What Topics Do Christians Like To Discuss?

[R. S. Martin]

I'm posting this in the Colesseum mainly so it will be civil and safe for Christians (and nonChristians) to speak openly. More about this below.

 

I am puzzled as to why it is so hard to find topics of religion that interest both Christians and nonChristians. For example, mathgeek posted a thread in here asking specifically for Christian input but after nearly a week none had responded.

 

I notice that the topics Christians tend to want to discuss with apostates are about conversion. The topics exChristians want to discuss with Christians tend to concern inconsistencies with religion. Given that we deconverted for very good reasons, it is well nigh impossible to find topics about religion that do not concern inconsistencies of religion in some way. On the side of the Christians, given that their religion dictates that we are going to burn (unless we repent), and that as watchers on the walls of Zion it is their responsibility to warn us of our fate, it is practically impossible not to bring any topic on religion around to bear on conversion.

 

That said, I know it is possible for Christians and exChristians to peacefully and productively discuss scripture and theology. I know this because I am a student of theology at a seminary. I have been working off-campus for the best part of a year now, but I sat in class for eight months after my deconversion. I still meet with my professor. He knows my position and I know his. We can talk openly and calmly about how our respective positions impact the various topics of discussion.

 

One thing I like to get out of a discussion is to better understand the other person's position. I like to know why they think as they do. Often Christians tell me, "You seem to have made up your mind so it's not worth talking with you." That feels to me like a slap in the face. Of course I know what I believe! Does that deprive me of the right to conversation? I am always on the look-out for more information. How can I learn what individual Christians believe if they refuse to engage me in conversation?

 

I promised to say more about civil conversation. Disagreement is okay but name-calling is not. Nor is it okay to imply anyone is stupid. I say this hoping I can live up to my own standards here. People should be prepared to explain why they believe as they do and to provide evidence for their beliefs. For example, saying "God told me" is not acceptable, but providing a reference in the Bible could be acceptable depending on the situation. Likewise, a nonChristian should be prepared to explain why something makes sense/is logical or does not make sense/is not logical. In other words, show the cause and effect of the situation, as opposed to saying "X makes sense but Y does not make sense."

[florduh]

Well, I have tried in vain for a while in various places to get some input on a question, but no takers. I am interested in a believer response to this:

 

Through the church's history, official and generally accepted beliefs have included such ideas as the flat Earth, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that there exist witches who have pacts with the Devil and must therefore be executed in some grisly fashion. These and other concepts have been abandoned by Christendom. Why? The verses that caused these ideas to prevail at one time are still in the Bible. Why have they come to be ignored or totally re-interpreted to not mean what they say? Could one reason be that scientific discovery has provided irrefutable evidence that these concepts are invalid? Is it possible that eventually, due to scientific discovery, evolution will be accepted by even fundamentalists?

 

Many say they believe the Bible is the complete, true, and perfect word of God, but nobody lives and acts accordingly. Christians used to behave in accordance with the literal word, but today, those who claim a literal interpretation do not live by it. I'm genuinely curious for thoughts on how the religion has changed (evolved?) over time. The written words haven't changed, but the followers have.

 

I think that's the kind of discussion that could provide some insights for both "sides." I have yet to ever get any responses other than "we now understand better the New Covenant," or "Jesus is Lord and that's all I need to know," or "God said it, I believe it." I don't point out Biblical errors, or ask them to change; I just want to know why THEY think their religion has changed so much over time. Other than in an academic setting, I feel it may be impossible to have meaningful dialog. Maybe I'm just asking irrelevant and stupid questions.

 

- Chris

[Kratos]

I have expressed my willingness to answer any questions honestly as to what I believe and my willingness to enter into a civil discourse with anyone as long as it is respectful. At the same time, like everyone else, I do not automatically answer questions just thrown out to any Christians if the question has no interest for me because I have no opinion or revelation on that subject.

 

For example, I read what Mathgeek wrote, but since it was general and I had "no dog in that fight", I decided to pass. I have no revelation on predators becoming omnivores or herbivores and do not know if this is to be taken literally or if it is just poetic language for a time when peace rules the earth. Also, I have never heard of Ken Hamm and see no reason to believe that since 1+1 always equals 2 that this proves the existence of God. Maybe I just do not get the question, but I will not just jump in if I have no opinion to add to the discussion.

