Wednesday, September 29, 2010

What we know

So you're religious? That's a shame because I like to talk about the subject I've been interested in and have studied for at least 50 years -- but not with people of "faith." Scholars, linguists, archaeologists with and without faith are another matter entirely, but mentioning even the most elementary things about the Bible that one would learn on the first day of your first college class usually produces a reaction similar to Bela Lugosi encountering a cross, or a resounding and peremptory NO!

I've given up mentioning obvious facts like the separate and interleaved Genesis stories; one talking about Yahweh and the other, in a different voice, talking about the Elohim. The details differ remarkably. Ask your Sunday School teacher about the 100 days and nights of rain and Noah loading animals 6 by 6 and watch the reaction.

I'm talking about minutia, of course and I'm staying away from the conclusions to be made from them, but the level of ignorance amongst the most faithful is as astounding as the refusal to actually read the approved source documents much less the banned and earlier documents archaeology has provided us. It requires more than most can or will apply to the task -- and takes all the fun out of it, of course.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life took a poll earlier this year
and the results didn't surprise me at all. It appears that Americans are a pretty ignorant lot in terms of how much they know about the Bible, the other religions of the world and things related to the status of religious life in the US, the urge to make public displays notwithstanding. Atheists and agnostics seem to know a good deal more than the general run of the faithful, although you're welcome to ignore the question of whether it's knowledge itself that produces doubt in the places certainty likes to dwell. It does seem that the more educated are -- well, more educated about these things.

Jews seem to do best of all in terms of broad spectrum religious knowledge, but that's not too surprising as religious education in that group is a much different sort of thing and educators may be less shy of difficult questions. They're less likely to get their theology solely from the polyester preachers on TV whose continued existence defies claims of divine forces at work in the world.

The most important lack, in my opinion, is that shown by American Protestants and Catholics who know very little about other religions compared Jews and Mormons and Atheists and that's something I can't explain easily. Less than half of us know that the Dalai Lama is a Buddhist or that most people in Indonesia are Muslim. A tiny 8% 0f us know that Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) was Jewish and I'm sure most of those were Jewish as well.

Apparently the one fact we're most likely to know, is that teachers in public schools may not lead students in prayer and one of the things we're least likely to know is that it is indeed constitutionally permissible to study the Bible and other texts in a comparative religion course. The answer to that opens a whole new perspective in strategic public anger management, but I won't go there either.

Of course all of us seem to know that Islam is inherently and unavoidably evil and some can supply all sorts of reasons to substantiate it and even more reasons to be angry with you if you don't quite agree with it all, but ask what Ramadan is about and only half can tell you it's an Islamic holiday.

So what does all of this mean? Beats me. I do know that too much speculation about these things is likely to get my neighbors and associates to beat me too. After all, as a people we're quite possessive of what we don't know and have good reasons for not knowing it: and of course we are, as always, number one.

25 comments:

  1. There's an online "test your religious knowledge" quiz over at the Pew forum ... I got 14 out of 15 right, and I'm kicking myself because I knew the one I missed ("which religion is associated with Nirvana") but hit the wrong button. C'est la vie.

    That said, I think this statement is grossly unfair:

    So you're religious? That's a shame because I like to talk about the subject I've been interested in and have studied for at least 50 years -- but not with people of "faith."

    I consider myself a person of faith and I also really enjoy looking at the Bible from a variety of perspectives. One of my favorite scholars is Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, who is an Orthodox Jew and New Testament professor at Vanderbilt's Divinity School. Living in Nashville I've had many opportunities to hear her speak and I've read her books and listened to her lectures on tape. She talks a lot about the cross-cultural roots of Old Testament stories, for example how Genesis 1 relates to the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish. How it was written by Jews in exile, vs. the Babylonian myth which was written by a conquering kingdom. Thus Genesis 1 is a monotheistic response to a pantheistic culture. If you are a people in exile, then time will of course be your reference point. In exile, you are separate from your lands, your landmarks, your temple, etc. but you can still keep your holy days, the Sabbath and so forth.

    I find all of this so interesting. I love discussing it. I love talking about the difference between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, how they were written for a different audience for a different purpose. But apparently you won't talk to me about it because I am a person of faith.

