Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
My problem with Harold is that he hides behind cheeky innuendo. He is constantly suggesting that everyone is in the throes of misguided religious delusion and that he, only he, has seen the light.
But his "light" is the false light of skepticism whereby everything is placed in doubt, presumably to the end of setting us "free." But free to do what? Apparently to spread more skepticism, because that's all he seems to know how to do. Rarely is there is a positive affirmation of faith from him. I'm afraid that for him even faith is suspect.
All that might be tolerable (though sad) if he didn't feel the need to paint everyone with the same broad brush of superstitious rube-ism in the most (insert adjective here) way possible. It just rubs me the wrong way.
God knows I love Harold. Too much to let him get away with that stuff.
(Note PG noun and a promise not to go R again.)
|
Is it such a bad thing to have such a strong skeptic among us? I feel there are far too many "yes men" in most religious organizations, but when you talk about the LRC, they take "Amen brothers" to a whole new extreme. It is a strong testimony that we can have fellowship among those with such strongly held differences of opinion.
I would prefer cheeky inuendo to direct insult. You should consider this from his angle, he is almost always speaking from an extreme minority opinion, that can probably be very tough and require tough skin.
95% of the time most people are in the throes of misguided religious delusion. Just look at the thread on alien technology. "Bad archaelogy" is attributing ancient texts to real aerial battles between aliens. "Good archaelogy" is saying that these texts were not meant to be read literally but instead spiritually. Because....? "Bad Archaelogy" is thinking that these primitive people were describing astronauts to the best of their ability. "Good Archaelogy" is thinking that these primitive people were describing angels. Because....?
Either way, Good or Bad, no one has explained the archaeological finds and artifacts. The "Bad archaeologists" explain it away by creating an even bigger mystery. The "Good archaeologists" just ignore the questions altogether.