Morley wrote:Mentalgymnast:
In various threads, you seem to have developed a theme. It moves along the lines of that you (mentalgymnast) have considered the evidence in ways that apostates have not. You think in colors while others think in black and white; you reason outside-the-box, while apostates are constrained by either-or type reasoning. You hint that others are not as well-read in apologetic literature as you, that others are not willing to give faith a chance. You, too, have had a crisis of faith, but you’ve resolved it. You, too, have a huge shelf of doubts, but you’ve managed to keep it shored up.
You are creative and go for runs and are just a regular guy with a regular education, but with super-regular (and perhaps insightful! and probably exciting!) ideas that, if apostates would consider, might resolve their conflicts with the church. You become snippy when your questions are not answered, but feel no obligation to respond to the questions of others (even when you promise to do so). When you’re caught in a contradiction or found to be pulling something out of your (seemingly bottomless) posterior, you maintain that you were just ‘throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks’ and that you shouldn’t be held to what you actually said.
Others might say that you whine, but you don’t complain--you just point things out. Your arguments don’t need coherent logic--because you’re looking at things through the bias of faith and non-binary, coloring-outside-of-the-lines reasoning. If apostates would just step back and do the same, they would see what you see.
Do I have it about right?
This.
