Monday, April 14, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Religious education as a part of literary culture

by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

(This excerpt was posted as a reference for those reading the recent article from the Guardian by Mark Ravenhill)

Buy it in paperback on Amazon.com

(From Chapter 9 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins)

I must admit that even I am a little taken aback at the biblical ignorance commonly displayed by people educated in more recent decades than I was. Or maybe it isn't a decade thing. As long ago as 1954, according to Robert Hinde in his thoughtful book, Why Gods Persist, a Gallup Poll in the United States of America found the following. Three quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two thirds didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus's twelve apostles. That, to repeat, was in the United States, which is notoriously more religious than other parts of the developed world.

The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. But the main reason the Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them. Here is a quick list of biblical, or bible-inspired phrases or sentences which occur commonly in literary or conversational English, from great poetry to hackneyed cliché, from proverb to table talk.

Be fruitful and multiply � East of Eden � Adam's Rib � Am I my brother's keeper? � The mark of Cain � As old as Methuselah � A mess of potage � Sold his birthright � Jacob's ladder � Coat of many colours � Amid the alien corn � Eyeless in Gaza � The fat of the land � The fatted calf � Stranger in a strange land � Burning bush � A land flowing with milk and honey � Let my people go � Flesh pots � An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth � Be sure your sin will find you out � The apple of his eye � The stars in their courses � Butter in a lordly dish � The hosts of Midian � Shibboleth � Out of the strong came forth sweetness � He smote them hip and thigh � Philistine � A man after his own heart � Like David and Jonathan � Passing the love of women � How are the mighty fallen? � Ewe lamb � Man of Belial � Jezebel � Queen of Sheba � Wisdom of Solomon � The half was not told me � Girded up his loins � Drew a bow at a venture � Job's comforters � The patience of Job � I am escaped with the skin of my teeth � The price of wisdom is above rubies � Leviathan � Go to the ant thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. � Spare the rod and spoil the child � A word in season � Vanity of vanities � To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose � The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong � Of making many books there is no end � I am the rose of Sharon � A garden inclosed � The little foxes � Many waters cannot quench love � Beat their swords into plowshares � Grind the faces of the poor � The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid � Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die � Set thine house in order � A voice crying in the wilderness � No peace for the wicked � See eye to eye � Cut off out of the land of the living � Balm in Gilead � Can the leopard change his spots? � The parting of the ways � A Daniel in the lions' den � They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind � Sodom and Gomorrah � Man shall not live by bread alone � Get thee behind me Satan � The salt of the earth � Hide your light under a bushel � Turn the other cheek � Go the extra mile � Moth and rust doth corrupt � Cast your pearls before swine � Wolf in sheeps' clothing � Weeping and gnashing of teeth � Gadarene swine � New wine in old bottles � Shake off the dust of your feet � He that is not with me is against me � Judgment of Solomon � Fell upon stony ground � A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country � The crumbs from the table � Sign of the times � Den of thieves � Pharisee � Whited sepulchre � Wars and rumours of wars � Good and faithful servant � Separate the sheep from the goats � I wash my hands of it � The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath � Suffer the little children � The widow's mite � Physician heal thyself � Good Samaritan �Passed by on the other side � Grapes of wrath � Lost sheep � Prodigal son � A great gulf fixed � Whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose � Cast the first stone � Jesus wept � Greater love hath no man than this � Doubting Thomas � Road to Damascus � A law unto himself � Through a glass darkly � Death, where is thy sting? � A thorn in the flesh � Fallen from grace � Filthy lucre � The root of all evil � Fight the good fight � All flesh is as grass � The weaker vessel � I am Alpha and Omega � Armageddon � De profundis � Quo vadis � Rain on the just and on the unjust

All of these idioms, phrases or clichés come directly from the King James Authorized translation of the Bible. Surely unfamiliarity with the Bible is bound to impoverish one's appreciation of English literature. And not just solemn and serious literature. The following rhyme by Lord Justice Bowen is ingeniously witty:

The rain it raineth on the just,

And also on the unjust fella.

