The evangelical bubble cannot be sustained (part 2)

A standard line of argument for sex education says that if young people aren’t taught the actual facts of the facts of life, then they’ll just wind up learning about it “on the streets.”

The idea there is that kids want the truth and they need and deserve to hear it. The desire to protect them, to preserve their innocence by preserving their ignorance, will wind up harming them in the long run. If you deny them access to good information, they’ll seek out whatever information they can find on their own. That may mean they’ll find out the truth for themselves, or it may mean they’ll find a mess of misleading misinformation.

But either way, it will also certainly mean this: They will have learned that they cannot rely on you or trust you to tell them the truth. And having learned that much the hard way, they won’t make the mistake of trusting you again. Children, it turns out, don’t like being treated like children. And adults tend to like it even less.

The various items in the previous post all deal with this same dynamic from different vantage points.

I appreciate what the church of the Latter Day Saints is trying to do by, as Peggy Fletcher Stack puts it, confronting the “‘epidemic’ of online misinformation” about Mormonism.

This is a problem largely of their own making, but the LDS leaders have seen the writing on the wall — or the writing on the screen — and they’re beginning to realize that “protecting” their people by protecting their secrets is not a sustainable approach. The attempt to preserve innocence by preserving ignorance is always doomed to fail.

What LDS leaders are coming to realize is that if they don’t tell their story, then others will tell it for them — and often in a way that’s critical, or outright hostile.

Before the Internet, it was possible not to tell “the whole story from the beginning,” to gloss over or avoid discussing “disruptive facts” or thorny issues or complexities in that story. What laypeople didn’t know couldn’t hurt them. But the Internet has made such glossing-over and avoiding impossible. All those “disruptive facts” are just a click or two away — along with plenty of even-more-disruptive misinformation that may be embraced by those seeking the facts they’ve been denied.

I don’t think the leaders of the evangelical subculture understand this change. They seem to think that access to information can still be controlled. They think they can still preserve the innocence and the ignorance of their followers by keeping all their “dirty little secrets” secret.

Many of those “dirty little secrets” are not really all that dirty. The “secrets” Ed Cyzewski writes about learning in seminary are not earth-shattering revelations or dark mysteries protected by a secretive conspiracy of seminarians. They’re just a bunch of things that it may seem easier not to talk about — “disruptive facts” or complicating factors.

Consider, for example, the “disruptive fact” of  the “Synoptic problem” that J.R. Daniel Kirk discusses. The New Testament begins with four different Gospels and no two accounts are the same — the details don’t fit together, events are altered or ordered differently, and each author seems to have a different emphasis or interpretation. We can learn a great deal from those differences and variations, and seminary students study all of this in depth — exploring the relationships between these texts, and how and why each may have been composed in the way it was.

That discussion is pretty fascinating and illuminating if you’re the sort of person who enjoys seminary studies, but it’s also a lot more complicated than what can easily be dealt with in a simple three-point sermon. And unless all that complexity is conveyed with great care by someone willing to tell “the whole story from the beginning,” then a half-understood discussion of these differences and variations is likely to be perceived by some parishioners as hostility to the Bible. They haven’t had a chance to spend years studying the text in seminary, so it’s likely that some of them approach the text in a more simplistic way. Why risk upsetting them? It’s easier for pastors just to keep much of what they studied in seminary as “dirty little secrets.” It seems easier to try to preserve the congregation’s innocence by preserving their ignorance.

There’s a long history of such behavior — especially by pastors in evangelical churches where the gap between the seminary-educated clergy and laypeople is often particularly large. But, again, such secret-keeping is no longer possible. Every such dirty little secret is now just a Google search away.

And that is a Very Good Thing. Keeping secrets isn’t what seminary education is supposed to be for. The pastor doesn’t study theology in order to shield the other members of the church from having to study it. The pastor studies theology on their behalf, in order to share that knowledge with them.

I understand the dynamic Cyzewski describes when he writes of that which “pastors aren’t allowed to talk about because they’d lose their jobs.” That’s not hyperbole in evangelical churches, where even the most innocent passing remark — mentioning that Isaiah wasn’t written all at once, or saying “the author of 2 Timothy” instead of saying “Paul” — can provoke a fearful backlash from someone whose fragile faith requires them to fiercely defend a simplistic, imaginary version of the Bible.

