It seems, Steve, that somehow you think yourself to be entitled to set the rules for the discussion. I said you prostituted yourself by teaching in a Catholic school while being an atheist. I did not call you a prostitute - and you would have read me the Riot Act if I had pulled a similar switcheroo. And with all your verbiage and switch-hitting, it's easy to get confused about what you've said and what your personal history is. If someone is able to refute something you've said, your usual response is to contend that you never said what you said. If someone does a reasonable paraphrase of what you've said, you play games and pick at their paraphrase instead of their point. You don't play fair.

None of the people here who professes religion, with the possible exception of Pete, has claimed that their religious denomination is without fault. They have chosen to practice their faith within a given denomination for a variety of reasons. Their faith is something they treasure, something they consider to be part of themselves, something that they have chosen for deeply personal reasons that they really can't explain - especially if they are under attack.

My faith is a matter of the heart, just as my choice to love my wife is a matter of my heart. I can't defend my love for my wife, and I can't defend my faith - and it's an insult and an offense for someone to attack either my love or my faith. Such matters are not and should not be within the realm of attack and defense. The exception would be if I were to proselytize here or use my faith as a springboard for attacking somebody else, and I have never done that.

You may claim I've attacked you, but that's not true. I've merely attempted to fend off your constant stream of attacks. I've never attacked anyone's atheism, and I don't believe that McGrath or DMcG have attacked anyone's atheism, either - I would suppose that all three of us have considered ourselves to be atheists or at least agnostics at some times in our lives.

We have disagreed with your constant and vehement attacks against religious belief. Somehow, I guess, attacking your attacks is against your rules. Such is life.

But you attack religion like a dog attacks a bone. You put so much energy into your attacks that it started long ago to seem really weird.

You taught in a Catholic school until you were 29 years old, in 1980; and you "dropped religion" a few years later. So, that's about thirty years ago, right? That's a long time ago, Steve. One could wonder why you maintain such animosity after all these years, and why you expend so much time and energy energy expressing that animosity. Why can't you find it in your heart to say, "Religion is not my thing," and then drop it and focus your energy elsewhere? Why not try some positive endeavor, rather than spending your time attacking what others hold sacred?

I'm sure you "dropped religion" for valid reasons. Sometime in their late teens or during their twenties, people go through a "crisis of faith" where they have to decide to accept or reject the faith they were brought up with. My four children all rejected the Catholic faith, but they don't harbor any animosity toward it like the animosity that seems to govern so much of your life.

Maybe something bad happened to you in a Catholic institution. I wouldn't blame you for "dropping religion" for that, either. Some people do bad things, even within the context of religion - but most religious people do nothing harmful in the name of their religion, so it's unfair to attack religion based on the misconduct of some believers.

Steve sez:

OK, so you can't address this. I get that. You think it's true that Jesus was born of a virgin. That he turned water into wine. That he came back from the dead. If you see these things as the truth you really should be able to support them. I think they are not true, and I'm more than happy to support that, point by point. I don't really care what people see as true. Or false. I do care that some people, including you, see no problem in peddling unsupportable myth to children as truth. I think that if there was a God he'd regard that as sinful in the extreme. Perhaps you could tell me, even if you don't like dealing in things point by point, what is so wrong with telling children the truth. I think I might have asked this a few times now. I await.

Yes, you addressed this comment to somebody else, but it applies to my faith, too. Yes, those are more-or-less the things I believe. They are an integral part of my faith, and the faith of all Christians. They are things that I cannot explain or prove, and I can only imagine what they mean or how they happened. They are not something to be proved or disproved. They are something I ponder and pray about, not something I seek proof for. All I know is that my faith has been a rich and deep experience for me, and so I practice it - and it's sacred to me. If you attack what is sacred to me, you attack me.

The same thing applies to what Europeans have done to the religious practices of all the peoples they have conquered. They don't appreciate or respect what others hold sacred, so they attack and attempt to destroy it.

So, no, I wouldn't dream of defending my faith to you. And I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you or anybody to Christianity. If somebody sees my faith practice and it makes sense to them, then I'd welcome them to join me - and I'd tell them the truth about what I believe, warts and all. But I don't expect that of you. All I expect is for you to respect me for who I am and what I hold sacred.

I consider your continued attacks to be highly offensive, so I speak out against those attacks on occasion.

-Joe Offer-