    And that is very sad.

    And it's not minutia, it's very relevant. When some fundie wants us to teach Creation in the public schools, which story are they shooting for? The "In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth ..." story? Adam and Eve? Or what about the creation story from the New Testament, the one about how in the beginning was the Word ...? I think it's important to talk about these things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just listen to me from now on Captain. I am now the unquestioned authority on religious stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice take on this SB... the items that Capn Fogg brought forth are nothing new for someone who has studied at a serious seminary.

    Multiple sources for the Pentateuch? Nothing scandalous there.

    Historical facts, or allegory? Again, not so scandalous for a real student looking to really learn and discover.

    I think for some folk, encounters with people of faith who are serious thinkers are indeed few and far between.

    But I find it best not to lump us all in one basket, no matter how bad ones past experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Historical facts, or allegory? Again, not so scandalous for a real student looking to really learn and discover.

    I find it amazing that some fundies are seriously threatened by such ideas. That somehow the Jesus Seminar undermined religious faith ... that one's faith can be shaken by the knowledge that Moses did not, in fact, write the entire Pentateuch -- that at best, he transcribed parts of it.

    If your faith is so ephemeral that the light of history will shred it to pieces, then it really isn't faith, is it? It's believing in fairy tales. I gave that up when I was 10 years old.

    I often quote the late, great Rev. William Sloane Coffin on this issue. He said, "the Bible does not have to be literally true to be eternally true." Learning about the cross-cultural, anthropological and historical basis for the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures actually makes the Bible more relevant to me, because it reveals the eternal truths behind these stories.

    And this is why I've never really been that opposed to teaching comparative religion, religion as literature, and religion in history classes in the public schools. Of course, I don't necessarily trust some school districts to do it *right* so I do have some hesitation ... but I actually think there's a real danger in having a scripturally ignorant population. Because then you have idiots like Andy Schlafly rewriting the Bible to make Jesus a free-market capitalist, not the anti-establishment revolutionary radical who preached against empire.

    So .... anyway, don't mean to hog the comments thread but I was dead serious when I told Cpt. Fogg that I love discussing religion. I really do. In another life I'd have gone to seminary, instead of making such studies a hobby. Who knows, maybe someday I will.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let me add, I had a hard right-wing conservative Catholic friend tell me "the Lord helps those that helps themselves" and he thought he was quoting the Bible.

    Seriously.

    So yeah, there's a lot of stupid out there. Wish Pew had asked people's political affiliations in this survey. Might have been even more enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But apparently you won't talk to me about it because I am a person of faith."

    Oh, come on - that bulge in my cheek is my tongue, but it's true that the basics of their own religion seem blasphemous and scandalous to some and the average Bible belter I come in to contact with simply doesn't want to talk to heathens for fear of God. After all, every damned word is true - even the mistranslations, right?

    Of course the Documentary hypothesis isn't new and it really isn't all that controversial among people who have no vested interest in pretending they've not only got a private line to God almighty, but they send him a W2 every year. But all the puffed up opposition to it, all the claims that all the secular scholarship has been "demolished" come from the same sort of people who tell you evolution is a "myth." Sorry, but I ain't talking to them any more. I'm tired of beating my head against that brick wall. I did it for far too long.

    Allegory? Some of it, but I'm afraid I see all kinds of politics in it and perhaps more of politics than prophecy or moral guidance. The people who wrote it were interested in isolating the faithful visually and mentally and so much is only about not marrying outside the flock and not tolerating other religions -- and there's the self-glorification too: making shit up to hide the truth and to put on the raiment of righteousness on the same old chauvinistic ethnocentricity.

    Of course I'll talk about religion and of course you're not the sort of fundamentalist deadhead I'm talking about. Jeez!

    ReplyDelete
  7. And for what it's worth, I missed a question too - of course the Sabbath begins on Friday night, because according to tradition, Saturday begins on Friday at sundown. A trick question, that.

    For further information check with the 'Tollah here - he's the authority, and I have faith.

    ReplyDelete
  8. For some reason, I got in on the original survey. I fugured I'd blow the thing since I haven't had any religious courses since I went to that HS nunnery boot camp in Sewanee, and in college when I took religious history and comparative religion. That was at least a thousand years ago and I haven't stepped inside a church in over a decade.