But the actual truth is that this simple, imaginary Bible doesn’t exist. And if they don’t learn that from their pastor — if the pastor doesn’t tell them “the whole story” complete with all the complex, “disruptive facts” — then they’ll eventually learn it from somewhere else. Or they’ll learn something else from somewhere else. And either way, they’ll have learned that their pastor cannot be trusted.

“There are tremendous pastoral issues at stake,” here Kirk says, because “media will tell people the truth if we don’t.”

That’s always been true, of course, as that story from Latebloomer illustrates. Her fundamentalist church and sectarian home-school curriculum refused to tell her the truth about what Kirk calls “the Bible we actually have, rather than the Bible of our imaginations.” But she stumbled across the truth anyway — first in her family encyclopedia, then years later in the New Testament survey class at an evangelical Christian college.

(A dirty little secret about evangelical Christian colleges is that many of them teach the same dirty little secrets that Cyzewski learned in seminary. And not just in New Testament survey classes, but in history, biology, astronomy, geology …)

To keep the insular bubble of the evangelical subculture intact has always required some defense mechanisms. “I slammed the encyclopedia shut,” Latebloomer writes, and then, as trained, she “mentally explained away the data as yet one more humanistic attack on God’s obvious truth.” That’s the standard 1-2 combination for those determined to defend the bubble: 1) Keep the walls up and the encyclopedia shut; 2) Inoculate against potential glimpses of “disruptive facts” that get past the perimeter with a mythology of conspiratorial persecution.

But such defenses were never wholly effective, even in the past, when the media threatening to pop the bubble with disruptive truth-telling were mainly libraries and distant colleges that could be avoided or navigated with blinders intact. In the late 20th century, the rise of television and mass media made it more and more difficult for the evangelical subculture to preserve innocence by preserving ignorance. The Internet makes this almost impossible.

The LDS leaders seem to understand Kirk’s point. If “media will tell people the truth if we don’t,” then we must tell people the truth. Otherwise they’ll just learn about it on the street. Transparency, openness and the end of “dirty little secrets” is the only hope of preventing misinformation and maintaining trust.

But — and here’s the rub for those currently in charge within the evangelical bubble — maintaining trust will mean giving up control. For those who have sought to attain and maintain power by controlling information, that will mean giving up power.

I doubt they’re willing to do this voluntarily. I don’t think they have much choice, in the long run, but in the short run I expect them to put up an ugly fight to preserve their power — trying to preserve their control by preserving others’ ignorance.

The good news is that this is a fight they cannot win. Their ability to monopolize the information available to those within the bubble cannot be sustained. These controlling leaders may do some damage on their way down, but the writing is on the screen — they’re going down.

  • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrew Hall

    The internet is akin to the printing press, and the former is causing all the “problems” that the latter did: people thinking for themselves, spreading ideas and disrupting traditional authority. The internet may not kill religion, but it is weakening faith’s power significantly. 

  • Froborr

    Don’t forget the rampant piracy!

    I also find it exceedingly unlikely the Internet will either kill religion or weaken it. Transform it, yes. Kill some specific religions, yes–but at the same time it is encouraging the spread of others, Wicca and various forms of paganism, for example. Which is, again, exactly like the printing press.

    It’s the same with authority, actually. The internet is damaging traditional authority because authority is bad at adapting. But just as authorities eventually rose that exploited the printing press to their own ends (King James says hi), so too will authorities start figuring out how to exploit the internet.

  • Mary Kaye

    I’m also reminded of the earlier controversy about whether the Bible should be translated, therefore allowing uneducated people to understand it, or kept in Latin (effectively, under clerical control).

    I think that mass communication is not hostile to religion per se, but it’s hostile to authoritarianism in general (there’s a reason that authoritarians are so often censors) and to “security by obscurity” in particular.

    One of the (many) reasons Conservapedia is not working out as intended is that trying to suppress information by offering different information is not very effective compared to suppressing it by forbidding its transmission.  (It would work better if the information being offered weren’t mostly false, but I don’t think it would be really effective even in that case….)

  • Tricksterson

    Yuo, the pinting press is IMHGO the main reason why the Protestant Reformation atrated in the 16th Century with Luther and not the 15th with Jan Hus (Well, that and, unlike Luther Hus was naive enough to trust a politicians promise of protection) or the 14th with Wycliffe.  Although to be fair the Hussites didn’t die out they just weren’t able to spread beyond Bohemia.  In fact (and correct me if I’m wrong) wasn’t  it Hussites who comitted the Defenestration of Prague and touched off the Thirty Years War?

