be the case that popes, bishops, theologians, scientists, stanford reviewers, laypeople and myself..."

There's no way this isn't trolling.