But chiefly on the just, because

The unjust hath the just's umbrella.

But the enjoyment is muffled if you can't take the allusion to Matthew 5: 45 ("For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"). Or, from My Fair Lady, the fine point of Eliza Dolittle's fantasy would escape anybody ignorant of John the Baptist's end:

"Thanks a lot, King," says I in a manner well bred,

"But all I want is 'Enry 'Iggins' 'ead."

P G Wodehouse is, for my money, the greatest writer of light comedy in the language, and I bet fully half my list of biblical phrases will be found as allusions within his pages. (A Google search will not find all of them, however. It will miss the derivation of the short story title, 'The Aunt and the Sluggard' from Proverbs 6: 6.) The Wodehouse canon is rich in other biblical phrases, not in my list above and not incorporated into the language as idioms or proverbs. Listen to Bertie Wooster's evocation of what it is like to wake up with a bad hangover:

I had been dreaming that some bounder was driving spikes through my head — not just ordinary spikes, as used by Jael the wife of Heber, but red-hot ones.

Bertie himself was immensely proud of his only scholastic achievement, the prize he once earned for scripture knowledge.

What is true of comic writing in English is more obviously true of serious literature. Naseeb Shaheen's tally of more than 1300 biblical references in Shakespeare's works is widely cited and very believable. The Bible Literacy Report published in Fairfax, Virginia (admittedly financed by the infamous Templeton Foundation) provides many examples, and cites overwhelming agreement by teachers of English literature that biblical literacy is essential to full appreciation of their subject. Doubtless the same is true of French, German, Russian, and other great European literatures. And, for speakers of Arabic and Indian languages, knowledge of the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita are presumably just as essential for full appreciation of their literary heritage. Finally, to round off the list, you can't appreciate Wagner (whose music, as has been wittily said, is better than it sounds) without knowing your way around the Norse gods.

Let me not labour the point. I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. I think the important thing to learn is that we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.

Read the first chapter of The God Delusion

Buy it in paperback on Amazon.com

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, April 14, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 101 - 127 of 127 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

101. Comment #162207 by NormanDoering on April 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

This part of the article:

Three quarters of Catholics and Protestants could not name a single Old Testament prophet. More than two thirds didn't know who preached the Sermon on the Mount. A substantial number thought that Moses was one of Jesus's twelve apostles. That, to repeat, was in the United States, which is notoriously more religious than other parts of the developed world.

Reminded me of a scene where Mustapha Mond was talking to John the Savage in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." Mond told John that they didn't have to ban books because no one was interested in reading them.

Unlike Orwell who feared people being deprived of information. Huxley saw how we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Everyone is preoccupied with the feelies, the orgy porgy, and centrifugal bumblepuppy.

"Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."
-- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.

I was also reminded of the scene when I read a transcript of Hugh Hewitt's show where he had Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White debating the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization.

And I blogged on it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-great-art-in-our-brave-new.html

David Allen White was also bemoaning the fact that his religion was failing to inspire art in our culture. He talked about T.S. Eliot calling Dante's Paradiso the greatest poetry that can be written. That religion has inspired all "great" artists isn't surprising if you have defined great art as religious art and all your experts agree with that.

And there's an element of truth to what he says, our inner life is changing: Welcome to our Brave New World. It used to be that religious novels and Hollywood sword and sandal films like "Ben-Hur," "The Robe," "The Ten Commandments" and the like were hot literary and box-office properties. "The Ten Commandments" was one of the more expensive epics of its time. Lew Wallace's "Ben-Hur" was once one of the most important, widely-read American novels of the last half of the 19th century. There are both silent and talky versions of the movie. And it continued to be widely read until the 1960s, when our Brave New World began to take shape. That's a long life for a book. But today "Ben-Hur" has receded into near oblivion. Does anyone read it now? When is the last time there has been a new printing of it?