 

Concerning Florduh's question about Biblical interpretation, this just demonstrates to me God's original purpose for man to be made in His image and likeness is coming to pass gradually. I guess you could say that man is spiritually evolving and I see this as a good thing and completely natural as all things that are alive grow up. We Christians see the Biblical interpretations that gave birth to witch burnings and Crusades and the Inquisition and flat earth or young earth theory just as seriously flawed as you do. The difference is it does not mean to us that the Bible does not contain truth. I look at it like seeing how a child in first grade sees math compared to how we see it in college. The first grader is not wrong, but just immature in their understanding. Paul said that when he was a child, he thought as a child and believed as a child, but when he bacame a man, he put away childish things. The infant church had a lot of silly superstitions and fears and customs that twisted their way of understanding what God was trying to say. I am sure a couple of hundred years from now the way we see things today will seem equally childish. But I do believe that we are being conformed into His image through Christ.

 

John

[sojourner]

Hi Ruby

 

What topics do I like to discuss? Wow, that is a hard question. I usually just read along and when something jumps out at me I respond. But I dont have certain topics that I gravitate towards I dont think, have to think on that.

 

I love topics that cause me to really dig and think but most often I have little to offer on them so I just read.

 

For the last two days I have been rereading the Bhagavad-Gita. Wow I love that book. How inspirational it is to me. When I read it I hear scriptures that Im familiar with too. For there is such similarities in so much. That I suppose is a current topic for me of interest, interfaith communication.

 

anyways, just wanted to say hi and let you know where I am and how when Im silent its not that I dont find much in what I read but that I have nothing to offer back.

 

sojourner

[Alice]

Sojourner,

 

this is one of the reasons I like you so much - the fact that you are drawn to subjects that have you think deeply.

 

Ruby,

 

I have found that generally the Christians I find frustrating are those who want to battle ... those convinced of the 'fight' ... and who believe that they have come here to try and rescue us ...

 

Some days I want to think deeply, only occasionally do I want to have a 'fight'.

 

There definitely seems to be a mismatch in terms of the number of christians who come here to save us and those who come here to think deeply and listen to others thinking deeply back.

 

However this doesn't explain 'why' more christians seem to think this way.

[hereticzero]

I think one reason many churches are disregarding many aspects of the babble is because over time these stories that are no longer taught are slowly losing believers in those stories. Now, today, believers go for jesus because he seems less threatening than the OT teachings. The books are 'newer' and because it is the 'new covenant', christians have a tendancy to teach only the NT doctrine. I remember growing up in Sunday School and being taught that Christians did not need the OT because we now had Jesus which made the OT moot cuz we got a new covenant along with Jesus that saves us from the law of the OT. Goody! There is one fatal flaw in that idea, well several but I'll stick to one. That flaw is that the story from which Jesus sprang is directly attributed to the fall of man in the garden of eden, Adam and Eve, the talking snake and all. No matter how the bible is divided and taught, Christians cannot get away from the thing with the talking snake. The first Adam brought sin and separation into the world, the second Adam saved us--the second Adam being Jesus Christ. To kill the snake in the garden, by not believing the story, is to kill the purpose of the second Adam. And the whole concept of God's saving grace to save us from god's curse upon man for the fall from grace, for eating produce, has no meaning without the story of the fall from grace.

[Grandpa Harley]

To me, Christianity is a failed trek up the Maslov Pyramid...

[florduh]

Concerning Florduh's question about Biblical interpretation, this just demonstrates to me God's original purpose for man to be made in His image and likeness is coming to pass gradually. I guess you could say that man is spiritually evolving and I see this as a good thing and completely natural as all things that are alive grow up. We Christians see the Biblical interpretations that gave birth to witch burnings and Crusades and the Inquisition and flat earth or young earth theory just as seriously flawed as you do. The difference is it does not mean to us that the Bible does not contain truth. I look at it like seeing how a child in first grade sees math compared to how we see it in college. The first grader is not wrong, but just immature in their understanding. Paul said that when he was a child, he thought as a child and believed as a child, but when he bacame a man, he put away childish things. The infant church had a lot of silly superstitions and fears and customs that twisted their way of understanding what God was trying to say. I am sure a couple of hundred years from now the way we see things today will seem equally childish. But I do believe that we are being conformed into His image through Christ.

 

John

 

 

Thank you for your reply. I am not arguing with anyone on this topic. I have my opinion of why dogma has changed so radically over time, but I wonder how those who have remained believers explain it. You, Kratos, are the first to give any answer to this question.

