Harry Potter and God

[Carol]

No.Limberger wrote:
> I am occasionally in situations in which someone with strong religious convictions takes over a conversation in an effort to quote from the bible and/or proselytize. I, and others that I know who have been in similar situations, often want to avoid an argument and either say nothing, walk away to end the conversation or attempt to change the subject.

Carol responds:
You don't attempt to argue with them? I'm surprised. (I've never had that happen, BTW--only the occasional door-to-door evangelist, and a polite answer turneth away proselytism, or whatever the word is.)

No.Limberger. 
> Religious beliefs or the lack thereof are a very personal choice best left to each individual.

Carol responds:
Exactly.

No.Limberger:
>  Unfortunately, followers of exclusive religions (such as Christianity) can come to view themselves as being superior to everyone else and can sometimes take it upon themselves to proselytize and/or criticize others' beliefs that are different from theirs
>
Carol responds:
But isn't that exactly what you're doing in saying that Saint Paul never experienced his conversion as depicted in the Epistles and similar criticisms of Christian beliefs?

No.Limberger:
> When religious people use potentially insulting language such as this, either deliberately or naively, then the likelihood that others will be interested in what they say drops dramatically.

Carol responds:
Exactly. And the same is true of atheists and agnostics insulting Christianity and, by implication, other monotheistic religions as well. No one was ever dissuaded from their beliefs by having them ridiculed, criticized, or insulted or having another person's belief or disbelief shoved in their faces. ("I'm right; you're wrong" is just as offensive whether the person saying it believes that God is on his or her side or that God doesn't exist.) In fact, that sort of behavior is likely to make them cling more tightly to their own beliefs (or doubts).
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> The fact that someone who never actually met Jesus, but became the architect of Christianity (not anyone who actually did know him, if he ever actually existed), does not make for a strong foundation.  Additionally, the fact that the canonical gospels were not written until more than 40 years after the events allegedly occurred, makes their claims more likely to be inaccurate, biased and non-factual.  Further, given that much of the material in the gospels appears to plagiarize ancient Egyptian writings and beliefs
> about other Pagan deities, this too has a tendency
> to disqualify what is written in them as having actually
> occurred.

Carol responds:

As far as I can see, you're doing exactly what the people you criticize are doing--evangelical atheism. I happen to believe that Jesus was a historical person and that some of the stories told about him are true while others were intended for a particular audience (either Jews or Greeks) to convince them that Jesus was divine. But I'm not about to say that I'm right and someone else is wrong or that the Gospels are a form of plagiarism (propaganda, possibly, but the parts depicting Jesus' adult life are probably as accurate as most ancient or medieval historical records written before modern standards of accuracy had been developed.

The thing is, my beliefs, which I have not fully stated and don't intend to state, don't matter. They are, as you said, a personal matter. The whole point of religious freedom is the right to believe what we choose to believe, whether that's some form of Christianity, another monotheistic religion, paganism, or atheism.

No one is going to persuade a Christian to become an atheist or an atheist to become a Christian because neither will respond to the other's arguments. Faith and logic are apples and oranges. Now if someone could persuade the fundamentalist Muslims like Osama bin Laden that the West is not the great Satan, I'd be happy, but that's never going to happen, either. 

Carol, noting that the emotional and psychological need to believe in someone or something greater than ourselves is more powerful than logic, perhaps for a reason :-)