This may be how religions really die, they degenerate into feel good passivity and egoism while their adherents are preoccupied with television, sports and pop music.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

102. Comment #162455 by irate_atheist on April 17, 2008 at 2:19 am

107. Comment #162452 by clearmind -

wooter, you rubber twat, get a life.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

103. Comment #162462 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #162192 by hungarianelephant

Perhaps the bible's literary importance has waned these last few generations.

Are you considering the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland?

The former is (was?) essentially Catholic and there would have been less emphasis on the bible. As for whether it still is a force in the world then this gives some interesting reading - http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/05/02/catholic_church_withers_in_europe/

I caught a bit on the BBC Radio 4 news the other day about the recruitment of Catholic priests in Ireland, I can't find it at the moment. Briefly it indicated that nobody is applying, they had something like 28 recruits last year and parishes are being forced to amalgamate as priests retire.

Other Comments by epeeist

104. Comment #162467 by lievemebe on April 17, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #162452 by clearmind
No plane will eventuate from the junkyard.
The worms turned but did not evolve into humans.
Worms and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Both have the same genetic code, same energy metabolism, same cellular structure, same membrane transport systems and both are, right now, mutating.

Other Comments by lievemebe

105. Comment #162541 by DamnDirtyApe on April 17, 2008 at 3:53 am

NormanDoering raises an excellent point. It is one thing to have enthusiasm and love, but it too can be all consuming and even distructive.

I think i'll put off buying that xbox 360 till -after- I've finished my PhD...

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

106. Comment #162561 by scooternyc on April 17, 2008 at 4:20 am

Questions to the religious:

"Why not then teach ALL religions in every corner of education by which everyone can observe/read the history and thereby be informed before making a decision?"

"What would be your objection to such teaching and education?"

Other Comments by scooternyc

107. Comment #162562 by mixmastergaz on April 17, 2008 at 4:24 am

Clearmind: Are you taking the mickey? Others are conversing with you as if you're serious, but your posts so far read like hoaxes to me. I apologise for saying this if they aren't hoaxes, but would suggest that you consider proofreading your posts as it's difficult to follow what you're trying to say when you miss out words or misuse them.

Your analogy concerning light (or "LIGHT" if you prefer) can be spun right back at you. As an atheist I consider that I have 'seen the light', as opposed to being blinded by it.

edit: "pretending God". What do you mean?

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

108. Comment #162564 by mixmastergaz on April 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

Scooternyc: In answer to your question above, I'm a religious studies teacher here in the UK. The curriculum my students and I follow requires us to look at 'the six major world faiths; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism'.

Although I'm not religious, so you aren't directing your questions at me really, I'd have no objections to your proposal at all. In fact, I'd endorse it.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

109. Comment #162565 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #162562 by mixmastergaz

Clearmind: Are you taking the mickey? Others are conversing with you as if you're serious, but your posts so far read like hoaxes to me.

More and more they look like hoaxes to me too.

However, as jon_sociologist has noted, the responses are not for wooter, they are to demonstrate that this is indeed a clear-thinking oasis to others who come here. Wooter, with his hermaphrodite invisible friend "logic" and his Mona Lisa painted by Piccasso is irrelevant.

Other Comments by epeeist

110. Comment #162566 by AllanW on April 17, 2008 at 4:36 am

Epeeist;

'Wooter, with his hermaphrodite invisible friend "logic" and his Mona Lisa painted by Piccasso is irrelevant.'

Don't forget the individually created and designed snowflakes; credit where it's due :)

Other Comments by AllanW

111. Comment #162572 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 4:49 am

Comment #162039 by clearmind on April 16, 2008 at 3:17 am

Evidence symptom again. I already proved that evolution idea is just an idea that is refuted by Logic. You are telling us that a simple computer you are using to write on this web page should have a designer but your best computer like brain CAME FROM A WORM.

The computer cannot reproduce there for how could it not have a designer. You are not comparing like with like. If computers reproduced, and each time they did the offspring was slightly different from the previous one then we wouldn't be so quick to say it must have a designer.