  • mud man

    The printing press undermined the grip of the One Holy Roman Catholic faith, but it opened the door to a new kind of faith that rested on each individual’s direct connection to the Creator. Likewise I expect the modern view of the natural world and the processes that drive it, the depth of human history and cosmological time, will open the door to new kinds of faith, better grounded in reality, more just to humanity. People of the left or the right who think epistemology is fatal to faith don’t understand either epistemology or faith.

  • DustinTCooper

    For further reading, I rather liked this article by Daniel Wallace about the issue of accurate Biblical translation vs. traditional ideas about what should be in there:

    http://bible.org/article/my-favorite-passage-that’s-not-bible

  • VMink

    I do believe this sounds like the encroachment of Liberation Theology on the evangelical denominations. o_o

  • Tonio

    I didn’t know that pastors in evangelical churches had been to seminaries. I suppose I assumed that the independent churches simply chose leaders from their memberships based on their preaching abilities, like the street preachers who used to come on my college campus at lunchtime./

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I’m also reminded of the earlier controversy about whether the Bible should be translated, therefore allowing uneducated people to understand it, or kept in Latin

    I…
    That…
    Well, but…
    I mean…

    They do understand the Latin is a translation, right?!?

  • Angelika

    The internet is not likely to weaken faith, but if it is able to weaken the power if spiritual leaders, that would be a great thing.

  • Jessica_R

    Jehovah’s Witnesses have tried, and failed, on all counts to protect the bubble. Discouraging going to college or any kind of secondary education, practicing shunning of “apostates”, and so on. And I can’t tell you how many kids from my Kingdom Hall ended up pregnant at 16, on drugs or both. Reality is going to eventually win, and when it wins by that way there’s no room for faith.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Yes, they knew Latin was a translation. They also thought Latin was the superior language, and it was The Way to communicate in writing. The idea of communicating anything whatsoever in writing in not-Latin was controversial. The idea of people being able to read the Bible on their own was, of course, even more controversial, and also ludicrous. Authorities did not trust the people, and the idea that they should would be met with a blank stare. 

    I wrote a comment here that ended up being ridiculously long, even for me. If you feel like reading it, it’s here:  http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/13113.html

    But to make a long story short, all the bishops had was their esoteric knowledge, which they’d been misusing to increase their power to do whatever they liked to whomever they liked (especially women) for centuries. They had to hold onto it or lose their grip, and they knew it.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    It _is_ a bit different from the KJV-only folks in that the Latin translation was what they had been using when they selected one particular set of documents out of dozens of manuscripts and declared it to be _the_ Canon. 

    They did know that the latin was a translation, but it was the translation which the church fathers had signed off on, as it were.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KZLWOOFAFMDKUSPTLTBN67QVUA C

    Inoculate against potential glimpses of “disruptive facts” that get
    past the perimeter with a mythology of conspiratorial persecution.

    “Inoculate” is right. I’ve found that, like a vaccine, you can’t get it out of your system. I abandoned that old fundie evangelical way of thinking years ago to embrace more progressive ways of thinking, and I can STILL occasionally hear in the back of my brain “that’s just THE WORLD trying to mislead you…” It’s nasty tenacious stuff.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    And this Latin business has created myths that some people misattribute to the KJV, that it’s not “real” because it was translated through the Latin into English.

  • Lori

     

    I didn’t know that pastors in evangelical churches had been to
    seminaries. I suppose I assumed that the independent churches simply
    chose leaders from their memberships based on their preaching abilities,
    like the street preachers who used to come on my college campus at
    lunchtime.  

    It depends on the church. Those that aren’t affiliated with an  organization/hierarchy often don’t have formal requirements for schooling and  don’t have seminaries as such and preachers may be basically self-taught. However, as a practical matter a minister with no formal training is unlikely to get a job at a church of any size (unless he started it himself). Not having something called “seminary” =/= not having any groups means of formal training for preachers.

  • http://willbikeforchange.wordpress.com/ storiteller

      I do believe this sounds like the encroachment of Liberation Theology on the evangelical denominations. o_o

    As a former evangelical and current multi-denominational Christian with a huge interest in social justice issues, I think that would be awesome.