    I mostly agree with you SoBe but I think these courses are better off being taught on the college level.

    I only missed a couple but I don't want to discuss it. ; )

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sure the average Bible thumper gets religion wrong, but please, this is nothing new nor is it exclusive to religion. It's part and parcel of us being a post-Christian culture, meaning church is no longer the center of the average citizen's daily life. You know there's a reason these crackpot religious ideas like Free Market Jesus and Rifle Jesus have taken hold in this era: it would have been impossible 150 years ago, when religious life was the center of American life. Not saying it's good or bad, just that it's the way it is.

    And now the average Teanut is rewriting history, completely missing the anti-corporate message of the original Boston Tea Party to do the bidding of the modern corporation. We have right-wing science in the form of "Intelligent Design" and discredited ideas about birth control and abortion. We have revisionist psychotherapy.

    America has always had its crackpots making things up as they go along. What's different now is they have a platform to spread their message across a broader arena.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What really amazes me about religious discussions is how much more non believers and skeptics know than the "faithful."

    Everyone in my family thought I was going to be the priest and my brother became one instead. And I forgot practically all the religious dogma and jive I read over the years.

    How do you people that are not of faith remember all this stuff? I do not remember anything about a quiz to get into Heaven being in The Bible. I remember what Pauyl said about the grace of God saving you. Faith without good deeds is dead from Isaiah and acouple other spots which I used to whip out on Protestants to piss them off.


    In the end if you think I'm a kook or superstitious fool it really doesn't matter. God is also a mirror of one's own image and thought. If you think of God as merciful and forgiving, you need to be merciful and forgiving. If you think He's stern and pious, you need to be stern and pious.


    I prefer the merciful and forgiving God. If you don't believe now say you're sorry and your place will be set at the table. Just don't complain about the food.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I missed the same question you did, Capt.; I spent too long trying to second guess the test design on that one.

    You and I see eye-to-eye on this. I got serious about Bible study in high school, not because I wanted to deepen belief, but because I wanted to see whether my youthful assessment held water. It seemed like self-contradictory gibberish to me then, but that flew in the face of the opinions of every adult I could get to talk to me seriously about it at the time.

    I went on to get a major in religions in college, because they taught us there to read the Christian Bible as history, archeology, philosophy, etc. I think I was the only religion major in my program who didn't attend church even once. I've never stopped studying religions as central to history.

    My latest favorites have included The Evolution of God by Richard Wright; Bart Ehrman in lecture and publication, especially his God's Problem; and a roughly edited, self-published, odd little piece called Sex Rites; The Origins of Christianity by Diana Agorio. And, of course, the new atheists.

    The more I learn, the less I take on faith...but that's not new; I never could summon more than an inkling of faith after the onset of adolescence. Sometimes--especially in the face of my fears for my country, my species, and my planet--I wish to hell I could; it all looks really different when there's no magical answers available.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Captain Fogg: I see all kinds of politics in it and perhaps more of politics than prophecy or moral guidance.

    The way I see it too, specifically among religious fundamentalists, social conservatives, and politic extremists. The common thread: All are self-appointed authoritarian social controllers with huge amounts of narcissism. Having power over people is what motivates them, not necessarily ethical and moral conduct. I see them as greedy, not giving; as heartless, not compassionate; as oppressive, not liberating. Since I am of the live-and-let-live school, I do not trust them. In fact, I fear if they they unbridled power, they would force me to conform under pain or worse … as they did to my ancestors long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "it all looks really different when there's no magical answers available. "

    Reality is a bummer in a way because the largest things we can imagine are infinitesimal and meaningless against the whole. The egotism of thinking it's all about us - or even a tiny bit about us is literally beyond belief to me.

    "God is also a mirror of one's own image"

    Yes, absolutely and there is no god save god in us and with us he/she/it dies. But that's just my opinion, based on evidence though it might be.

    "What's different now is they have a platform to spread their message across a broader arena."

    And hence more power - or as much power as they had when they were the government. Perhaps our experiment with a secular state is failing because truth is something that's proclaimed once again - and not something to be extracted from evidence and verified empirically.