 

- Chris

[R. S. Martin]

I have expressed my willingness to answer any questions honestly as to what I believe and my willingness to enter into a civil discourse with anyone as long as it is respectful. At the same time, like everyone else, I do not automatically answer questions just thrown out to any Christians if the question has no interest for me because I have no opinion or revelation on that subject.

 

For example, I read what Mathgeek wrote, but since it was general and I had "no dog in that fight", I decided to pass. I have no revelation on predators becoming omnivores or herbivores and do not know if this is to be taken literally or if it is just poetic language for a time when peace rules the earth. Also, I have never heard of Ken Hamm and see no reason to believe that since 1+1 always equals 2 that this proves the existence of God. Maybe I just do not get the question, but I will not just jump in if I have no opinion to add to the discussion.

 

Kratos, thank you for your well-thought-out response. I have a few comments:

 

1. I disagree that talking only when one has an established opinion is a good way to develop relationships. It gives off the impression of arrogance and nobody feels comfortable around that kind of attitude.

 

2. Your second paragraph would be a perfectly good answer for Mathgeek's question so far as I understand things. It lets us know that: 1) you saw the question, 2) you consider us worth your time of day and respectful dialogue, and 3) you don't have all the answers, either. Those items go a very long way in establishing good relationships.

 

Why do I emphasize relationship-building so much? In a land as seriously divided by religious differences as North America, and where exChristians are hated by all, I think the need for a way to relate peacefully across religious lines is extremely high. Othewise, it leads to our generation's version of witch-burnings.

[Kratos]

Ruby,

 

Thank you for your instruction as relationships are definately not my strength. I will try to post if nothing more an "I don't know" answer so others will know that I am respectful of them and their questions.

 

John

[ogilvy]

Well, I have tried in vain for a while in various places to get some input on a question, but no takers. I am interested in a believer response to this:

 

Through the church's history, official and generally accepted beliefs have included such ideas as the flat Earth, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that there exist witches who have pacts with the Devil and must therefore be executed in some grisly fashion. These and other concepts have been abandoned by Christendom. Why? The verses that caused these ideas to prevail at one time are still in the Bible. Why have they come to be ignored or totally re-interpreted to not mean what they say? Could one reason be that scientific discovery has provided irrefutable evidence that these concepts are invalid? Is it possible that eventually, due to scientific discovery, evolution will be accepted by even fundamentalists?

 

Many say they believe the Bible is the complete, true, and perfect word of God, but nobody lives and acts accordingly. Christians used to behave in accordance with the literal word, but today, those who claim a literal interpretation do not live by it. I'm genuinely curious for thoughts on how the religion has changed (evolved?) over time. The written words haven't changed, but the followers have.

 

I think that's the kind of discussion that could provide some insights for both "sides." I have yet to ever get any responses other than "we now understand better the New Covenant," or "Jesus is Lord and that's all I need to know," or "God said it, I believe it." I don't point out Biblical errors, or ask them to change; I just want to know why THEY think their religion has changed so much over time. Other than in an academic setting, I feel it may be impossible to have meaningful dialog. Maybe I'm just asking irrelevant and stupid questions.

 

- Chris

i have the idea that its because in the days of the early church, people who converted were actually supernaturally born again. they repented, believed (maybe in reverse order), and they changed dramatically, so that Christ was everything to them. i think that these days maybe a lot of Christians are not really born again in that same way. i dont know why, but i dont think they could be, or things would be different. i dont really think the HOly Spirit is directing the church any more, because mostly christians are not co mpletely 'surrendered' to the Lord the way the apostles and early believers and martyrs were. i know this is gross generalization, but its just my guess, and i think there's something in it, although i cant prove it or maybe even explain it properly.

[ogilvy]

Well, I have tried in vain for a while in various places to get some input on a question, but no takers. I am interested in a believer response to this:

 

Through the church's history, official and generally accepted beliefs have included such ideas as the flat Earth, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that there exist witches who have pacts with the Devil and must therefore be executed in some grisly fashion. These and other concepts have been abandoned by Christendom. Why? The verses that caused these ideas to prevail at one time are still in the Bible. Why have they come to be ignored or totally re-interpreted to not mean what they say? Could one reason be that scientific discovery has provided irrefutable evidence that these concepts are invalid? Is it possible that eventually, due to scientific discovery, evolution will be accepted by even fundamentalists?

