I watched them back to back. Monty's great too!
Radical, I, a Christian, freely concede the absurdities of Christianity, when examined from a declarative reading of the text. Yikers!
However you used the phrase "properly examined," which, correct me if I'm wrong, makes it sound like you stand on privileged ground to do that examining.
Sex could be described as an absurd exercise in friction, when examined from a detached point of view by ETs, but perhaps those actually engaging in it would understand it better.
Christianity is not one monolithic thing, any more than the New Age is one definable thing, though people looking in from the outside like to go off on them both as if they were one thing.
The fact that some Christians handle snakes does not reflect on the faith of Thomas Berry. The fact that some New Age people wear tin foil hats does not make all psi research invalid. I could throw in a few Latin names for logical fallacies there, ya know?
Alfred North Whitehead credits Christianity for setting up the conditions in which science eventually flourished.
But, like Adam, I've had my strong feelings about religion too--in my case Christianity (think Lt. Dan shaking his fist at the sky in the storm on the mast of Forest, Forest Gump's shrimp boat), so, you know, I'm pretty tolerant of people needing to get things out.
A few years ago, when I first read Martin Luther's "Dirty Little Book" about the Jews I was enraged and outraged. I got on a forum and just ripped him--said I couldn't consider myself a Christian, etc., etc.
Well, someone got on and boxed my ears pretty good. Said, "Woman, you have no sense of the scope of history!"
Well, I thought about that for a long time, and I finally decided he was right.
So, how's your sense of the scope of history, Radical? Are you standing on privileged ground to write off the religion on which Western Culture is founded, along with all its sages, saints and scholars?
How old did you say you are?