    "But I find it best not to lump us all in one basket, no matter how bad ones past experiences."

    Well of course you're right but I don't think I'm doing that. As I said this is a tongue in cheek piece and directed at America not the bloggers here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you Fogg forever for the term "Bible Belter." That is priceless as is "Teanut" from SB!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I got 100% which surprised me as I don't as a rule, pay much attention to the subject. In fact I still get mixed up whether Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes, one of 3 or 4 best comic trips ever) built a transubstantiation machine out of a cardboard box or a transmogrifier.

    I was raised a Congregationalist. The beauty of that was that back in the 1960's the United Church of Christ was activist and we didn't spend much time at all on the bible and such. We seemed far more engaged in civil rights and opposition to the war in Vietnam than Jesus. Really set the tone for my personal politics.

    Also my folks had a terrific illustrated old testament I couldn't get enough of as a boy. Lots of murther and mayhem. Chariots and slaughter. Floods and slavery. Great stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am only a couple of years out from a "Religions of the World" class that was taught by a crackpot, but I learned enough to get 100% on those 15 questions.

    I know enough about the Bible to get confused easily. I love to discuss people's beliefs, but I hate it when those people start preaching at me and telling me the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Sorry Charlie.

    I don't know what I believe, except that IF there is a God, He is that kind and loving one and I try to act like I would want Him to act, how I would like everyone to act. Can He ask for anything else?

    ReplyDelete
  17. SoBe, I like what you have to say about religion and faith. I share your perspective.

    I was raised Catholic and contrary to what a lot of people believe, instead of a rigid adherence to the Bible as fact, the focus was on the allegorical nature of the Bible and the moral lessons therein. At Sunday mass, I never heard a single sermon about hell or fire and brimstone. What I did hear about was loving one's neighbor and that each of us was responsible for the well being of others. My sense of moral responsibility for others, and my commitment to social justice, stems from the kindness and the ethical examples I saw demonstrated by the nuns and priests who taught me to think for myself. Did every child attending a Catholic school have the same experience? No and I would be the last person to argue that my experiences represent all experiences. However, neither does the fundamentalist experience represent all people of faith.

    We read the Bible but we also read Plato and Hobbes. We discussed the concepts of good and evil and what makes us human.

    It is unfair and condescending to label a belief in God as a belief in magic. I don't believe in magic or fairytales. In all the studies of philosophy, history, and religion that I have done, I've discovered that there are more questions than answers. The vastness of the universe humbles me.

    I always welcome a discussion of faith but there cannot be much of a discussion if the starting premise is that my beliefs have already been conclusively proven to be based on superstitious nonsense.

    I am fascinated by the Bible but not as a literal guidebook of some sort. It is filled with contradictions and in its variations on a tale it reflects the cultural norms and shifts in focus and beliefs of the varied people who wrote it. I do not regard the Bible as divinely written but as a human attempt to collect teachings that span generations of time. The Old Testament God is focused on vengeance and retribution and way too focused on smiting for my taste. The Jesus of the New Testament is more about love of one's neighbor and forgiveness.

    Btw, I scored 15 out of 15 on the PEW test; however, I had an unfair advantage, I used to teach religious text as literature to my 10th graders as a part of World Lit.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "of the varied people who wrote it. I do not regard the Bible as divinely written but as a human attempt to collect teachings that span generations of time."

    You must realize that this puts you in a very tiny percentage of the American Public;for whom God wrote the Bible and in English. Of course I agree with you that it was written, edited and redacted heavily over centuries by people looking for explanations of things they couldn't understand.I would also add by those looking for political gain. Some like Elijah were hired to do so.

    Of course other cultures have their books too but we choose according to our culture and not necessarily according to our knowledge of reality. That's why I say that God is not only of our choosing but our invention and as knowledge increases, the need to explain things as being controlled by an invisible sentient entity decreases.

    I can profess belief in a god actually, but by the time one reduces it to an acceptable description, it's no longer worth calling a god and looks an awful lot like an abstract human value.

    I'm better off saying I believe in compassion and all that stems from being able to be compassionate. That's not magic. Suggesting that the sun can stop or water turn into wine or loaves multiply -- that's magic.

