Replying to anonymous

I think the key difference for me is: if one claims to prove religious superiority, but do so by many evil actions (lies, deception, misrepresentation, threats) while at the same time setting (unnecessarily) high bar for the other, then you cannot convince me of anything.

It's basically saying "we can be a piece of shit but you have to prove yourself to us". To me, it simply shows a double standard and an godlike ability to misuse excuses.

Anyways, I get your point. I suspect I'm about at the point where we're going in circles.
Avatar
TheLegendaryMan 10mo ago

Here is a new Legendary Meme made just for you.

I think that you have just encountered one too many assholes in your life and that has made your perspective a little jaded and bias. Whether that is justified is not for me to judge.

My whole point and effort in saying all that I have to you. Is to throw away your preconceptions about religious people in general. Start over fresh. No one has anything they need to prove to someone else. What you need to prove to yourself is that you are capable of allowing others to exceed your expectations without any bias attached to them based on their beliefs.

When you encounter someone with faith on a high horse who demands you prove yourself to them. Then that person should be judged on their actions of being an asshole. Not grouped together with anyone else in their religion who is also a religious asshole.

When you encounter someone with true faith that proves their religious superiority by being the most outstanding, honest, and christ like individual that you have ever met. You allow them the opportunity to be a shining example of what having good faith can do for a person. Regardless of whether, or not you believe in their "fairy tales".

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

70
anonymous 10mo ago

Ah, sure, in that case you describe fine. But I'm not writing purely from the perspective of assholes.

Let's take another example: Jordan Peterson. I only recently got to know of him based on some videos. Without going into elaborate claims and opinions, because I can claim only a reasonably limited *impression* on this.

He fairly recently had an conversation with someone and there was a statement that summarized it as "I think you're reading way too much into it. There is only so much depth and symbolism to be found." (Paraphrasing, I forgot exact words. It's a reasonable gist.) Note: this quote had perfectly summarized exactly that which had been bothering me about it too.

That's why I say about intelligence or religion taking precedent over the other. I think Peterson is very intelligent, but I think his interpretations have become his handicap. And let me be clear: I think he would be smarter without his "religious crutch" (I hope I'm using the term correctly.)

I also know a religious guy who you can notice thinks clearly. He holds on to his religious values, but it hasn't held me back from a rational thought through conversation. Including when it involves critical opposing positions. Even if he points back to religion for whatever reason.

I think that's an example where his intelligence takes precedence.

So, no, not *only* assholes.