The human brain came from a nearly human brain. The nearly human brain came from a nearly, nearly human brain, etc, etc. And it did it through the process of evolution. If you don't understand evolution then just say that you haven't read any books on the subject and admit your ignorance on the subject. Why keep making yourself look silly?

Other Comments by phatbat

112. Comment #162574 by hungarianelephant on April 17, 2008 at 4:54 am

109. Comment #162462 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

[Rep. of Ireland] is (was?) essentially Catholic and there would have been less emphasis on the bible.

That's a fair point, though you'd think that there would at least be reference to it when teaching the poem.

It's a great approach, isn't it? "Here's our holy book. It contains ultimate truth, but we don't encourage you to read it, because it's a bit dangerous for your little brain. So just leave it to us to tell you what it means, ok?" And to tie in with the discussion on the Lying For Jesus thread, this seems to be a selling point for many Catholics as it saves them having to think.

The decline in priest numbers was discussed in this article. I don't buy into the celibacy connection, myself. The priests have lost most of their status, ergo, the only people who want to become priests are those who actually fancy the job itself, rather than the trappings.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

113. Comment #162576 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 4:59 am

Comment #162572 by phatbat

The computer cannot reproduce there for how could it not have a designer. You are not comparing like with like. If computers reproduced, and each time they did the offspring was slightly different from the previous one then we wouldn't be so quick to say it must have a designer.

This will probably make it around the 119'th time that he has been told this. His reaction is the same every time, he sticks his fingers in his virtual ears and goes 'La La La'.

What you will almost certainly see next is a post full of words in capitals accusing me (at least) of bad mouthing him. This will be almost completely incoherent (as opposed to his normal incoherence).

Considering the guy supposedly has a BA and MA (though he won't say where from) I consider that in his purported job as a teacher in primary school (which one and where he won't say) he is pretty close to committing child abuse.

Oh and wooter - my wife teaches at this school - http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk

Compare this openness with your own. Compare the results this school gets and its ethos with yours.

Other Comments by epeeist

114. Comment #162578 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 5:01 am

They evolved and evolved and evolved into many animals with different DNA codes, no accident, no clashing or no miscalculationsamong the amino acids and DNAS, THANKS TO unconscious BLIND BLIND WATCHMAKER

If you are trying to say that there were no errors when the DNA of a parent is passed onto the offspring and that is what evolution requires us to accept then that demonstrates an amusing lack of knowledge of the subject you are critisising.

The process of evolution would not work if there were no mistakes when the DNA is passed on, it is by those mistakes that the offspring is slightly different from the parent. A lot of the time those mistakes result in hideous deformities or illnesses or a quick death. But others lead to some kind of usefull difference that makes that individual better at something than it's competition.

This process doesn't need a 'seeing designer' in order to work. If you are saying god did it or does it then you have to explain why so many children die instantly or in the womb due to some genetic cock up and why have we all got a coccyx, etc. You can't have it both ways.

Other Comments by phatbat

115. Comment #162582 by phatbat on April 17, 2008 at 5:07 am

Comment #162576 by epeeist

This will probably make it around the 119'th time that he has been told this. His reaction is the same every time, he sticks his fingers in his virtual ears and goes 'La La La'.

What you will almost certainly see next is a post full of words in capitals accusing me (at least) of bad mouthing him. This will be almost completely incoherent (as opposed to his normal incoherence).

I know, sadly true - I am just very persistent. Let's see what he does next, if anything

Other Comments by phatbat

116. Comment #163037 by bachfiend on April 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

I was wondering; is there anyone, anywhere in the World, who has managed to read the Bible from cover to cover in a reasonably short time? It's said that that the Bible has sold more copies than the Harry Potter books, but at least I can guarantee that most of these were actually read. From the times I've attempted to read parts of the Bible, I've found it extremely hard going and nonsensical. I've found a website that offers the Bible complete as an audiobook, the fact that it is 90 hours long and 5GB in size tends to put me off.

