Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Heh heh. Sure, there are many misunderstandings about the Bible, but how would you go about coming to the truth of the matter with a common agreement on the means of pursuit so that an outside party can objectively tell where any "resistance" might lie?
I like the fear angle, it's valid up until the point that you realize the truth is responsible for itself and will not deceive, so you need have no fear of exploring it. "Who fears is not perfected in love."
The subtle effect is that these people do not want the truth or, more precisely, will find or invent a way to reject any claims that cause destabilization as being something other than the truth.
You might as well try to decide which is the better football team in a game where both are cheating. The issue of "better" ceases to exist.
This is all subconscious and not subject to direct inspection. It has never been studied academically for certain reasons. Very few reflect honestly on themselves because very few even can.
It's quite common that people don't like pictures of themselves or the sound of their recorded voice. They find it deeply disturbing, and that's because it does not match how they think they look and what their voice sounds like to themselves.
That's gross physical appearance and easily shown to onesself. How much more difficult is it to to examine one's own consciousness, let alone one's own subconscious. And how objectionable would one find it? It is all easily avoided.
Wonderful. What if the Bible is part of the reality of truth, how would you know you're trying to dodge it rather than sophisticatedly debunking something false when you reject it? What's the baseline for reality if it isn't something outside you and something inside you both in agreement?
Heh heh. Sure, there are many misunderstandings about the Bible, but how would you go about coming to the truth of the matter with a common agreement on the means of pursuit so that an outside party can objectively tell where any "resistance" might lie?
I like the fear angle, it's valid up until the point that you realize the truth is responsible for itself and will not deceive, so you need have no fear of exploring it. "Who fears is not perfected in love."
The subtle effect is that these people do not want the truth or, more precisely, will find or invent a way to reject any claims that cause destabilization as being something other than the truth.
You might as well try to decide which is the better football team in a game where both are cheating. The issue of "better" ceases to exist.
This is all subconscious and not subject to direct inspection. It has never been studied academically for certain reasons. Very few reflect honestly on themselves because very few even can.
It's quite common that people don't like pictures of themselves or the sound of their recorded voice. They find it deeply disturbing, and that's because it does not match how they think they look and what their voice sounds like to themselves.
That's gross physical appearance and easily shown to onesself. How much more difficult is it to to examine one's own consciousness, let alone one's own subconscious. And how objectionable would one find it? It is all easily avoided.
What is truth?
It is that characteristic of reality that only a handful accept they shouldn't try to dodge.
Wonderful. What if the Bible is part of the reality of truth, how would you know you're trying to dodge it rather than sophisticatedly debunking something false when you reject it? What's the baseline for reality if it isn't something outside you and something inside you both in agreement?