Dear david f,

>Religion operates on different levels. A … pastor … told me of the sophisticated discussions … where they questioned the origin of the Bible … and many other contentious subjects. I asked him if he discussed these matters with his parishioners. He said he didn’t want to disturb their simple faith. That kind of religion exalts ignorance and stupidity.<<

I think many things "operate on different levels". Especially, where one has to distinguish carefully between instructions, popular explanations on one hand, and discussions, including constructive criticism, between specialists on the other. This is true about, philosophy, mathematics, physics etc. And it is especially true about religion, where those siting in the pews do not expect their pastor to read them a research paper as he would - provided he was a professional exegete, philosopher, theologian, etc - to his peers.

I never taught mathematics at secondary level, but if I had to, I certainly would not have had much success had I tried to talk to them on the same level as one does to fourth year university students of mathematics.

AJ Philips,

I agreed with david f that the Abraham/Isaac story was not suitable for children. David f added that it was not fit for adults either. I agree to the extent that it is not fit for SOME adults, and your post - if I understand it properly - testifies that you are one of them. [Nevertheless, there are others, millions of Christians and religious Jews (and Muslims), who perhaps also cannot accept/understand the point of the story, but do not see this as an obstacle to their respective religious affiliations.]

Also, there is a difference between whether one tries to "explain relativity theory" to a child or whether one asks the child to understand arguments for and against it. The same as there is a difference between whether one tries to explain the meaning behind the Bible stories to a child or whether one engages the child in scholarly arguments about the validity of this or that exegesis, interpretation of ancient text.

For the benefit of those who fail to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a convert from polytheism to monotheism and the Hebrew text of Genesis 22 it is the plural elohim {Gods] and reflected the culture in human sacrifice current of his time. Abraham was changing his mind to sacrifice in another way, and not in the culture of his countrymen. The sacrifice of infants is an abomination to God.
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 12:14:26 PM

Dear George,

I have no argument with you. You have not come after me like a missionary. You don't seem disturbed by the fact that I do not share your faith and beliefs. You don't seem to have the hope that, if I read something compelling, my views will shift.

You are a civilised person who seems aware that we don't all share the same views. You seem secure in your faith and do not seem to be bothered by the fact I don't share it.

I find platypus1900's missionising obnoxious and offensive. I have found none of your posts obnoxious and offensive.

People do have religious beliefs at different levels. However, my friend, he is still my friend, the Lutheran pastor did not seem to accept that some members of his congregation might be able to discuss religious matters on his level. He was treating adults as though they were children.

I feel platypus1900 was basically contemptuous of me. If she could only expose me to the right evangelist my atheism would be cured. I don't have a disease. I do not believe in a human invention for which there is no evidence. My feelings in that matter are the product of a lifetime of reflection which are not to be changed by some trivial argument. You do believe, and I think it is a sincere belief. I would not try to sway you from your beliefs. It gives meaning to your life, and I would not take that away from you even if I could. platypus1900 is not so respectful.

Of course platypus1900 would deny that she (I think platypus1900 is female) is contemptuous of me and claims that she respects my views. However, I still find her missionising obnoxious and offensive.

Few opinions expressed about late abortions.

Maybe the question is just too difficult?

Dear david f,

Thank you for the kind words.

>> You seem secure in your faith and do not seem to be bothered by the fact I don't share it.<<

There are people subscribing to all to sorts of worldviews (whether or not related to a faith) who are secure in their convictions, and those who are not. For those of the second kind a remark somebody posted on this OLO is apt: if they are theists they are afraid “what of if God did NOT exist after all”, and those who are (or became) atheists are afraid “what if God DID exist after all”. [I suppose we shall know for sure, one way or another, during the few moments just before our brains completely stop functioning.]

I agree that somebody thus insecure trying to convince others about his/her basic worldview convictions can be “obnoxious and offensive”. Though I would not use those words, if you follow my contributions here you will have noticed that I also encounter people whom I could thus describe. I prefer to think that it is their insecurity that dictates their “my truth is truer than your truth” attitude.

As for people of the other, “secure” kind, see my recent post to Banjo Patterson in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#265736.

I forgot to paste this:

I was once asked by a priest to write something apologetic about “our faith”. I answered that all I can tell another person is “Come and look at my (life) equations. They obviously admit a trivial solution but if you look carefully, you will see, as i do, that they admit also other solutions. I don’t know your equations, only you can know them. But maybe they, like mine, also admit other than trivial solutions.” This, of course builds on the double meaning of “trivial”.