It's clear that Joe's end of this conversation is thoughtful indeed, and I am glad to hear dianvan's pointed but in some way necessary questions answered with his usual care. I am sure that Joe's experience contains plenty of instances of "liberal" bigotry, or at least prejudice, just as much as people embracing the category but not the role of CHristian have imposed plenty of their version on those who prefer a different brand of ideational clarity.

Christianity has a burden that often makes it difficult, in that it offers a very complex series of metaphors as a way of offering hope to beings whose burdens are too great. The metaphorical nature of its teachings tends to confuse those who seek more literal answers, and in the hands of those who do not understand them well the metaphors of Christianity can become vehicles of intellectual, emotional and even physical abuse, instead of a way of finding peace and spiritual uplifting.

I am not a scholar of Christianity, and I do not mean to offend anyone by talking about its metaphorical approach to what can also be vividly real at some level; every good metaphor maps to the world in some way. It;s just that the context of Christianity as lesson is riddled with terms I can only understand as metaphors, and cannot begin to absorb as literal statements, such as Son, Father, and Devil to name just three from among scores.

But Joe is a kind and tolerant man whose real Christianity comes through in his practice, not in his language. I appreciate his dialogue.

A