  • Lunch Meat

    Incidentally, ministers are just as hard hit by the bad job market as anyone else–it’s hard to get a preaching job without a masters in my denomination, when it used to be you just needed a bachelors or even a minor. My husband’s college roommate has a masters in divinity and is working as a bus driver.

  • Lori

    Yeah. Both my dad and my BIL have said more than once that if they were starting out now they’d never be able to get a first preaching job. Even with having started before (in my dad’s case loooong before) advanced degrees became a de facto requirement for Churches of Christ, congregations larger then mid-size were off the table. 

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    I don’t think it’s about faith, and it’s only tangential to religion. This is a pattern in history; access to cheap satellite TV was incredibly disruptive to the imams in the Middle East, who were accustomed to being the gatekeepers of information about “the outside world”. So too were the communist governments of the Easter Bloc greatly upset when the populace were able to learn about “the West” from non-governmental sources.

    The authoritarian model has this weakness, this need to control the narrative to one’s followers and prevent them from questioning or discovering any alternatives. In the culture wars, you read stories of former fundamentalists switching sides to support gay marriage, and the common denominator is usually not some revelation from the divine, but simply meeting the “other” and discovering they’re human beings, the same as everyone else.

    There a catch, of course. Bubbles like these will be threatened by more access to information, but that’s really only an issue for people indoctrinated from a young age into the culture. There will always be adults who choose to isolate themselves, to embrace comforting falsehoods and reality-denying narratives for their various appeals.

    The internet won’t kill religion, but in the case of these authoritarian, arch-conservatives, I sincerely hope it shrinks them substantially.

  • Makabit

    “And this Latin business has created myths that some people misattribute to the KJV, that it’s not “real” because it was translated through the Latin into English.”

    I’m sorry, I’m confused. Which what is not real? The KJV was done from Hebrew and Greek, no?

  • http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1 Coleslaw

    Incidentally, ministers are just as hard hit by the bad job market as anyone else–it’s hard to get a preaching job without a masters in my denomination, when it used to be you just needed a bachelors or even a minor. My husband’s college roommate has a masters in divinity and is working as a bus driver.

    The United Methodist Church just ended its policy of guaranteed appointments. The policy had been that all elders were guaranteed an appointment somewhere, and every church (that could afford to pay a salary) was guaranteed a pastor. (Elders are ministers who have completed their formal preparation for the ministry of Word, Sacrament, and Order; have been elected itinerant members in full connection with an Annual Conference; and have been ordained elders in accordance with the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church.) “Itinerant” meaning of course they agree to go where they are sent. So if you were an elder, you might get sent to some poor rural parish or falling apart inner city parish, but you would be appointed somewhere. IIRC, that had been the policy since 1912, so it wasn’t thus since the beginning.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It was. But there’s a myth that’s gone around occasionally that the KJV was translated from the Latin. Actually it is not correct; a different English bible in the 1500s was first created this way.

  • Seeoscar

    The sad part for the mainline Christians is that our pastors have long been taught a historical-critical approach to the Bible, but have been afraid to share the insights with the congregation. The LCA once had a program of Bible study for laity that actually confronted those difficult issues, and it was immensely popular. But we don’t talk about these issues from the pulpit, we don’t discuss them in adult Sunday School, we never mention the synoptic problem or the historicity of Pauline letters. Consequently, the people in the pew in the mainline churches hear the TV preachers thunder against anyone who dares to question their orthodoxy, and they come to believe that that’s the only hermeneutic that is applicable. In other words, we’ve screwed ourselves by being so timid. 

    The critical tools I learned in college and seminary did not threaten my faith. The timidity of the church and the dogmatic insistence of the evangelical tv preachers is driving me away, however.

  • Ursula L

    In the culture wars, you read stories of former fundamentalists switching sides to support gay marriage, and the common denominator is usually not some revelation from the divine, but simply meeting the “other” and discovering they’re human beings, the same as everyone else. 

    This point about the importance of meeting people you consider “other” in a safe way reminds me of a program my family participated in for a couple of years in the 1980s.  http://www.irishchildrensprogram.com/index.html

    The “Irish Children’s Program of Rochester” was, and still is, designed to provide children who were living in a very unsafe place a bit of respite and safety, and also to let Catholic and Protestant Irish children meet each other in a place away from the pressures of the adult political conflicts that dominated their lives.  

