Inclusiveness is cool.
Intellectualism is cool.
So inclusive intellectualism is super-cool.
Smart people agree that the key to inclusiveness is agreement.
The definition of agreement is defined differently.
To define agreement we collectively agree to define agreement individually.
In other words, we agree to agree to whatever we say whether or not we agree.
If you can’t understand this, you’re being disagreeable.
Inclusive intellectuals express themselves in statements like this:
When I feel that my feelings are logical it is reasonable to have faith in those feelings.
I feel that history and science will back me up.
I’m calling this “logical reasoning”…but you can call it what you want.
I don’t feel like it matters to me.
You are free to feel that your logic causes you to feel differently.
I still feel like we can agree to disagree and ultimately…
…it doesn’t matter.
What matters is respecting everyone’s feelings.
That’s how I logically feel anyway.
So don’t tell me I have “faith”.
That word gives me logically reasonable feelings.
10 Responses
Inclusive intellectualism? The scary thing is that both terms are in the dictionary, but putting them together just makes gibberish of both.
Appreciate this, helps to clarify somethings. Feelings are clearly not a good standard on which to base morality. However, reason and logic are not either because we can rational-lies anything. That leaves us in a rather tenuous position of having to rely upon God rather than our own thoughts and feelings. It’s only tenuous on our end because it requires a leap of faith. God of course is reliable, real, and there to catch us. Also, He will help you understand it, both emotionally and intellectually, but only if we let go of a bit of pride and stop trying to lean into our own understanding. Most atheists (and a few Christians too,) are all about trying to put all of their faith in their own capacity for reason and logic or weigh things exclusively by how they feel. Both approaches miss the boat, because our faith needs to be in the Lord and not in our own abilities.
IB, I’m wondering what you think of the concept of Jesus as the Logos? (Logic?)
I think about that all the time and wonder how it fits…
In the spirit of agreeability I agree with you John and as has been said here before it takes more faith on their part to believe what they believe. She also needs to recheck her description of God It’s interesting when they just cherry-pick portions of the OT to provide their basis for God.
How she feels is all that matters.
Agreed
The sad thing is feelings DON’T matter. All that matters is the truth about God and Jesus. The funny thing about inclusion and tolerance is no one in that crowd offers those things to Christians. We are only inclusive and tolerant if you agree with our position…HUH? That is the exact opposite of the meaning of those words. It c asks me up.
I logically feel that atheism is based totally on blind faith, it’s logically incoherent, and history and science stands in total contradiction to it in every way. Thanks for agreeing with me because my feelings matter.
If you feel that agreement is logical then I agree.