An antidote to the cult of tolerance
What does the modern university have to do with the church, and vice versa? Quite a lot. After all, the university is a Christian institution and invention, starting in the courts of Charlemagne, on to the first universities of Europe, on to the campuses we see on ESPN’s College Gameday every Saturday morning during football season. The church, as well as the university, would do well to pay more attention to the other one, and one new book has that in mind.
Christianity and the Soul of the University: Faith as a Foundation for Intellectual Community, edited by Douglas Henry and Michael Beaty, is a compendium of essays from a conference at Baylor University.
Aurelie Hagstrom, of Providence College in Rhode Island, has an essay, “Christian Hospitality in the Intellectual Community,” that perhaps best sums up the aims and hopes of the book. She begins by noting that “hospitality reflects a radically different and compelling alternative to tolerance.” Hospitality is the necessary virtue for academics insofar as it allows one to be welcoming of different ideas but simultaneously it “does not prohibit the judging, analyzing, and classification” of them. Hospitality, she says, does not “imply a type of unconditionality and openness without any distinctions whatsoever.” Hospitality is kenotic, or self-emptying, but not in an abased way. It empties to receive the other, and also to be able to more fully accept itself as equally worthy. Hospitality thus understood calls to mind Paul Evdokimov’s aphorism that “it is possible that the most ascetic act is not renunciation of self, but total self-acceptance.”
This idea seems to be a groundbreaking way to approach the modern cult of tolerance. Christian ”hospitality” is not a new concept, but I’ve never seen it used to counter the modern concept of uber-tolerance. I really, really like this idea. It might just do the trick for Christians in the world – not just the university, but in the arts, in journalism, anywhere where ideas matter and Christianity is labelled as intolerant.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top43 Comments to “An antidote to the cult of tolerance”
I don’t like it.
The word “tolerance” has been around for a long time and has served a good purpose. It means “putting up with something that I don’t agree with or like.” Hospitality sounds all gushy and “nice,” and we can’t always be nice about what certain people believe.
I don’t feel like extending hospitality to Fred Phelps or Ahmadinejad, although I can tolerate their existance and respect their rights as humans.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that the word has been around for a long time, but its contemporary connotations have overshadowed its denotation. “Tolerance,” to most of the West, means something like, “All religions are equally stupid.”
And so, when Christians are struggling with wanting to dialogue with those who believe very un-Christian things, but not wanting to appear like soggy relativists, they can cling to this idea of tolerance-as-hospitality, not tolerance-as-soggy-relativism…
Report comment to moderator
Religious conservatives are right to note the University, as originally conceived, a Christian institution. However, few appreciate when the break began. In was not in this modern Godless era, but rather during the Enlightenment around the time of America’s Founding that they began to take on secular purposes, mainly for scientific and other discoveries of “man’s reason,” shielded from the “judgments” of the Christian Churches. That’s what the concept of “tenure” was all about; it wasn’t about giving teachers job security or even the freedom to say foul things, but enabling scientists and philosophers to make scientific discoveries without worrying about ticking off the Churches.
This blog post of mine studies the “infidelity” that was rampant at colleges during America’s Founding era. Harvard officially went “infidel” or “heretic” as of 1805:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/09/conditions-of-orthodoxy-at-founding-era-colleges.html
Report comment to moderator
Very interesting premise. Without having read the book, it’s a little tricky to comment on this, but I’d be interested in seeing how this works on a nitty gritty, personal level. As in: how do you march into a university culture that’s very set in its ways and say, “hey, I’ve got this great idea for more open dialogue!”
Report comment to moderator
All religions are equally stupid
They’re not?
Now you tell me.
Report comment to moderator
Incisive commentary there Random, thanks. Great contribution as always.
I think the problem we’re going to end up in here is that the larger world considers hospitality a virtue, but it considers tolerance a requirement. i.e. I can fail to be hospitable, and maybe that makes me a bore, but but it doesn’t make me a bad person. But if I fail to be tolerant, then I’m some kind of a Nazi. If we start saying we are “hospitable” to homosexuals without celebrating their behaviour, then we’re implying that witholding acceptance of them would not automatically make us bad people. True, but not likely to be accepted in fashionable culture.