    I also remember a theatrical event, in the same time frame, that involved a travelling cast of Soviet children working with locally chosen casts of children in the US, to put on a musical about peace and tolerance.  While travelling, the Russian children were assigned to live with the families of the  US children who were involved with the project, and other volunteer families with children of an appropriate age.   The idea being both to promote peace and tolerance as ideas, and to provide personal connections between children of the US and USSR, in order to hopefully reduce some of the fears based on ignorance that fueled the Cold War.  

    There was a lot of idealism and hope behind these efforts.  And also a certain amount of desperation, particular for the programs that involved the USSR – everyone was acutely aware that if the Cold War went “hot” we were all toast.  

    Do people still run programs of this kind?  And how would such a program work, if we were to try and adapt it to the settings of the US culture wars?  

  • hapax

     

    The sad part for the mainline Christians is that our pastors have long
    been taught a historical-critical approach to the Bible, but have been
    afraid to share the insights with the congregation.

    Really?  I’ve never had a priest in any Episcopal congregation who *didn’t* do this.

    However, I’ve mostly lived in college towns, which probably skews the sample;  there’s very likely to be any number of parishioners listening to any given sermon who knows more history / archeology / linguistics / etc. than the priest.

  • hapax

     

    Do people still run programs of this kind?

    There are a number of summer camps that aim to bring together Palestinian and Israeli children.

  • Baron Turner

    This is a very jaundiced view Jessica. The reason we’re discouraged from University is because of dubious association with people in a world alienated from Jehovah, and because of the urgency of our time. You know how much we are encouraged to study, and that includes the scriptures directly, not just our own publications. 
    Remember, Matt 7:13-15 indicates only a few finding the right path (despite Jehovah making it known and available to all through the largest campaign this world has ever seen and directed by Christ himself). Jehovah’s Witnesses know the Bible very well, including contextual studies – we don’t limit ourselves to any bubble.
    Maybe in your Kingdom Hall you’ve experienced some issues – but that’s the case with any movement where kids grow up and have to decide for themselves. This is proof that no-one in our faith is brainwashed. They can leave if they so desire. However, in the many Kingdom Halls I’ve been in (USA and UK), there are very few that get into trouble, and even those who do either stay in the faith or return after some time. I’m confident that you know this to be true Jessica. How many times have people been disfellowshipped and later are reinstated? I’m an elder in my congregation and I only know one single person that has been disfellowshipped and hasn’t returned to the warmth of the Christian congregation.
    Some have attended university. I have. I know many witnesses that have too. These days it’s specifically university that is discouraged, not all tertiary education – because of the likelihood of being away from our comfort zone and in a place where immorality is rampant. It’s absolutely not “any kind of secondary education” as you state. That’s only the brothers trying to help us Jessica, nothing else.
    We are Christians huddled together in a world that is infected with false religion and the foundation-less empty teaching of evolution. Jehovah is guiding us in accord with Isa 48:17, 18 – only for our benefit. 
    One final thing: where else would you go? Where else has any idea whatsoever about the issue of universal sovereignty? What other church is there that has any concept about what’s really happening in this world – that we must choose whose sovereignty we are aligned with – Jehovah’s or Satan’s? Other people reading this have no idea what I’m talking about. But you know Jessica. Who else recognises that the Trinity is unscriptural? Who else recognises the factual place for Jehovah’s name over 7000 times in the scriptures? They’ve all decided to use translations that have removed his name in favour of Lord and God. But we have a faith that not only uses his name but it’s in our own name too (Isa 43:10-12 and Acts 15:14).

  • Tricksterson

    Thiis is sortanotquitekindainaway off topic but having a Witness to hand I’ll ask your opinion on the mandate, the insurance clause and the Catholic bisop’s resistance to it.  What’s your take?

    Oh and just going by my own second hand experience I kind of favor Jessica.  Had an uncle who was a Witness, got into drugs while a Witness and attempted suicide.  And in stead of support got thrown out.  But I was only twelve at the time so my rememberance may be faulty.  Not to mention things may have changed since then and it may only have been that hall that was screwed up.