 

Many say they believe the Bible is the complete, true, and perfect word of God, but nobody lives and acts accordingly. Christians used to behave in accordance with the literal word, but today, those who claim a literal interpretation do not live by it. I'm genuinely curious for thoughts on how the religion has changed (evolved?) over time. The written words haven't changed, but the followers have.

 

I think that's the kind of discussion that could provide some insights for both "sides." I have yet to ever get any responses other than "we now understand better the New Covenant," or "Jesus is Lord and that's all I need to know," or "God said it, I believe it." I don't point out Biblical errors, or ask them to change; I just want to know why THEY think their religion has changed so much over time. Other than in an academic setting, I feel it may be impossible to have meaningful dialog. Maybe I'm just asking irrelevant and stupid questions.

 

- Chris

[Grandpa Harley]

I think your assessment of the early church is, perhaps, a little too supernatural and rosy. The early Christian sects had no qualms about killing each other and ratting each other out to the Empire...

[ogilvy]

I think your assessment of the early church is, perhaps, a little too supernatural and rosy. The early Christian sects had no qualms about killing each other and ratting each other out to the Empire...

i'm basing on the book of Acts. maybe the book of acts is too superficial and rosy.

[Grandpa Harley]

You think Ananias and Sapphia were really killed by God for not stumping up the cash they'd 'offered'? Oh boy...

 

and I did mean 'supernatural', not superficial... but that works too

[upstarter]

To me, Christianity is a failed trek up the Maslov Pyramid...

 

Ah, yet another opportunity to sit at the feet of Grandpa Harley and learn. Please tell us about the Maslov Pyramid and how it relates to this "failed trek".

 

Heather

[florduh]

Well, I have tried in vain for a while in various places to get some input on a question, but no takers. I am interested in a believer response to this:

 

Through the church's history, official and generally accepted beliefs have included such ideas as the flat Earth, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that there exist witches who have pacts with the Devil and must therefore be executed in some grisly fashion. These and other concepts have been abandoned by Christendom. Why? The verses that caused these ideas to prevail at one time are still in the Bible. Why have they come to be ignored or totally re-interpreted to not mean what they say? Could one reason be that scientific discovery has provided irrefutable evidence that these concepts are invalid? Is it possible that eventually, due to scientific discovery, evolution will be accepted by even fundamentalists?

 

Many say they believe the Bible is the complete, true, and perfect word of God, but nobody lives and acts accordingly. Christians used to behave in accordance with the literal word, but today, those who claim a literal interpretation do not live by it. I'm genuinely curious for thoughts on how the religion has changed (evolved?) over time. The written words haven't changed, but the followers have.

 

I think that's the kind of discussion that could provide some insights for both "sides." I have yet to ever get any responses other than "we now understand better the New Covenant," or "Jesus is Lord and that's all I need to know," or "God said it, I believe it." I don't point out Biblical errors, or ask them to change; I just want to know why THEY think their religion has changed so much over time. Other than in an academic setting, I feel it may be impossible to have meaningful dialog. Maybe I'm just asking irrelevant and stupid questions.

 

- Chris

i have the idea that its because in the days of the early church, people who converted were actually supernaturally born again. they repented, believed (maybe in reverse order), and they changed dramatically, so that Christ was everything to them. i think that these days maybe a lot of Christians are not really born again in that same way. i dont know why, but i dont think they could be, or things would be different. i dont really think the HOly Spirit is directing the church any more, because mostly christians are not co mpletely 'surrendered' to the Lord the way the apostles and early believers and martyrs were. i know this is gross generalization, but its just my guess, and i think there's something in it, although i cant prove it or maybe even explain it properly.

 

Confusion unintended. I was trying to comment in the context of my question on official and popular interpretation. I don't think any Christian at any time led a perfect life according to the book. But they all thought the Earth was flat because the book said so. They thought the Sun revolved around us, etc., etc. What has changed is their world view, and that is of interest to me because I can still see verses about witches, a flat world, etc. No, I don't see the early followers being any more Christ-like than the current crop, human nature being what it is. But dammit - the Bible says the Earth is flat and there are witches consorting with devils who need killing and nobody is paying attention any more!

 

- Chris

[The-Captain]

To me, Christianity is a failed trek up the Maslov Pyramid...

