Belief Wrestling vs. Certitude

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That made me laugh, thanks.

@bigdoggproblem said
Galveston said, in another thread, something to the effect of: I am 100% certain of my beliefs; there are no mysteries or confusions.

What an impoverished approach to Spirituality!

It's also a milestone along the road that eventually leads to fanaticism, along with [manufactured] outrage, reliance exclusively on sources that serve up confirmation bias, defending the cult/group by any means necessary, as well as things like pretending to feel/actually feeling [the dividing line may be a fine one, psychologically speaking] "personal insult" about things like religion-related events that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

-Removed-

I think that my answer explained how one can be... capable of growth while still having certainty and faith in the doctrines of the Church.

-Removed-

You should not call someone a cultist like that -- especially someone who is right here in our forum.

I am not saying that I can prove that any particular individual is full of room for growth, only that one can fully embrace the position's of one's church or institution, and still be growing intellectually and morally while not doubting the claims of the Church or institution.

@philokalia said
You should not call someone a cultist like that -- especially someone who is right here in our forum.

You should perhaps start a thread on defining what a religious "cult" is in the context of Christianity and then see if galveston75's group qualifies as one in any ways.

This would be better than simply objecting to the word because you object to it, and objecting to someone else's candour simply because you object to it.

@philokalia said
It is possible to admit that people are wiser than yourself, right? So, for instance, I know that, say, God or St. Paul is wiser than I am, and so I accept their words and moral judgments as being above that of my own.

Gosh. There must surely be at least one logical fallacy in play here.

@fmf said
You should perhaps start a thread on defining what a religious "cult" is in the context of Christianity and then see if galveston75's group qualifies as one in any ways.

This would be better than simply objecting to the word because you object to it, and objecting to someone else's candour simply because you object to it.

Even if I thought that someone was in a cult, I would not refer to them as a member of a cult.

It's not very helpful language unless you really want to signify that someone is your enemy.

@philokalia said
Even if I thought that someone was in a cult, I would not refer to them as a member of a cult.

It's not very helpful language unless you really want to signify that someone is your enemy.

I think it is good to be candid. If you choose to be mealy-mouthed or obsequious with a poster like galveston75, then that is a matter for you. And I don't think somebody is my "enemy" simply because they are in a cult. I will leave that kind of mentality to you.

@fmf said
I think it is good to be candid. If you choose to be mealy-mouthed or obsequious with a poster like galveston75, then that is a matter for you. And I don't think somebody is my "enemy" simply because they are in a cult. I will leave that kind of mentality to you.

(1) The position should be clear enough in the debate.

(2) I am reading Carl Schmitt's On the Political right now, so I have an appreciation for the friend/enemy dichotomy as it stands in a political context, and do not view the relationship of enemy as necessarily personal... but just as an abstract concept.

It is very bourgeois to think of oneself as above the friend/enemy context.

@philokalia said
It is very bourgeois to think of oneself as above the friend/enemy context.

As I said, if you think somebody is identified as being an "enemy" simply because the group they are in is referred to as a cult, then that says more about you ~ and perhaps Carl Schmitt ~ than it does about anyone else.

@philokalia said
The position should be clear enough in the debate.

Apparently not. You seem to think that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult, while I do. This has been made clear by the language I have used.

@fmf said
As I said, if you think somebody is identified as being an "enemy" simply because the group they are in is referred to as a cult, then that says more about you ~ and perhaps Carl Schmitt ~ than it does about anyone else.

I think you would understand it better if you read his book on the topic because the word 'enemy' can be used in a way that is not shallow or so black & white -- which is how I expect to be able to use words when I am chatting with adults.

@fmf said
As I said, if you think somebody is identified as being an "enemy" simply because the group they are in is referred to as a cult, then that says more about you ~ and perhaps Carl Schmitt ~ than it does about anyone else.

You would think that a guy who throws around the word 'cult' so easily would be a bit more judicious about whether he lectures someone on the word enemy 😆

@philokalia said
You would think that a guy who throws around the word 'cult' so easily would be a bit more judicious about whether he lectures someone on the word enemy 😆

What "lecture"? All I have said is that I don't think somebody is my "enemy" simply because they are in a cult. If that is your mentality, then that is a matter for you, not for me. You can define "enemy" as you see fit. But you projecting your notion of "enemy" onto me certainly cannot be described as ME "lecturing" YOU.