Report comment to moderator
Like Rob, I find this interesting and I do wonder how it would work exactly. It sounds good in theory.
I have often thought that Christians, particularly, conservative Christians, are much too hostile about other’s and their beliefs, and too defensive about their own.
One must look for ways to engage others on their grounds if one is to expect to gain a foothold and a hearing. For example, I don’t come on here and aggressively attack people and their beliefs. (Ok, I used to, but then I learned it wasn’t getting me anywhere). Instead I try to speak the language of WorldMag Christians, ask questions, and make points in a civil manner. I find one gets a lot further that way.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, but Anlir you’re not absolutely convinced you’re correct based upon an inerrant book directly inspired by the Creator of the universe.
Report comment to moderator
If I understand Harrison correctly, Universities belong to Christianity and Christians may open their hearths to the heathen who have good stories to tell but come sunrise the obligations of hospitality expire and the heathen may find themselves on the intolerant end of the spear. The deficiency of hospitality as a model for cultural life is that it implies owners and guests, which seems more appropriate to hotel chains. Hospitality also implies precedent. What’s wrong with the enlightenment notion of academic freedom?
Universities were schools before they became universities. What turned them into universities was their discovery of non-christian learning.
John Rowe makes a valuable point about the ethos of America during the Revolution. America has never been less religious than it was then. True to the prediction of Thos. Jefferson, the enlightenment arrangement of church and state has been wonderful for religion, which has enjoyed three awakenings as a consequence. Which is not to say America enjoyed the awakenings it tolerated, particularly the current awakening, which seems to have worn out its welcome in the Terry Schivo case.
Report comment to moderator
Well, apparently, (according to some sentiments expressed on other threads) I’m being too hostile about other’s and their beliefs, and too defensive about my own. And also, it turns out that expressing an opinion based on a book I feel to be inerrant, and directly inspired by the creator of the universe, is not behaving in a civil manner. And amounts to my aggressively attacking other people, and their beliefs.
So, I guess I’ll just shut the hell up.
Maybe I can find a site where people aren’t so fragile, that they wilt every time someone offers a different perspective.
Tolerance…
What a joke!
Report comment to moderator
wrong thread
Ahem!
Report comment to moderator
True enough Stephen! I often find that where one sees great certitude, if one looks beneath the covers, one finds great doubt.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus was hospitable to the woman at the well without being tolerant of her lifestyle. And, correct me if I’m wrong, she responded well to it.
Report comment to moderator
There are a couple of serious issues here.
A flaw, or at least a line where the foundation of the PC building is not strong, is that the “cult” of diversity and tolerance runs into the problem of having to be militant tolerants. “If you aren’t tolerant, we will have to kill you, perhaps by smothering you in molasses” or whatever say members of the cult of tolerance.
The second issue is with a group such as evangelical Christians who claim objective proof of essentially supernatural claims. If you want to believe that worshipping Christ sends you to Heaven and not worshipping him sends you to Hell that’s fine I suppose.
And Christians have improved quite a bit from the days of burning heretics at the stake and testing witches by drowning. Nevertheless, people who claim that their book of myths is inerrant, their version of biology is science, and their sexual abhorrences are the Word of God and wish to have these beliefs practiced as the mores and practices of our country, do stir up a little opposition from others who don’t feel the same way.
“I want to be tolerated a lot, but I’m not too big on tolerating your beliefs” does stir up a few arguments.
I think there is something to be said for a “Christian homeland”; perhaps a “voluntarily theocracy” as James said so charmingly.
Oh, this is the Christian homeland, you say?
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals frequently define themselves by what they are against and here is where they run into what they define as the cult of tolerance. A more positive view of one’s beliefs and the negative left unsaid will be more hospitable and less likely to encounter cults of any kind.
Report comment to moderator
It would seem folks are missing the significance of the word “kenotic” or self-emptying, relating to the great passage in Phil.2. There is little room in that for the “bash and clash” style of some cultural warriors; it is also an extremely difficult position to hold since it asks to step away from our ego.
The model of Jesus in this light is pretty instructive: approaching Zacheus, reclining at table with Pharisees, reaching out and touching the woman with hemorrhage. Yet to follow Him in this fashion takes a spiritual as well as an intellectual commitment. How do we acquire such a thing? How do we expect our faculty to do so?