 

Ah, yet another opportunity to sit at the feet of Grandpa Harley and learn. Please tell us about the Maslov Pyramid and how it relates to this "failed trek".

 

Heather

 

Abraham Maslow, humanist psychologist. As far as I know his pyramid is his idea of the process of self actualization (being a good chap). Starting with low morality and base needs, as a persons needs (physical,emotional,social,philosophical,ethical) are met they become better and kinder to others in return. A self actualized person would be your Ghandis, Mother Theresa's, Thomas Jeffersons etc, people that have moved beyond themselves. At least thats as I remember it, Im going by memory I think GH might explain it better.

 

Edit: wait he said "Maslov" now Im not sure what he was talking about....

[Grandpa Harley]

To me, Christianity is a failed trek up the Maslov Pyramid...

 

Ah, yet another opportunity to sit at the feet of Grandpa Harley and learn. Please tell us about the Maslov Pyramid and how it relates to this "failed trek".

 

Heather

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_Hierachy

 

Basically, Highest you ever are allowed to get is the bottom end of 'esteem'...

 

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby,

 

Thank you for your instruction as relationships are definately not my strength. I will try to post if nothing more an "I don't know" answer so others will know that I am respectful of them and their questions.

 

John

 

John, you will probably see my post to you on mathgeek's thread. I had not seen this post when I posted it. However, I guessed that maybe this is why you posted over there. Hopefully you will appreciate those instructions as well. Your perseverance in talking with us might prove to be good for all involved. That is why I went to some trouble to pull together some pointers on what might make it more enjoyable for you as well as for us.

[R. S. Martin]

To me, Christianity is a failed trek up the Maslov Pyramid...

 

Ah, yet another opportunity to sit at the feet of Grandpa Harley and learn. Please tell us about the Maslov Pyramid and how it relates to this "failed trek".

 

Heather

 

Abraham Maslow, humanist psychologist. As far as I know his pyramid is his idea of the process of self actualization (being a good chap). Starting with low morality and base needs, as a persons needs (physical,emotional,social,philosophical,ethical) are met they become better and kinder to others in return. A self actualized person would be your Ghandis, Mother Theresa's, Thomas Jeffersons etc, people that have moved beyond themselves. At least thats as I remember it, Im going by memory I think GH might explain it better.

 

Edit: wait he said "Maslov" now Im not sure what he was talking about....

 

 

I think you're right about who Maslow is but he was not about the moral compass. Abraham H. Maslow was about self-esteem. Morality is a product of self-esteem. The "pyramid" is also commonly known as "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs." A book that builds on it is "Healing The Child Within: Discovery and Recovery for Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families.

 

To be honest, I thought Gramps meant Pavlov Pyramid. I didn't know what the "pyramid" part of it meant--probably progresss or reaching for the sky kind of thing, but Pavlov was the Russian psychologist who experimented with dogs right about a hundred years ago. He would ring a bell when food was brought to the dogs in his lab and they would salivate. With time he got the dogs to salivate simply by ringing the bell even when no food was being brought. Trained automatic robotic responses.

 

This was a major breakthrough in psychology and Pavlov's name continues to be used in the popular literature as in "Pavlovian respnses." Somehow, I thought "Maslov" was a typo of Pavlov. My brain must have picked out the last part of the name and connected it with the psychologist element and presto! Pavlov. Christianity is an attempt to reach for the sky but it failed. It's a failed attempt up the Pavlov Pyramid. That is how I took it.

[The-Captain]

I think you're right about who Maslow is but he was not about the moral compass. Abraham H. Maslow was about self-esteem. Morality is a product of self-esteem. The "pyramid" is also commonly known as "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs." A book that builds on it is "Healing The Child Within: Discovery and Recovery for Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families.

 

To be honest, I thought Gramps meant Pavlov Pyramid. I didn't know what the "pyramid" part of it meant--probably progresss or reaching for the sky kind of thing, but Pavlov was the Russian psychologist who experimented with dogs right about a hundred years ago. He would ring a bell when food was brought to the dogs in his lab and they would salivate. With time he got the dogs to salivate simply by ringing the bell even when no food was being brought. Trained automatic robotic responses.

 

This was a major breakthrough in psychology and Pavlov's name continues to be used in the popular literature as in "Pavlovian respnses." Somehow, I thought "Maslov" was a typo of Pavlov. My brain must have picked out the last part of the name and connected it with the psychologist element and presto! Pavlov. Christianity is an attempt to reach for the sky but it failed. It's a failed attempt up the Pavlov Pyramid. That is how I took it.

