Sincere and sufficient effort

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

So, in your view, for your religion, a "sincere and sufficient effort" would be to stick with an endless on-going process?

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

If you don't want to take a view on the 'debating point' we are discussing, and you don't want to be "held accountable" for whatever stance you take, what are you attempting to do on this thread and with this debate topic?

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

In practical terms, how many religions do you think someone could be weighing simultaneously in this way you describe?

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

I do not know. I lost the point in the sheer number of replies.

I am not interested enough to search for it and there's plenty of other material here.

@fmf said
So, in your view, for your religion, a "sincere and sufficient effort" would be to stick with an endless on-going process?

Because the process can't be turned on or off... there's no question of 'sticking' to something.

That perspective is just present to you because you have understood it.

I don't stop and try to analyze the new Korean alcohol tax laws from a Marxist perspective. Yet, I have thought about things and weighted the merits of Marxism before.

@fmf said
In practical terms, how many religions do you think someone could be weighing simultaneously in this way you describe?

Dozens.

@fmf said
If you don't want to take a view on the 'debating point' we are discussing, and you don't want to be "held accountable" for whatever stance you take, what are you attempting to do on this thread and with this debate topic?

I am attempting to have a good time and discuss issues.

@philokalia said
I do not know. I lost the point in the sheer number of replies.

But it was a "point" YOU were referring to. Which "point" did you have in mind? You posted it just maybe less than an hour ago,

@philokalia said
I don't stop and try to analyze the new Korean alcohol tax laws from a Marxist perspective. Yet, I have thought about things and weighted the merits of Marxism before.

If you had been a Marxist for 20 or 30 years and after long contemplation, you stopped being one and stopped being a proponent of its doctrines, would it be a good 'debating point' for Marxists to suggest that your abandonment of Marxism was due to having not made the effort to understand the ideology?

@philokalia said
I am not interested enough to search for it and there's plenty of other material here.

And yet you have spent much of the morning stalking me pointlessly and trying, as BigDoggProblem so succinctly put it an hour or so ago, "not to put sincere and sufficient effort into engaging another poster". Plenty of what material?

@fmf said
If you had been a Marxist for 20 or 30 years and after long contemplation, you stopped being one and stopped being a proponent of its doctrines, would it be a good 'debating point' for Marxists to suggest that your abandonment of Marxism was due to having not made the effort to understand the ideology?

It probably woudln't be true, but it would be a good point of debate and a good tactic at least to 'poison the well.'

@fmf said
And yet you have spent much of the morning stalking me pointlessly and trying, as BigDoggProblem so succinctly put it an hour or so ago, "not to put sincere and sufficient effort into engaging another poster". Plenty of what material?

This is the second time you have accused me of stalking you since I returned after my Lenten break.

I am not stalking you. ^^

@philokalia said
It probably woudln't be true, but it would be a good point of debate and a good tactic at least to 'poison the well.'

So, Christians who use this 'debating point' in a comparable situation with ex-Christians are "poisoning the well", to your way of thinking?

@fmf said
So, Christians who use this 'debating point' in a comparable situation with ex-Christians are "poisoning the well", to your way of thinking?

I have to admit... in your case, it would be poisoning the well.

I say this because I think you very adequately know Christian doctrine and opinions on these things, FMF, and other people who have posted here know that you do know these things.

Perhaps it could be true of some people -- that they act rashly and just 'turn their back' on it. But I do not think it is true of you.

But, you know, there can be this interpretation that, like, there is "knowing Christ," and then there is "KNOWING Christ."

Which is similar to having been a "dog owner" and "have a dog" when you are a child, but then actually buying a dog and being a real DOG OWNER when you are 30, and now have full responsibility and an even more intimate relationship with a dog. It's like you then... have a very different experience, even if you are doing the same things.

@philokalia said
But, you know, there can be this interpretation that, like, there is "knowing Christ," and then there is "KNOWING Christ."

Of course, there is that rhetorical device too. I know it well.

I would say that almost [but certainly not] all Christians here over the years have processed ~ or explained away ~ my loss of faith as being the result of never having been a Christian. There are others - like kellyJay [and sonship when he's angry] who simply claim I am lying about it.

It's interesting how religion can make so many people feel they can reach into someone's past life and decide what did or didn't seem real to that person in the past.

It's, for the most part, another weak and poison-the-well-esque 'debating point, and pretty much a pyrrhic endeavour I would say.

The assertion that loss of faith means that one never had faith in the first place, if it were true, essentially would mean that no one's claim to be a Christian and have genuine Christian faith can be taken at face value or seen as being true, even by the Christian in question.

A self-defeating, self-centred bit of religionist rhetoric if ever there was one.