Ah, there is the problem. The very wisdom of the position argues against its acceptance, since who doesn’t play the fool from time to time?
Report comment to moderator
Religious tolerance is a tedious issue. Christians should do what they need to to witness to those around them, but only up to a certain point. When you get to the point where you are compromising your beliefs or neglecting your relationship with God, then it becomes wrong.
In our culture, it seems that tolerance can have a kind of “New Age” meaning. People who are religiously tolerant accept that everybody has a religion that works for them, and we should just let it go at that. They seem to think that religion does not matter, as long as it makes you happy. Based on this statement, it is pretty clear that this idea, when pursued too far, is ironically contradictory to the doctrines of most religions. Thus “religious tolerance” in extreme fashion actually contradicts most of the religions it claims to be tolerant towards.
Report comment to moderator
Pursing your conclusion to the end, are you not claiming that religion must, by its very nature, be intolerant.
Report comment to moderator
In our culture, it seems that tolerance can have a kind of “New Age” meaning. People who are religiously tolerant accept that everybody has a religion that works for them, and we should just let it go at that. They seem to think that religion does not matter, as long as it makes you happy. Based on this statement, it is pretty clear that this idea, when pursued too far, is ironically contradictory to the doctrines of most religions. Thus “religious tolerance” in extreme fashion actually contradicts most of the religions it claims to be tolerant towards.
I’m not sure if the term “New Age” is proper, because there is nothing new to this idea. Rather, it’s syncretic universalism. And you are right to note the connection between religious tolerance and such syncretism. If all roads lead to the same God, then it follows that all religions should be tolerated.
America’s key Founders, [Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin] not only believed religious rights belonged to all, but also likely believed that most or all world religions were valid ways to God.
Report comment to moderator
The politically correct want us to tolerate everyone. To which I say, “OK, I’m right and you’re wrong”. They answer and say, “Oh no, we can’t tolerate that position!”
Religious tolerance is tested in an age when a religion believes that anyone who does not conform must die. A false version of Christianity went through this in the past. A true version of Islam is going through this now.
Report comment to moderator
Intolerance is you getting along with your people. Tolerance is you getting along with my people. Love is taking care of people you trip over.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 20,
but I can juist as easily say that “Religious tolerance is tested in an age when a religion believes that anyone who does not conform must die. A [true] version of Christianity went through this in the past. A [false] version of Islam is going through this now.”, where I reverse true and false in your quote, and how would you objectively prove the difference?
Report comment to moderator
The politically correct want us to tolerate everyone. — Xion
Actually, judgmental authoritarianism is all the rage of fashion. Evangelicals are in touch with their inner drill sergeant. This always has been one of the threads of American evangelicalism. During the Second Great Awakening, middling farmers came to see their use of slaves as an exercise of godly authority. During the gilded age, Dwight L. Moody urged workers to submit to their bosses and work through the night if they couldn’t earn enough in 15-hour work days. Industrialists supported Moody handsomely. We saw the same thing in prohibition, in efforts to criminalize abortion, and in efforts to replace welfare checks with the compassion of soup kitchens. Nothing raises cheers and whistles like a smug put-down.
Report comment to moderator
#22 Easy, Musing. Simply read what the founder of each religion wrote and let us know what you find out.
Report comment to moderator
#23 True enough Scroop, but evangelicals are not politically correct. Secondly, I would agree with you about the history of the failures of Christians, but Christian failure is something other than Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 24,
so we of course have a founder problem here.
So let me start with Moses:
Numbers 21 [NIV]:
1 When the Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the Negev, heard that Israel was coming along the road to Atharim, he attacked the Israelites and captured some of them. 2 Then Israel made this vow to the LORD : “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy [a] their cities.” 3 The LORD listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah. [b]
There are of course other examples for the Pentateuch and other early books of the Bible.
So the founding of the Judaic-Christian tradition would appear to be grounded in violence to others.
There is a response, but the response has an obvious counter. I will have to get your opinion on when Moses lived, however.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — So the founding of the Judaic-Christian tradition would appear to be grounded in violence to others.
Roger — Grounded?
