So your favorite fiction is non-fiction, all the rest is, then your favorite fiction is "intelligible" because it is not and full of contradictions and errors but you must refuse to admit it. "Based on their nature" where "nature" is some imaginary perfect straw man, "objective revelation" which is also a straw man for claim.
And the ironic ending where you inadvertently admit that your imaginary deity should not be used to justify anything. Yet strangely, you're one of those dominionists who would like to do away with the Constitution to dicate your random nonsense, justifying it on misrepresented random nonsense.
If any other imaginary god was identical to yours, wouldn't it also result in as many conflicting traditions?
What I see is willful alenation and total denial:
- Claim of "intelligibility" as a result of confusion, to avoid needing to face the problems
- Claim of "objective morality" due to inconsistency and dubious ethics, to avoid facing the problems
- Rejection of knowledge because of congnitive dissonance, friction where reality conflicts with ideal
- Falsehoods for an ideal of "truth"
- Endless repetition to arrogantly dictate and avoid understanding anything (I don't hear attitude), creativerealms's description is also consistent with this. Fake debates will be entertained but they really just are creed recitation/affirmation shows avoiding to actually address any argument. Typical of creationists, a reason many science advocates will refuse to give time and audience when invited to public shows. One doesn't learn about reason or nature through such propaganda, it's really just a platform for the propagandist to pretend that they debate at the level of those who know better and at the end to pretend that they "win" concluding with their prepared statement. Often a moderator also prevents any situation that could trouble the narrator unable to properly address it. In the above case, deleting inconvenient comments serves that purpose.
- Systematic projection where instead of understanding arguments, they are twisted and fitted to attack rather than reason. Thus it is often easy to imagine and reconstruct the likely original argument from a statement.
Maybe I should call it "ideological alcoholism", evading reality instead of facing one's own problems?