Tur(i)n Complete ;-)
Few ever say it as eloquently. More to the point - quite few, once having grokked (their personal form of) the fundamental issue: fewer still 'remember' what the implications are, almost any time one encounters another homo-sap. Lastly, those who get this far - still are apt to forget what they Know! in the silliness of Boolean-logic as passes for any honest attempts at metaphysical Reasoning.
As alluded to above in this thread, many Christians have the Belief that -- for the Very Special Situation\ufffd of *Their Particular Avatar* -- no other rules of civilized tolerance need apply (Constitutionally and imperfectly addressed - or other ideas) re "these others". Hence IMhO the dogged persistence of talking-right-by others, while Doing Their Duty\ufffd. Hence the lions and the arena: imagine how the Imperialist Romans took to this kind of
Fuck You; I'm Right / You Are Wrong / MY God Will GET You / nyaa nyaa Nyaa.
IME the largest problem in any actual "religious discussion" - debate being impossible - has much to do with the peculiarly-Christian idea of the Personal God\ufffd. It's such a comforting idea.. but in order to implement this quintessentially (and longingly) man-created myth: one has to impute, to assign "Qualities" to the Absolute!!! The UnKnowable Incarnated! A "Vengeful" or at times "Loving" or at times "needful of Your Adoration" kinda Guy.. From this follows the conceit and the hubris which -
Well, you know..
Ashton
PS - no difference in much anti-Believers doggerel, of course. 'Proof of absence' meets Personal God cha cha cha