Report comment to moderator
roger post 27,
of course. the founding traditon of the Judao-Christian tradition would appear to be the Exodus and the conquering of Canaan. And often the command was to kill all of the opponents.
Now there is a valid response, but that itself would seem to lead to some contradictions.
So your response here?
Report comment to moderator
#26 Cute little dodge Musing. The founder of Christianity has the first few letters of Christianity in his name. Care to try again?
Report comment to moderator
xion post 29,
excellent. This is in fact my preferred answer, and one which I suspected you would lean towards.
So I agree completely.
But when you state this, yhou are also stating that the earlier Judaic tradition IS NOT part of the Christian basis and tradition.
I believe this is valid thoelogical position for a variety of reasons. It also decouples the Gospel message whcih I believe you have suggested under holographioc analysis is a mesage of love from the Old Testament which clearly has a sectarian and violent tinge to much of its material.
But just to be clear, here, does this mean you are letting go the Old Testament tradition as what you consider the foundation of Christinaity?
Of course you can insist that the Old Testament tradition is part of the foundation of Christinaity, and then I will reopen my argument.
Report comment to moderator
No. You Christianity was founded by Christ. Islam was founded by Muhammad. You are avoiding the subject, by arguing a different subject. You are trying to draw a moral equivalence between a man who said to love your neighbor and a highway bandit who said to torture them to death.
The question at hand is, “How does one tolerate religions that want to kill you?” No Jew or Christian could legitimately use the Bible to justify killing. It says, “Thou shalt not murder”. The Koran on the other hand says to torture non-Muslims to death.
How do we tolerate religions whose express purpose is to take over the world through violence? Pretending that a terrorist handbook is a manual for peace is not tolerance. It is ignorance.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 31,
actually xion, I was providing a forum for you to make your statement (which I at least partially agree with) WHILE NOTING that to take this position we must also acknowledge the Christianity has its roots in Jesus and not the Old Testament.
So I am willing to admit your point, but I suggest that your point means you must admit mine.
I suggest further, however, is that Islam’s primary challenge is not what was originally written, but rather it has difficulty in managing reinterpretations.
If you look carefully your key point arguably is that Jesus drastically reinterpreted Judaism to the point that, after assistance from Paul, it can be argued to have a new and different foundation.
I keep musing on how Islam woudl be able to manage such a change.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #32
Jesus and Paul and the rest of the disciples did drastically reinterpret Judaism, at least as the Jews saw it. However, from Jesus perspective, he was not reinterpreting, but revealing the whole purpose of the law. He came to fulfill the law, because it was all about him. Once he came, there is no more use for the law (Gal 3:25)
Over thousands of years, God revealed his intention to someday come to earth, in the flesh and make things right again. Over time, he prepared a People, a Place and a Point in time precisely when this would occur. He disclosed bits and pieces, through bizarre rituals and even horrifying judgments. But when the priest-king arrived, the anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ, the full message of God would be revealed.
God called Israel his vineyard (Isaiah 5, etc). The owner of a vineyard, can do whatever he wants with it. The plowing and preparation can be a violent and messy business. For plant lovers, weeding is akin to murder. Yet, the husbandman can do what he will.
To go back and say that the Creator of all things was in error, is the pot complaining to the potter. Can the potter not destroy some pots and remake others?
Practically all of the prophets complained of God’s sovereignty in judging Israel, especially with nations more wicked than they. Read Habakkuk and the rest.
So the answer is No. I do not disavow the Old Testament. The law was the preparation for grace. Without law to hold you accountable, grace becomes meaningless.
The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24). Canaan was conquered as a fulfillment to the promise to Abraham hundreds of years before it occurred (Gen 15:16) and as a judgment. If the sentence of death passed upon all mankind as the result of Adam’s sin, then no one can claim that God is being unfair in judging whomever he will.
But you cannot use a limited war for a limited time to fulfill a specific prophecy thousands of years ago as an argument that modern Judaism and therefore Christianity is rooted in violence. The law itself said, “Thou shalt not murder”. Islam on the other hand, not only says to murder, but to torture people to death to please God. This is nothing short of the doctrine of devils.