    Remember -- any attempt to demonstrate God, also demonstrates an infinite number and variety of them, and not a specific one, so what is it that we are actually compelled to believe from any logical process?

    Not feeling compelled, I don't. Why should anyone get defensive about this?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sheria, you have expressed beautifully my feelings on the topic, especially THIS:

    It is unfair and condescending to label a belief in God as a belief in magic. I don't believe in magic or fairytales. In all the studies of philosophy, history, and religion that I have done, I've discovered that there are more questions than answers. The vastness of the universe humbles me.

    I always welcome a discussion of faith but there cannot be much of a discussion if the starting premise is that my beliefs have already been conclusively proven to be based on superstitious nonsense.


    I get slammed every time I say this but I will say it again, here, among friends: the Progressive Left does have a palpable religious bias at least where the blogosphere is concerned. I see it all the time and I mostly turn the other cheek but whenever I do point it out I get the usual "well, we weren't talking about Christians like you!" And that just misses the point. I find it as offensive to call Sarah Palin "Bible Spice" as it is to call Barack Obama "Kenyan," and I am nooo Sarah Palin supporter, y'all know that. But it is simply not right to attack someone's religious beliefs, no matter how silly we may find them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. SoBe, Octopus is a very tolerant and accepting cephalopod and will believe ANYTHING you want me to believe ... as long as you bribe me with at least 2 buckets of clams and mussels everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "But it is simply not right to attack someone's religious beliefs, no matter how silly we may find them."

    Why? Can you find a religion that does not collectively and individually attack non-belief much less alternate beliefs? Is it not the nature of religion to dismiss other beliefs or no beliefs at all? Is a discussion that is not some dialectic presupposing God somehow an attack? Are haughty dismissals of the unacceptable audacity of those "new" atheists or the "village atheist" or other condescending and patronizing terms not an actual attack on the right not to go along with cultural mandates and the freedom of religion itself?

    Didn't we have a president who told us atheists really can't be considered citizens and aren't preacher/politicians lining their pockets bashing and threatening the infidel with hellfire? Aren't we being assaulted by politicians putting their beliefs before the law and equating my "godlessness" with communism, tyranny and leprosy? No, let someone say there aren't any gods and that physical law accounts for reality and smell the smoke and burning bodies. that's not an attack!

    No one is forcing anyone not to believe in Vishnu or Jesus the son of God, but there is a hell of a lot of forcing me to accept and be ruled by other people's assertions that will not be questioned or looked too deeply into. This is just special pleading with a halo.

    One can easily choose to ignore what I say, or one can choose to be offended, but I'm constantly open to rational argument and I've been waiting in vain for a long time for that. I sometimes can get it from academics in religious studies, but as I said, and quod erat demonstrandum, others, no matter how open minded, take offense at my beliefs while demanding special protection for theirs. I'm not making fun of anyone here. I'm not trying to take away anyone's comfort and refuge. I'm just questioning an idea that refuses to be questioned and refuses to stop vilifying what I think to be true.

    Saying that Ptach or Brahma or some pantheon of feathered beasts did not create the universe and don't make the sun rise is not a personal attack and I can't understand why it's disrespectful any more than it is to discuss the same sort of problems with political beliefs that seem to be based only on the will to believe.

    If you were to say there's an invisible group of people behind current affairs, I'd ask for evidence and you would or would not give it to me, but if I ask why you can believe that some entity rules nature and loves us or tests us and is offended by what we do and all that other baggage, it's offensive?

    Why is that? I'm just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm not offended. I don't feel any compelling need to "save" anyone either. You'll either fing Him,Her, It, or you won't. If you're happy I'm happy Captain.

    I do find atheists rather smug just as I find the the overly religious smug. I prefer the company of the smug atheists however. There's no pleasing closed minded Jesus freaks. At least the atheists vote correctly most of the time.

    I've been told I am going to hell for supporting Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear Capt.,
    I attended mass six days a week until I was 18 and I never heard any bashing of other religions nor of any nonbelievers. On the infrequent occasions that I attend church nowadays, I have never heard any bashing of any group, believer or nonbeliever. Perhaps you have been in the company of the wrong people.

