Coming Back From Assumptions

If someone who knows and embraces that no knowledge whatsoever can be found trough assumptions, they are in a better position to let go of any assumptions they allow themselves to hold regardless of knowing that they are inherently invalid.  A former or struggling rationalist, that is, would be in the best position of all the people who wander from the truth in belief, intent, or action to correct themselves by aligning with the supreme, omnipresent, intrinsic truths of logic.  Just as rationality is within everyone's reach, if only they decide to discover its necessary truths and absolute certainties, irrationality is within everyone's reach, if only they allow themselves to stoop to it.  Redemption is accessible for all in the latter category, something anyone could intellectually and morally pursue if needed.

A rationalist who stumbles--avoidably, as is the case for everyone when it comes to philosophical beliefs and moral actions--can always come back from their assumptions or negligence or apathy.  Fellow rationalists who are not likewise voluntarily sidetracked by emotionalism or assumptions of some kind would welcome him or her.  No matter how one might feel towards them personally, this wavering rationalist would have abandoned falsities and slavery to preferences in order to be aligned once more to the truth.  Had they remained in irrationalism, they would have deserved hostility (though never of an emotionalistic, hypocritical, or otherwise irrational and unjust form), but they have pushed submissions to illusions aside.

Redemption does not erase what has been believed or said or carried out.  No, this is why on any logically possible sort of moral theism, not just Christianity, turning back to reason, God, and morality could not itself atone for former blunders.  One would always have the metaphysical condition of that guilt, if morality exists, unless one is liberated from it by divine mercy.  On a human level, mercy is not required to understand how someone could turn to or back to reason, to appreciate their transformation, and to approve of the status they have led themselves to at that point.  Rationalists do not need other rationalists to discover and savor many truths, but they can support each other as the strongest of brothers or sisters, and Christian rationalists in particular.

Showing mercy for genuine errors and faults is one thing, but there is nothing rational about hostility towards someone who has initially renounced irrationality and other sin or who has returned from them.  How could it be rational or just to oppose someone for coming back to reason and justice, for repenting of their disregard, however temporary or comparatively small, for the truth?  One would not have to be merciful towards them for their errors (though even I, of all people, now would want this) to be accepting and outwardly thankful of their restoration.  For those who gravitate towards either mercy or intense but justified ire, the restoration of a person is nothing to dismiss.  Someone would have, in the best cases, chosen reason and the realities it grounds over self-deception, emotional persuasion, and every single kind of assumption.