Comments on: Higher Truth http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:29:01 +0000 By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html#comment-2728 Philip Thomas Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:27:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html#comment-2728 Far as I know, they still do, at least in theory. Well as recently as C.S.Lewis anyway, I haven't read many modern Christian writings. What's ironic is that the believers themselves have often not studied scripture or thought about the deep questions of life very much, cocooned in a shell of comforting beleifs. Thinking outside the box was punishable by death in the Middle Ages... Far as I know, they still do, at least in theory. Well as recently as C.S.Lewis anyway, I haven't read many modern Christian writings.

What's ironic is that the believers themselves have often not studied scripture or thought about the deep questions of life very much, cocooned in a shell of comforting beleifs. Thinking outside the box was punishable by death in the Middle Ages...

]]> By: Void http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html#comment-2726 Void Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:14:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html#comment-2726 Didn't the christians value humillity? Didn't the christians value humillity?

]]> By: andrea http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html#comment-1092 andrea Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:20:19 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/higher-truth.html#comment-1092 This reminds me of the usual response from a theist when I show that their various holy books are flawed. You get the excuse "you aren't taking in in "context", quickly discarded as soon as you mention you know the historical/cultural context, to be replaced by "you can't understand the book unless you are already a believer". The pure chicken/egg nonsense of this is astounding. And what's even funnier is makes all religions "mystery" cults. You only have the "secret" understanding if it's magically given to you. This reminds me of the usual response from a theist when I show that their various holy books are flawed. You get the excuse "you aren't taking in in "context", quickly discarded as soon as you mention you know the historical/cultural context, to be replaced by "you can't understand the book unless you are already a believer". The pure chicken/egg nonsense of this is astounding. And what's even funnier is makes all religions "mystery" cults. You only have the "secret" understanding if it's magically given to you.

]]>