 

Mayhap, I think the morality thing was more my own philosophy if not Maslow's. Kind of an expanded ideal of nurture and give respect to give respect. I tend to interject my own thinking into things if I cant remember what Ive read. Though, perhaps I remember wrong, the self actualized stage resulted in someone ready and capable of being moral, empathic and metacognate.

 

Yeah and I looked up Maslov too, for the hell of it, all I found was some russian racecar driver...bet his pyramid is more interesting though.

 

Edit: Sorry I forgot what section this was, I'll try to keep on topic.

[The-Captain]

Well as of right now I would have to say that IMO a "true" xian (as in a biblical literalist who takes that stuff serious) would have little to discuss with me. Mostly because by their text ,(with which they intend to live), they are automatically correct, I am wrong, reprobate, my mind is clouded by sin and I cannot understand their bible or religion b/c I lack the spirit. Furthermore all other religions are wrong and the only potential discussion about them include why they are wrong, how to convert them, or why they should be ignored. So if the xian is one of those types I obviously cant hold a civil conversation with one. Its not a conversation for them but some path to their inescapable conclusions, and they grow rather irritable when we dont all see it as such.

 

Yet on the other hand I really dont mind hearing what some of the ones on this site have to say, Kratos (not saying your one of the aforementioned) in particular has at least shown decorum and an open ear in his discussions. Whether I listen to them out of morbid fascination, or to be aware of how eerily like them I was is up for debate. But sometimes out of all this I do get something, if anything its an excercise in tolerance something much needed on both sides of the discussion.

 

I like what Ruby said before "Your perseverance in talking with us might prove to be good for all involved". Im of the same opinion, continued civil dialogue (even between opposing camps) are good for all involved. I like to see that there are rational minds on both sides and people willing to hear eachother out.

 

 

So to sum up rather childishly: Im not really sure but I do like talking and I think its probably a good thing

[R. S. Martin]

Basically, Highest you ever are allowed to get is the bottom end of 'esteem'...

 

Says who?

 

Hope you've got time to answer this, Gramps, because this statement has major implications for me. I have not yet stopped nor has anyone or anything stopped me. However I have many enemies who hate me with a passion for no obvious reason and who have rolled boulders of all sizes in my path. When I ask them why they hate me they have no answer.

 

However, so far back as I can remember, I have been "challenging projects, opportunties for innovation and creativity, learning and creating at a high level." Well, I don't know about the "high level" part but learning and creating and seeking knowledge. That is the core of who I am and I don't think it should be at the top of the pyramid.

 

My search for knowledge tends to be taken as challenges to authority because I do ask why the rules exist and what purpose they serve. Naturally, I do not hesitate to suggest better rules if someone complains that things aren't working good enough, or the removal of rules if that seems to better serve the common purpose.

 

Strangely, the very people I am trying to please tend to stare at me in wild-eyed horror when I do this type of thing.

 

Needless to say I no longer try to please anyone but myself.

 

But Gramps who says?

[The-Captain]

Basically, Highest you ever are allowed to get is the bottom end of 'esteem'...

 

Says who?

 

Hope you've got time to answer this, Gramps, because this statement has major implications for me. I have not yet stopped nor has anyone or anything stopped me. However I have many enemies who hate me with a passion for no obvious reason and who have rolled boulders of all sizes in my path. When I ask them why they hate me they have no answer.

 

However, so far back as I can remember, I have been "challenging projects, opportunties for innovation and creativity, learning and creating at a high level." Well, I don't know about the "high level" part but learning and creating and seeking knowledge. That is the core of who I am and I don't think it should be at the top of the pyramid.

 

My search for knowledge tends to be taken as challenges to authority because I do ask why the rules exist and what purpose they serve. Naturally, I do not hesitate to suggest better rules if someone complains that things aren't working good enough, or the removal of rules if that seems to better serve the common purpose.

 

Strangely, the very people I am trying to please tend to stare at me in wild-eyed horror when I do this type of thing.

 

Needless to say I no longer try to please anyone but myself.

 

But Gramps who says?

 

Not to answer for him, but I think he meant that was as high as xianity allowed. He was elaborating on his "xianity is a failed trek up the pyramid" statement.