Other Comments by bachfiend

117. Comment #163175 by epeeist on April 18, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #163171 by clearmind

(Wooter, with his hermaphrodite invisible friend "logic" and his Mona Lisa painted by Piccasso is irrelevant.)
Invisible logic, hmm I forgot the magic word. You are right. Logic is invisible. Since NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. What do you have? Visible(!) blindwatcmaker, menotthinking, any kind of sieves except the logic sieve, me and my logic will pass.
Eepist: Just between you and I. You look really funny when you mentioned invisible logic? Are you all right?

So was I right, or was I right?

Other Comments by epeeist

118. Comment #163185 by Philip1978 on April 18, 2008 at 3:55 am

Wooter

I posted this a while ago, I couldn't be arsed to write it out again so I lazily cut and pasted it.

Now, I have made an effort to learn about evolution and am slowly getting there but here is my take on what you have just questioned. This is probably what others have covered but heck, I just am in the mood! :)

You can breed a dog, cow, horse etc which have all the good characteristics that you are looking for, you can essentially make sure the right genes are passed over to the future generations until you have what you are looking for. You can basically force the outcome of this by sending the rubbish animals away and keeping the good ones - that in a very small, possibly badly explained way, is how I see Artificial Selection at work - you are the overseer in all this.

Natural Selection however is just that, Nature does the choosing of what gets to stay and what doesn't, thats why around 99% of all animals that ever existed on this lovely planet never made it this far. There is no picking and choosing, there is no pattern to it whatsoever and as Steve said, you might just as well watch the TV for all the hope of getting God to appear in it.

Douglas Adams said this in a speech called Is there an artificial God?

"Take a very simple example, maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is slightly colder. We know that in a few future generations those genes that favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore"

Now tell me, how does God need to fit into any of this at all?

The cold weather was his idea? The animals with the genes that didn't favour fur coats get buggered if I am not mistaken but he favours those with the fur coat gene...whats the point?

Why not just make sure the weather stays the right way for the right animal to live in? Sod all this chopping and changing lark! Isn't that a bit of rubbish and convoluted way of going about showing God was somehow involved here? I know the old bugger moves in mysterious ways but killing off most of your creations like that comes close to what Eddie Izzard calls the "etcha sketch end of the world!"

"Ahhh bugger it!" said God as he shook the screen to clear it!

I don't buy it, not for one second does any of it make any sense with a god involved, its too complicated, ambiguous and just well, highly improbable - why not just have evolution with Natural Selection at the helm, it works so well, its not that complicated is it? This way there is no need for any "thing" to be involved - God cannot be an artificial selector, not on a planet with such an abundance of life on it - think of all the work that requires!

Having a God pitch up and "Kabloooey" its all there, no need to bugger with the climate, every animal is where it should be, that would rule out the need for drastic things like ice ages, meteors, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, floods - every ecological, natural disaster imaginable would be completely pointless.

Natural Selection explains how life came to be if a God wasn't there tinkering with it, it just took a bloody long time!

Hows that?

:)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

119. Comment #163243 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 5:05 am

(The computer cannot reproduce there for how could it not have a designer.)
Sorry your arguments does not sound right or logical or you are missing the point which I get used to it;
Computers and our brains
Plane and flies
Cameras and our eyes
Radars and seismic monitors
Anything that has a design requires a designer. Period. Your argument to prove otherwise is not argument but only an effort to play with the words to prove your are right. (I refer you to the comment i wrote for dawkings on the first thread for today)

Oh dear.

You compared a computer to a brain and i pointed out that you can't compare the 2 as the computer does not have the ability to produce offspring, where as the brain is part of an organism that can. If you want to argue against that then u are effectively arguing that black is white and i would say people will just ignore u. But if you want to be taken seriously then you have to actualy read carefully what people write and respond carefully, instead of the pitiful paragraph above.

Other Comments by phatbat

120. Comment #164283 by serendipitydawg on April 20, 2008 at 2:12 am

Is clearmind really the one true wooter or a reflection of the wooter style?