    I don't care whether you believe as I believe but it appears that you want those of us who do have faith to defend our beliefs to you. I really don't think that you desire to understand or share my belief, so why insist on engaging in a conversation that goes nowhere? Why not simply accept that we do not see this matter from the same persepctive. What you desire, I cannot offer. The very nature of faith is that it lives beyond the reaches of proof and lives in the realm of belief.

    "...but if I ask why you can believe that some entity rules nature and love's us or tests us and is offended by what we do and all that other baggage, it's offensive?"

    Because it is an insincere question. You have already come to a decision about what I believe. I could explain why I do until time itself comes to an end but it would never persuade you of anything, so why bother? I don't mind that you don't believe as I do and I see no reason to defend what I choose to believe to you or anyone for that matter.

    I am sorry that you have had such negative experiences with people of faith. the faith community that I know are people like my sister's husband who delivers weekly groceries to low wealth families, groceries paid for by their church members. In my town, a number of churches helped coordinate the get out the vote movement, allowing us to use their churches to set up voter registration booths. In my lifetime, the black civil rights movement was born in the churches, black churches that were later joined by white churches.

    Most of us have correctly assessed that the opposition to the community center, incorrectly labeled by the media as the Mosque at ground zero,is unfair and based on the misconception that the Islamic faith supports terrorism. We forego judging all Muslims by the actions of some Muslims, yet, time and time again I find that some atheists consistently judge Christianity and thereby all Christians based on their own life experiences with some who have perverted Christianity for their own purposes. I have never intiated a single conversation in my lifetime with a nonbeliever about religion. I have never made any effort to present my faith as superior to nonbelief. I have friends that are Christinas, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, and agnostics. We all agree to respect each other's beliefs and leave it at that. If you want to discuss the history of Christianity or the variations on a theme that are common to all faiths or the differences betwwen faiths as an intellectual exercise, I'm all for it. My friends and I have such discussions, but no one asks anyone to defend his or her belief or nonbelief.

    "You must realize that this puts you in a very tiny percentage of the American Public;..."

    Actually it doesn't. Many prominent theologians express the same belief in the significance or lack of significance of the Bible. Contrary to the belief that you appear to hold, lots of people of faith are also scientists, philosophers, and great scholars. The people that I know who attend religious services regularly are intelligent, well educated folks. Fundamentalist are a minority among people of faith just as Muslim extremists are among Muslims. Fundamentalists make the news becasue they tend to be extreme--blowing up family planning clinics, burning books, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Actually I think my bathroom scale is smug and for the same reason that Atheists are smug. It has no respect for my belief systems and I take that as a personal attack against people of weight.

    Perhaps my post was self fulfilling, but I'm not trying to force anyone to defend anything. I'm saying that I can and have for most of my life had fulfilling discussions with theologians and historians and it's rare with others because they feel attacked if one shows a genuine interest in knowing the truth about history, the nature of life and of existence itself. Souls made from something other than matter, invisible entities with thought processes and power to work outside of physical laws - how is there a religion without them? How can you discuss religion without discussing such things and how can you discuss such things as spirituality without discussing spirits and most of all: how without discussing how we know things? You can't, obviously. It appears to be smug.

    Anecdotes aside, the root source of anti-Semitism is the gospels and there is no heresy without orthodoxy.The very word means thinking for yourself. Churches have been punishing heretics forever whether or not any particular preacher has done or not done that lately. The day I found out what a Christian was occurred when I was in first grade and was told that I killed God. One of my great grandfathers was killed for religious reasons having to do with his also having murdered God. He wasn't the first.

    I once walked out of a Catholic service when the sermon drifted into a bit about the Jewish shepherds out watching their sheep while Jesus was being born ( in April ) because "you know how those people are about their property."

    I could write, and once considered writing, a book about all the things the Church has done to Jews and heretics, but of course it's all been written and of course such people are attacking the faithful too. But I have no more interest in it anyway. I just wish I could understand how faith can float freely in a universe where any specific thing to have faith in may not exist, but may not be questioned either.

    But this has nothing to do with my point, which was that you can't talk to religious people about serious religious subjects no matter how sincere and knowledgeable one might be, without them feeling wounded or challenged and getting angry.

    I'll have no more of this, but to simply say that people who think there's no penalty for failing to espouse a popular belief are wrong.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.