There are plenty of people throughout history that criticized the Lord of Hosts. Read the prophets. Yet, Job who had perhaps the greatest case against God of anyone, repented in dust and ashes when the Almighty appeared to him. God’s goodness and holiness is deadly. You might impugn God for creating hell, but that would mean you understand neither goodness nor justice.
Letting the unjust into heaven would be unjust, which God cannot be. Instead, he demonstrated his love for his creation by taking the punishment upon himself. In the end, he retains his justice and goodness, but also demonstrates his love and mercy.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 33,
buf of course I do not ask yu disavow the Old Testament. It exists and as you note was the fabric on which Jesus began his teachings.
But I do believe that you have the following logical issue. Either:
1) the Old Testament is foundationally key to Chrtistinaity and hence violence is indeed part of the initial Christian tradition
OR
2) Jesus is foundational to Christianity and the Old Testament, while providing perhaps background, it not foundational to Christianity. And of course under this model, the deep religious significance of the Old Testament would be depreciated
I don’t believe you can provide a logically consistent argument both ways: the Old Testament is foundational to Christianity BUT the violence of the Old Testamenty is not Foundational to Christianity.
But perhaps you have a syllogism whcih allows accepting both ideas simultaneouly.
Report comment to moderator
#34 The Old Testament is a teaching tool and illustration written not with pen and ink, but with the lives of men. Just as a chemistry class teaches you chemistry, the law of Moses teaches us about the bitterly harsh reality of sin and justice. But having taught us the lesson, God turns all of the violence of justice upon himself demonstrating divine love for the undeserving.
You are having trouble with two points: incremental revelation and the sovereignty of an all powerful creator who has a right to create or destroy whomever he will.
The Old Testament contains violence. Circumcision is violent. Childbirth is violent. Sacrificing animals is violent. Capital punishment is violent. War is violent. Keeping civil peace can be violent. Even eating chicken is violent.
But the Old Testament also says, “Thou shalt not murder”. It also condones capital punishment and just war. Obviously, there is a distinction here.
Such things may be harsh to our modern sensitive ears, especially to those who can’t abide a creator who has the right to create and destroy. But none of this can be interpreted to justify random acts of violence.
God has granted government the right to bear the sword for both the purpose of justice and keeping the peace. That is quite different than robbing camel trains and assassinating people who disagree with you.
Report comment to moderator
#35
I don’t think the Bible is inerrant. I think it is a book of myths. I don’t think at any point in ancient history people consciously thought, “I am speaking and writing a myth,” but they did adjust and fine tune stories to make them better and the process over generations added up to quite a bit of adjusting.
(In recent times, it’s easier to see the process of conscious myth in the case of people such as Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard, though in their cases, they were so successful I suspect after a while they began to believe in their own myths, and it was quite a surprise to them, so to speak, when they actually died just like ordinary people do.)
Myth making is very powerful and self sustaining because it often works very well for people with power. At an early stage in history, it became apparent to kings and priests that using myths to support each other and to maintain power was an effective way to go.
As I also don’t believe in that “absolute moral laws” exist in the same way as absolute physical laws, our ideas and values about morality change.
Just as the word “feminist” agitates people here (and a few strong evangelical women here found my joke about calling them “thatchers” more tolerable), the word “evolve” agitates people. Evolve means to change to meet conditions. Biological life forms evolve; cultures and societies evolve. Evolve doesn’t mean change for the better or worse in a moral sense; it just means change to meet some condition or competition.
The frequent allegation around here that relativism may lead to terrible things is correct and is not a proof that absolute values exist. I’ve argued on TJ’s blog (and he was irritated by the phrase) that Judeo-Christianity is a “virtuous swindle.”
I understand the irritation, but I haven’t thought of a better concise phrase. “Swindle” implies a calculated deceit in one generation. I think of a system of thinking and belief that grew up slowly over many generations and produced many results that helped sustain it.
It is still evolving before our eyes (while denying it is changing).
Whether the changes from the evolution are for the “better” or the “worse” indicates the varying mileage.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — of course. the founding traditon of the Judao-Christian tradition would appear to be the Exodus and the conquering of Canaan. And often the command was to kill all of the opponents.