  • Jessica_R

    I’m glad your JW experience is pleasant. Mine was not. From losing all my friends and support system when we left in my early teens, to my abuser finding safety in his posistion of authority. This is how my story goes and I won’t sugarcoat my narrative so you won’t have any of those nagging doubts chip, chip, chipping at that bubble. Such as I’m pretty sure they’ve expunged 1914 from any mention in the literature. (Back when JW’s would turn out lots of books regularly they’d collect old editions to give members new ones, new ones with mentions to dates or the New World happening in the 20th century edited out.)

  • Jessica_R

    I’m glad your JW experience is pleasant. Mine was not. From losing all my friends and support system when we left in my early teens, to my abuser finding safety in his posistion of authority. This is how my story goes and I won’t sugarcoat my narrative so you won’t have any of those nagging doubts chip, chip, chipping at that bubble. Such as I’m pretty sure they’ve expunged 1914 from any mention in the literature. (Back when JW’s would turn out lots of books regularly they’d collect old editions to give members new ones, new ones with mentions to dates or the New World happening in the 20th century edited out.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You know, people like you, Baron Turner?

    I always get annoyed.

    You ply your soothing words – your attempt at creating solidarity – your emotional appeals …

    and it’s so transparently obvious, as though you think by the mere device of wordsmithing you can overcome deep resistance to what it is you have to show or tell.

    It’s cheap and it gets up my nose like the odor of crappy cigars.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    The authoritarian model has this weakness, this need to control the narrative to one’s followers and prevent them from questioning or discovering any alternatives. 

    There a catch, of course. Bubbles like these will be threatened by more access to information, but that’s really only an issue for people indoctrinated from a young age into the culture. There will always be adults who choose to isolate themselves, to embrace comforting falsehoods and reality-denying narratives for their various appeals.

    It sounds almost like you are describing Fox News’ business model.  

  • Jessica_R

    And really The Baron’s post is a crackerjack example of what happens to people under the Authoritarian bubble. I could have written that post as a young person. A young JW trying very, very to hate the world as much as I was supposed to. To see nothing but wickedness and evil and be glad it was going away very, very soon. But we’re back to reality, how the reality of the kind people I met at school, out in the world, from cheery shopkeepers to kindly strangers wouldn’t let that center of Vilifying the Other hold. I feel sorry for Baron, you can tell by the amount of justification twaddle he poured out just how much effort it takes to pretend the world is awful and deserves to be destroyed.

  • Seeoscar

    Yes, I think living in a college town does make a difference. I have yet to hear any Lutheran Pastor – even in this college town – say anything that got anywhere near form criticism, or source criticism – or even discussed the idea that Paul didn’t write all the Pauline letters.

    Maybe it’s part of being Lutheran.

  • Lori

     

    The reason we’re discouraged from University is because of dubious
    association with people in a world alienated from Jehovah, and because
    of the urgency of our time. You know how much we are encouraged to
    study, and that includes the scriptures directly, not just our own
    publications.   

    I’m pretty sure you have your cause and effect backwards there. It’s not that you don’t have time to deal with the world because you’re encouraged to do so much studying. You’re encouraged to study so much so that you won’t have time to have contact outside the bubble.

     

    Who else recognises that the Trinity is unscriptural? 

    Perhaps you’ve heard in passing of something called “Islam”. It’s first pillar is the Shahadah, which begins “there is no God but God”. That’s a declaration of non-trinitarian monotheism. They’re quite clear on that point.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    BUT BUT BUT

    MOON GOD ALLAH IS TOTALLY FAKE

    Srsly, that’s Jack Chick’s attempt at a rejoinder to the notion that another ‘Abrahamic Religion’ could also reject the idea of a Trinity. It’s like people like that Baron dude think it’s them vs Catholics and that’s it.

  • Tricksterson

    While of course ignoring that Yahweh probably started out as a Sumeriam (since Abraham came from Ur) Sky Father ala Odin or Zeus.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Huh, I did not know that. O_o

  • Tricksterson

    Well, dubious provenance because the exact term is “Ur of the Chaldees” and Chaldea came way after Abraham which isn’t surprising since the Old Testament got history jumbled together only slightly less than Xena: Warrior Princess

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Yuo, the pinting press is IMHGO the main reason why the Protestant Reformation atrated in the 16th Century with Luther and not the 15th with Jan Hus (Well, that and, unlike Luther Hus was naive enough to trust a politicians promise of protection) or the 14th with Wycliffe.

    I can’t believe I never noticed where Warhammer character Luthor Huss got his names from. (He’s a priest of Sigmar who nearly caused a major schism…)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X