Comments on: Infidelity

Comment by: Lincoln Cannon

2008-04-09T11:29:37Z

If it contends to compel you to worship, it’s not worthy of worship.

Comment by: Matt

2008-04-09T14:19:24Z

I dare say your infidelity (our infiidelity) is with the manipulative projections of pious men and women who themselves would readily agree that there is nothing in the verifiable, physical world worthy of calling “god” and worshiping.

My infidelity is with theocratic authority … the so-called “Kingdom of Heaven” which folks like us have come to see as nothing more than a very small man behind a curtain.

Comment by: Kullervo

2008-04-09T20:35:17Z

I think that’s worefully simplistic, Matt.

But Blake, I agree with you. I can say wholeheartedly “that I feel no need to label anything God and worship it in the traditional way; nothing that I know about compels me to worship it as God.”

Comment by: Matt

2008-04-09T22:54:17Z

Not surprised by your reaction at all, Kullervo. Sounds like your approach to recognizing false gods may be slightly less simplistic than my own … whatever that means. To each his own and congrats.

Comment by: Kullervo

2008-04-10T06:45:28Z

I’ve just become aware that questions of true and false aside, the impact of religion on society and culture and vice versa are actually really complicated things. To single out any one facet of a complex interaction and say it’s the whole game is usually not a very nuanced–and thus probably not a very accurate–model.

Comment by: Matt

2008-04-10T07:04:08Z

And which part of my initial comment did you feel was a reference to “the whole game”? Seems you may have read more into a comment that was a personal expression of infidelity than was actually there. This is the part I wasn’t too surprised about.

Now, if you would like to debate Hitchens’ “religion has poisoned everything” hypothesis again that’s fine, but let’s do it elsewhere and keep to the actual context here.