"I think I was more interested in cracking a joke than in analysing what you'd said, largely because after watching that Bart Ehrman video, I was moved to run out & get the guy's book, and I knew I only had a limited time to do so. I cracked a quick joke, then hit the door."

I understand and I'm sorry if what I said seemed like a slight in any way. I did laugh at your post and believe me, I welcome any Monty Python type humor you'd care to inject. I guess I figure I get the reputation of a peacemaker around here and I'm not sure I deserve that. I don't think I could make any peace with what I wrote because while you or David or PK or Peter might say "Yeah, that makes some sense", I expect Pat or Greenie are still going to say I'm just full of shit on that subject. So, no peace in the valley there probably. It's nice to be thought of that way and I do blush when I get those sorts of compliments.

"There is a definite strain of dualistic thinking, black-and-white reasoning (again, if it can be called that) that simply won't admit to nuance or re-reading. It typically cannot stomach metaphor or figurative language in general, except insofar as the interpretation of that metaphor backs up conclusions at which the believer has already arrived."

What's fairly interesting is how well this statement about formation of religious beliefs matches up with formation of political beliefs; the acceptance of God and his word and George W. Bush and his word for some folks. Obviously though this is not 100% true because Greenie thinks Bush is full of shit but there is a broad spectrum of people that this fits to a T.

"Some of the logjam could, as I believe you say, be attributed to the non-fundamentalist psychology too. There is a tendency to overreach with metaphor, perhaps, or to dazzle with the confusions all language is heir to, just because we can....So what passes for an 'argument' among facets of civilization is possibly really just two groups of people heaving taunts each other's way."

I also would blame the rise of "gotcha" politics and media. The talk shows on tv and radio and how the modern political consultants run campaigns, I think, has to be considered part of the equation. They have made everything with regards to politics and religion issue oriented, with an eye toward divide and conquer. So you just name the issue and define a person by the side of that issue they choose and if they won't chose a side they are a flip flopper or dishonest. As an example if an academic like Erhman puts out a book or gives a talk about his findings, if those findings challenge a "sacred cow" he is immediately identified as "anti-name your sacred cow" even if all he did is present what he found. In today's America just being an Academic is cause to label you! How sick is that? So if you study a subject to learn more about it...well...you are fucked! Only a liberal would study, right? Liberals are "intellectuals" and intellectuals are bad because they challenge existing beliefs and systems. You are fucked, Herring, because you went out and bought a book to study a subject and that book presents findings that challenge a sacred cow. Automatically, who cares if you like Ron Paul, that's enough info to call you a liberal, atheist, baby killer. Hey, that's our country.

"Some of us probably have just enough "devil" in us to want to "stick it to them," to the fundamentalists, at least once in a while, through some clever argument or even through some form of scholarship."

Clearly you're a commie. All kidding aside though, I can understand that feeling specifically in relation to the example I gave above. We've been set up though, at least that's how I feel, to want to react that way.

"As for me, I'm truly interested in the scholarship, the study of what has been believed, when, and why."

Again, clearly you are a commie! Sorry, couldn't help it.

"Why, for example, this particular strain of militant fundamentalism, in this particular country, in this partiular century? What are the analogues in previous centuries? Etc. I am fascinated by this."

Liberal scum!

"Where I suppose I got the idea of "Reg the Peacemaker" would be that it seemed you were describing an unbreachable divide between these groups, and perhaps suggesting that each group spend more time looking within rather than pointing outward, which at the very least (if it happened)would calm the fighting."

I wish I could do this but as I said, while there are certain people here that would consider my thoughts I expect most people who fall on the...um...religious side of this equation will think I'm just playing with myself as I wait to get tossed into the lake of fire.

"And, of course, "Reg the Cheesemaker" isn't meant to be taken literally; it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products."

I was close to considering becoming a cheesemaker after you said that! I think I'd do better making cheese than convincing a fundamentalist to hear me out.

"Once again, I show myself just smart enough to know that I know nothing. Scholarship is perhaps well conceived as a form of play. I'm at peace with that. I suppose you could call it a religion, though hopefully not in the same sense that David means in his post."

Hey, I'm enjoying this discussion. It's a helluva lot better than watching tv and I think it's great we are actually having a long thoughtful discussion here involving several people. Plus it is funny that Pat actually labeled David the "King Atheist" when nobody living today, including Fred Phelps, has probably done more to damage the reputation of Christians and how people feel about them than our current president...and David is supposed to be the King Atheist! Give me a break! Plus we're having this discussion while they are bussing as many sex workers as they can find into the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (and they have a call out for as many homosexual prostitutes as can respond!) to service the GOP revelers! This is your family values party...oh boy! And I do mean boy when it comes to the GOP! Get thee behind me, Satan! Indeed!