The question “religious moderates” will NEVER be able to meaningfully answer:


Let me “unpack” that:

Religious “moderates” DO NOT actually “believe” most (any?) of the truth-claims put forward by whichever text they pretend to consider “sacred”.

For all of their frenetic hand-waving and disingenuous attempts to play the Capitalization game (IE: to draw an arbitrary line between ‘Big-T’ Truth, and ‘small-t truth’), no religious “moderate” can credibly be said to actually “believe” any of it.

Let me give you an example:

Did the events of the “Noah’s Ark” narrative ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

There are two, mutually -exclusive, mutually-exhaustive answer:

  1. “Yes”
  2. “No”

But, here’s the thing: any religious “moderate” who admits that the specific account contained in “the” Bible DIDN’T “literally” happen, has tacitly admitted that it didn’t ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Even granting the (wholly unsupported) notion that the “Biblical” account is itself based on earlier legends (the “Epic of Gilgamesh”, or suchlike), and that those legends themselves are garbled re-tellings of something that ACTUALLY happened at some point — the fact remains that the “Noah’s Ark” thing NEVER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.

Let’s think about this from a different perspective:

The fact that there ACTUALLY IS a historically-verifiable “Saint Nicholas”  cannot — CANNNOT — legitimately be used to “prove” any of the myriad of traditions related to the FICTIONAL CHARACTER variously named “Santa Claus”, “Father Christmas”, “Pere Noel”, etc. — any more than the fact that “Abraham Lincoln” is a verifiable historical figure can be used to “prove” that he was a “vampire Hunter”:

So, there’s the first question:

Why would ANY religious “moderate” — from whatever tradition — continue to even pay lip-service to what he or she has tacitly acknowledged to be a GARBLED MORASS OF FABLES, FOLKLORE AND SUPERSTITIONS?

Moreover, why would any particular religious “moderate” even bother to privilege a specific collection of such fables/folklore/superstitions (“The Bible”) over any other (The “Vedas”)?

At least Fundies take their own “sacred” text seriously enough to ACTUALLY DELUDE THEMSELVES INTO BELIEVING THAT IT NEVER RAINED BEFORE “THE FLOOD”.

Sometimes, I toy with the idea of writing a novel set during some kind of “future dark age”, where civilization has regressed where most of the population are no longer even semi-literate, and the few who have managed to preserve some level of literacy have only a fragmentary and garbled (mis)understanding of our era — to the point where they regard “Atlas Shrugged” as being “literally” true. 

In other words: They “explain” the current state of the world in terms of “John Galt”, “Dagny Taggart”, and all of Ayn Rand’s other fictional characters as having been real, flesh-and-blood humans, who really did what their “sacred texts” describe.

(In case you’re wondering: their “sacred Text” is a garbled, centuries-old transcription of somebody’s attempt to “summarize” Ayn Rand’s various FICTION writings (“We the Living”, “the Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged”, “Anthem”, etc.), for some reason.

Think about it: researchers trying to find archaeological evidence for “Starnesville”, or “Galt’s Gulch”, or suchlike.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s