Other Comments by serendipitydawg

121. Comment #168329 by BeAfraid on April 25, 2008 at 3:07 am

I have long studied belief. It was something I was fascinated by as a youth in Sunday School, with my perennial question:

"Why?" (It got to be much more complex than that when my mother suggested that I read the bible at around 11 after my Grandfather died... Oh, that was a good idea. Get a vulnerable and angry 11 year old to read the work of the "man" who just took his grandfather at a still very young age, for both myself and my grandfather).

When I discovered Karl Jung and Joseph Campbell, many of the answers fell quickly into place.

I vacillated back and forth between belief and disbelief until finally arriving at the conclusion that all of my prior belief was based upon fear and delusions brought about by... wait for it...

Drugs... I had confused the rapture associated with certain chemical states for a shortcut to a spiritual state... Silly me!

Yet, I still saw that these works of "fiction" contained within them powerful tools of control and manipulation, as well as some of the best freaking drama, poetry and literature around.

Yet, even those who claimed so much faith were grotesquely ignorant of their own belief and its history. Even my own mother, upon her de-conversion admitted that she often ignored much of what she knew of the religious texts in order to justify her beliefs (she still clings to some delusions, but at least they are far less destructive to her... And, she is not able to face the fear of letting them go completely it seems... Sad.)

All "literature" is a subjective experience, but ALL works of import should be preserved. I have a hard time destroying a watch-tower pamphlet even though I know that it is really nothing more than a one in a million copy of an incredibly twisted belief. Yet, it is evidence of that belief and ignorance, and should be preserved in that context.

Sort of like my Beavis and Butthead comments in the Forums. Some things require a certain level of intelligence or education in order to fully appreciate, and those who witness them without that Int. or Ed. are going to misinterpret the meaning or purpose (Satire for instance is something that I just have a hard time with in print unless I am familiar with the source prior to exposure)

Excellent Article Richard...

Matthew

Other Comments by BeAfraid

122. Comment #171204 by Valadon on April 28, 2008 at 11:14 am

I am curious Professor Dawkins, as to the context of this phraseology. I constantly have to remind people that Atheism is not a 'worldview', but simply non belief. One can have a worldview based on other intellectual paradigms, but it is not derivative of Atheism itself It seems awkward to see you write this. I hope you will clarify your meaning.

I do agree, however, that literary biblical history is part of human history and can be regarded as one of many human accomplishments. And as a literary reference, there is no need to believe its contents in order to appreciate its aesthetics.

Thank you.

I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the bible, and other sacred books, out of our education.

Other Comments by Valadon

123. Comment #186044 by hcaroe on May 29, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Quite right. I agree that the Bible is a wonderful, rich source of beautiful writing, and that it would be wonderful if all Christians (here I include myself) were intimately familar with it.

Other Comments by hcaroe

124. Comment #186054 by phil rimmer on May 29, 2008 at 12:29 pm

hcaroe

Hang on. Don't be so selfish!

it would be wonderful if all Christians (here I include myself) were intimately familar with it.

A prominent atheist has proposed EVERYONE should be familiar with it. You don't agree?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

125. Comment #186056 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 29, 2008 at 12:32 pm

A prominent atheist has proposed EVERYONE should be familiar with it. You don't agree?

Feh, why stop there, phil? Everyone should be familiar with as many religious texts as possible. Especially those you disagree with. You want multiculturalism? Learn a few cultures other than your own. Thank you, Dr. Tirpak! (sophomore World Cultures class)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

126. Comment #186338 by phil rimmer on May 30, 2008 at 7:30 am

why stop there, phil? Everyone should be familiar with as many religious texts as possible.

No, Col, NO!........Not the L.Ron Hubbard, please!

You're a sick bastard, you know that.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

127. Comment #187021 by Colwyn Abernathy on June 1, 2008 at 5:23 am

Ah, phil...not a glutton for punishment, are we? Know thy opponent. It's important for us to know HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Critical thinking, I has it. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy