Quote from Thunderdog:
Actually, you are the one who has a problem -- with people who do not accept without question whatever happens to pop into their minds and feels good at the time. If he didn't want anyone to ask any questions about it, then the poster should perhaps have not shared his personal faith. If he chooses to share it, then I exercise my choice to request clarification regarding what I view as inconsistencies from my own perspective. He then has the choice to either respond or ignore me. If he did not want me to view it from my perspective, perhaps he should not have shared it. That choice was his. See how that works?
By way of example, I take it on faith that you are a complete and utter asshole. However, my faith bridges quite nicely into reality as most of us see it because, if questioned, I can point to countless instances where you validate my faith to the letter. Therefore, my faith has both internal and external consistency, both to me and to most objective observers.
Now, I suppose that faith need not be externally consistent. I don't know because I am not an aficionado in these matters as you present yourself to be. However, I think it only follows that someone's faith should at least be consistent within itself -- internally consistent. If it lacks that, then I think that the faithful is not quite clear regarding what he is actually faithful about. But that's just my opinion. However, since my faith is both internally and externally consistent, it appears to be far more robust and valid than the faith of the person whom I had addressed earlier.
