Sincere and sufficient effort

@philokalia said
I don't know about this issue.

Why are you posting then? The question I have raised is very specific and you certainly seemed to "know [something] about this issue" a few pages ago before you decided to use this thread to proselytize instead of engaging.

@bigdoggproblem said
Where you have failed, is this.

You have not recognized that different people have different Spiritual paths.

Just because you felt wrong about dabblings outside of Christianity does not mean that others are wrong in rejecting Christianity.

It may only mean that Christianity was not right, for those people.

But there is a single truth, right?

If I were to say that Gandhi was a Muslim, and another said he was a Christian, and a third said that he was a Hindu...

The third would be right, and the others would be wrong, correct?

This is also true for something that is unknowable.

There are those who speculate that the ancient Egyptian Kingdoms came together peacefully and diplomatically; there are those that speculate that they came together through a war. There are perhaps those who think it was a combination or something different. We actually don't know how the two kingdoms became united, but we know that at one point in the very distant past they were suddenly united...

Something took place, but we do not know; but, we know that there is one reality as to what actually happened.

Either Christ was resurrected and He is God, or He is not, and I am completely wrong.

But if I am right, I cannot possibly say that there are other spiritual paths right for any human being.

There'd be only one path.

@fmf said
Why are you posting then? The question I have raised is very specific and you certainly seemed to "know [something] about this issue" a few pages ago before you decided to use this thread to proselytize instead of engaging.

I thought I knew about it. But I do not know about the specific issue that yu are having with someone who had the gall and the cajones to say that you dismissed it out of hand.

What outrageousness.

What a mockery of manners.

WHoever said this surely is not worthy of the title "Lady" or "Gentleman," wouldn't you agree, FMF?

@philokalia said
It is describing the fault of turning your back on Christianity.

The question is: what constitutes a sincere and sufficient effort to examine and consider Christianity before reaching a point where one realizes that one does not subscribe to it?

Christians finding "fault" in me for not being a Christian anymore is irrelevant.

@philokalia said
But there is a single truth, right?

If I were to say that Gandhi was a Muslim, and another said he was a Christian, and a third said that he was a Hindu...

The third would be right, and the others would be wrong, correct?

This is also true for something that is unknowable.

There are those who speculate that the ancient Egyptian Kingdoms came together peacefu ...[text shortened]... ere are other spiritual paths right for any human being.

There'd be only one path.

"Single truth" ... what kind of nonsense is that?

There are true propositions ... and false ones.

Edit: there are also propositions that, by their wording, aren't simply "true" or "false".

You could actually be wrong about Gandhi, if Gandhi practiced certain aspects of all three of those religions.

So, no, you are not necessarily "correct".

To take your Christ example, there is another possibility, namely, that Christ is ressurected, but not God, or is God, but not ressurected, in which, in both cases, you are only partially wrong.

@philokalia said
I thought I knew about it. But I do not know about the specific issue that yu are having with someone who had the gall and the cajones to say that you dismissed it out of hand.

I don't think any "gall" or "cajones" have been involved. It seems instead to be an off-the-shelf religionist 'debating point' that has been used here for as long as I have been active. It strikes me as weak and essentially evasive. Talking about it seems to have ruffled you because you are trying to introduce personalized remarks that are not mirrored in how I am addressing you.

If, say, someone lost their religious faith at around the age of 60 and then died an atheist at the age of 65, would the religionist 'debating point' that 'this person's loss of faith can be explained away as a result of insufficient sincerity and effort to understand the religion' be valid? It gets used so often, so predictibly, so sincerely, it would seem some people think it is valid.

Oh, wait, I shouldn't use words like this because FMF is very, very sensitive and could have his feelings hurt if I told him he turned his back on it or 'gave up' on it, or any other number of perfectly normal turns of phrase, just like he got so upset by someone saying 'dismissing it otut of hand.

A year? Five years? Ten years? Thirty years? How much sincerity and effort renders obsolete and even foolish the perennial, go-to religionist explanation about 'not enough time spent' or 'not a genuine effort' with regard to loss of faith?

@philokalia said
Your loss of faith could have been done after quite sincere and sufficient efforts to maintain Christianity, and you may sincerely and sufficiently understand a lot of Christian theology. It might be the case that you are simply mistaken and thinking wrongly about these things, and that God is not drawing you near to him (or you are unconsciously rejecting him).

So how long and how much effort does one have to dedicate to considering the religion before the 'debating point' that 'it was not long enough' no longer works?

@philokalia said
Surely, it could never, ever, not even for a minute, ever EVER be appropriate that someone would suggest that FMF ever did anything that was not exhaustive, thorough, and highly scrupulous in his choice making. May the people who assassinated your character by saying you dismissed it out of hand STAND CORRECTED.

Mmm. It's you who seems to be "upset", not me.

@fmf said
A year? Five years? Ten years? Thirty years? How much sincerity and effort renders obsolete and even foolish the perennial, go-to religionist explanation about 'not enough time spent' or 'not a genuine effort' with regard to loss of faith?

No amount, because, despite the time, you didn't "get it".

@bigdoggproblem said
"Single truth" ... what kind of nonsense is that?

There are true propositions ... and false ones.

Edit: there are also propositions that, by their wording, aren't simply "true" or "false".

You could actually be wrong about Gandhi, if Gandhi practiced certain aspects of all three of those religions.

So, no, you are not necessarily "correct".

To tak ...[text shortened]... t God, or is God, but not ressurected, in which, in both cases, you are only partially wrong.

Well, you are explicitly right about the existence of other possibilities when it comes to Christ's resurrection, etc.

You are also right that someone could take a sophist's definition of what constitutes a "Christian" and say that Gandhi was one, but by any conventional definition, he was not.

--

Either there is a God, or there isn't. Of course, there is also other possibilities, but I do not think the point of my statement was to have us exhaust every possible reality.

There is a single reality, correct?

And if Orthodox Christianity is correct, then every other spiritual path is incorrect.

@fmf said
I don't think any "gall" or "cajones" have been involved. It seems instead to be an off-the-shelf religionist 'debating point' that has been used here for as long as I have been active. It strikes me as weak and essentially evasive. Talking about it seems to have ruffled you because you are trying to introduce personalized remarks that are not mirrored in how I am addressing you. ...[text shortened]... d? It gets used so often, so predictibly, so sincerely, it would seem some people think it is valid.

This doesn't strike me as a good point.

If someone is wrong, why does it matter how they are wrong?

WHy do I have to be held accountable for and come up with descriptions of a person's wrongness in some general scenario...

Alright, so someone knew well, and made effort, and understood the theology, and they rejected it.

Now they're dead at the age of sixty.

Relevance?

@fmf said
So how long and how much effort does one have to dedicate to considering the religion before the 'debating point' that 'it was not long enough' no longer works?

I answered back ont he first or second page. It actually isn't a measure of time.

Moreover, I believe understanding a thing is an on-going process that isn't turned on or turned off.

@fmf said
A year? Five years? Ten years? Thirty years? How much sincerity and effort renders obsolete and even foolish the perennial, go-to religionist explanation about 'not enough time spent' or 'not a genuine effort' with regard to loss of faith?

If done correctly, I imagine it only requires a couple weeks? A couple months?

IDK.

Maybe even a few hours, if someone is really quick on the draw.

@philokalia said
This doesn't strike me as a good point.

Which point? The "point" religionists make to explain away someone not being or continuing to be a member of their religion?