Roger — But does this make violence the FOUNDATION of Judaism? In Genesis 15, God promises Abraham the land of Canaan. During that discussion, God points out that his descendants would live as servants in another land (Egypt) for over 400 years. Once the time was up, he promised to bring them to the land then because “the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” In other words, God was giving the Amorite 400 years to repent and change their ways.
This shows the patience of God and the fact that he is slow to judgment waiting for people to repent. The violence you cited is not the foundation of Judaism, but God’s judgment against a people who continued to worship false gods.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 37,
excellent.
Good then it has taken, I suggest, using traditional dates perhaps 2600 years for Christianity to truky intergate its message of peace.
Islam is perhaps 1400 years old.
It would seem we need to give Islam 1200 more years.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 35,
but of course Islam forbids murder.
So I do like hhow you are making a nice correlation between Islam and Christianity in terms of violence.
Further, see my note to roger: Islam deserves perhaps 1200 more years of development.
You do seem to rejecting your post 24.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 37,
now are you arguing that the Exodus as traditonally understood was an objective fact?
On what do you base this model.
I have about a 9 bilion pound problem with the Exodus as traditionally understood (I have posted this material earlier).
Report comment to moderator
random name post,
so I will start at the top of your post.
It is not that you don’t think the Bible is inerrant.
If we examine the objective statements of the Bible, depending on the statement, some of these statements can be explicitly demonsatrated to be untrue, at least as traditionally understood.
The Old Testment appears to have more objectively falsified statements than the New Testament, but both suffer from this issue, and each objectvie statement must be evaluated on its own, and verfied based on externall data.
Hence my argument regardiong the Exodus which is fairly straighforward.
One has I suggest three general approaches:
1) doing more refined and sophisticated analyses of the Bible top understand the Bible in such a way that there is no inconsistency: this appears to be the approach of Mr. Meaner
2) accept that the Bible is not inerrant on objective facts
3) exercise apologetics in various forms to covince oneself that there is no contradiction: such apolgetics tend not to convince the skeptic, given that the logic may often be tortured, but it does appear to satisfy certain froms of Bible belief
Since the logical structure in approach 3 is generally considered strained from a logical perspective (see post 915 in the Creartionism discussion), logical discussion as usually understood is usually restricted to approaches 1 and 2.
And I suggest that approach 1 also strains under the logical challenges, but I will hold my judgement on this point pending more data form Mr. Meaner.
In short, unless one is as skilled as Mr. Meaner, the only feasible approach for the normal person to personally interpret the Bible in a logical manner would appear to be approach 2.
And if we use approach 2 for objective facts then, from my perspective, fortunately we will probably also have to accept approach 2 for moral interpretations of the Bible as well.
Report comment to moderator
roger/random/xion,
so lets put the Exodus issue on the table.
The traditional Exodus narrative suugests that the Exodus was:
1) 600,000 men (plus women and children: we will restrict ourselves to just the men)
2) for 40 years
3) in the Sinai
4) betwen perhaps 1400 BCE to 1250 BCE (depending on whether yo accept an early or late Exodus model)
Now a person with a wood fire for normal living will leave behind perhaps 1 pound of charcoal per day (I actually haver observatios on this point: I backpaCK a lot).
And charcoal has the wonderful characteristics that it does not naturally degrade and it is very easily dated.
So the traditional Exodus would suggest that we should find:
1 X 600,000 X 365 X 40 = 8.76 billion pounds of charcoal in a relatviely constrained area DATING FROM BETWEEN 1400 bce TO 1250 bce.
And of course this charcoa has not been found.
And even if I am off in my estimate by a factro of 10X it is still a large amount.
And when I add back in the women and children, the amount goes up.
So again, where is the charcoal.
And it would appear that the Exodus as traiditonally uinderstood is essentially impossible to have occurred.
Xion/roger: your responses?
Report comment to moderator
And now back to xion’s observation on the foundation of Christinaity.
If, as roger apparently suggests, the Exodus is intial foundation of Christianity, then I look forward to roger’s explanation of how what is nearly certainly a myth (I am awaiting evidence to the contrary) is the foundation of Christianity.
Of course if one is Jewish, the question is even more challenging.
And of course my model with Jesus being the foundation of Christianity resolves the Exodus challenge and the violence of the Old Testament reasonably smoothly.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!