I appreciate your cautionary note, Carroll. I'll take care that social relations are not disrupted by
inserting "living a religion" into general human discourse.
> Peter Montgomery wrote:
> Living a religion and understanding it are two different things.
Perhaps, but the mass slaughters of the Religious Wars of the
166th-17th centuries were brought to an end essentially by an implicit
agreement on the part of all that "living a religion" was a private
matter, and that social relations would not be disrupted by inserting
"living a religion" into general human discourse.
Rembmer;, Christians make up a definite minority of the world poulation,
and the relative military strentgth of the Christian nations is
declining. Christian survival may well depend on keeping diccourse on
"living a religion" confined to secttarian circles, while general human
contexts, such as e-lists, deal only with understanding (abstractly)
this or that religious doctrine.
If I understand correctly the general thrust of CR's posts over the
year, the contradictions between him and several billion humans can only
be resolved through bloodshed. Does he really want that?