>>24492378
>it’s a moving target precisely to avoid being pinned down or falsified.
That's only a rationalization of it but not a meaningful understanding of the system itself.
>It’s not that faith “can’t have resolutions” — it’s designed not to, so it can endlessly persist without accountability.
What about
>Zen, Advaita, Taoism — they don't argue, they end argument.
This is just you holding one system to a different standard because of an irrational cultural tendency.

>Theology hasn’t survived because it’s true or wise — it’s survived because it was backed by the power of the state, enforcing belief through force and social control.
This is the human error again? Many religions have survived or grown to have cultural dominance in spite of lacking a state or institutional power. This is factually incorrect.
>Its grip has been slipping ever since information became widely available and people stopped blindly accepting whatever authority handed them.
This is conjecture.
>Faith that needs constant defense is just doubt begging for permission to exist.
Meaningless aphorism.
>True certainty doesn’t waste time begging or weaseling.
Where is, and what is this true certainty?
>Theology’s contradictions aren’t a sign of complexity — they’re proof of a failing system desperately patching holes to avoid collapse. It clings to power, not truth, and that’s why it’s dying.
Again, pointless conjecture.

You are looking more and more idiotic.