Mr. Musket, you should be ashamed of yourself for your outbursts of shallow derision! Go sit in the corner with Messrs Shaw and Carroll and Campin and F (greg f), and pay attention. Honestly, you lot and your mindless literalism are making me run out of dunce caps!

For extra homework, you are to study the writings of Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong on the subject of myth. For those of you with no experience reading actual books, you may view Campbell and Armstrong on YouTube.

As I have said time and time again until I am blue in the face and then some, the ancient sacred writings of various cultures and peoples and religions are meant to be read and regarded in the spirit in which they were written - and they were not written in terms of shallow literalism. These ancient writings are not meant to be scientific or historical, although they were written in the context of the science and history of their time. These writings are sacred stories meant to embody the identity and ideals of a people, to show who they are and what they want to be - and what they hold most sacred. The sacred writings of various peoples have many features in common. Many of them speak of some sort of guru who is the embodiment (incarnation) of the faith of a people, although the guru is rarely the founder of the group's religious organization. Most also speak of a god, a distant, incomprehensible entity that is the source and focus of all that they hold sacred.
The birth of the guru is always related in legendary terms, because the birth was insignificant at the time it took place and nobody had reason to record the birth. Sometimes, the guru was said to be born of a virgin, perhaps indicating a tie with the Divinity because no warrior male was necessary in the conception.
These sacred stories were passed from generation to generation, often gaining details and variations. As is usually the case with a good story, the story takes on a life of its own, and it moves out of the control of any individual.
Yes, there are fundamentalists in every group who will obsess over the exterior aspects of the text and insist on a literal understanding of every jot and tittle. And yes, there will be literalist detractors who will insist that the only valid interpretation of a text, is that of the fundamentalists; and then they proceed to build their own, mockingly fundamentalist interpretation of the text which they then condemn.

But most people aren't like that. They regard their sacred writings as they would regard any good book. They aren't absolutely certain which aspects of the writing are factual and which are not, because factuality is not as important to most people as one might think. Most people have an innate awareness that "the facts" can be misleading, and can be twisted and distorted to lead people away from the actual truth that they hold sacred - things like love and life and tradition and family and relationships. So they read and pass on these sacred writings because the writings tell the story of who they are and what they hold sacred - their identity.

Now, there are scholars who study ancient texts more closely, and their work can be of great value. But their deep study can often distract them from the integrity of the sacred story as a whole. After all, the stories were written for real people, not for intellectuals and not for literalists. And certainly not for detractors.

There are many ancient sacred writings that tell the story of many peoples. All are true, and all are an embodiment of the essence of a people. They should be regarded with the same respect that people deserve. To deride or impose false interpretations on the sacred writings of a people, is to deride the people themselves.

If you do not understand the sacred writings of a people, don't try to reinterpret the writings in your own terms. You are free to follow your own ways - but be sure to allow others to follow their ways without derision.

And please, don't define groups other than yours as "sects" or as conspiracy theories. Most people have valid, valuable reasons for doing what they do. Learn to respect them for that, and you will have a much happier life. Combat and derision are so unsatisfying.

Now, return to your usual seats and conduct yourselves with respect for others and for what they hold sacred - even though you may not understand them.

On second thought, Mr. Shaw, go back to the dunce's chair until you understand that your leaving the Catholic Church a generation ago at the tender age of thirty, does not make you an expert on all things Catholic. It is your right to choose your own way, but not to deride those who have chosen a different path.

That is all.

-Joe Offer-