I really would like to know how so much changed in only 50 years.

The better question is why for some time now many critics of Christianity have accepted as typical of the whole factions which would not be so accepted were they speaking for environmentalism or “progressivism.” Ignorance would do for an explanation, of course, but I suspect those critics simply find slaying straw men safer and easier then engaging properly-armed opponents. This does not make them wrong on the broader issue, but it does make them ineffectual.

It is the responsibility of the critic to distinguish the failings of an individual from the faults of a faction, and those from problems which are inherent in a movement. The deficiencies of James Earl Carter or even of the Congress of the United States do not refute democracy.

But if the test of the critic is knowing and honestly describing what it is he criticises, the test of a movement is how far someone can go and still escape criticism because “he’s one of ours.”

Another day for that one.

I can’t say I read much atheist literature at Christmas or at any other time, but I have frequently noticed people attributing to me (or other Christians) beliefs that aren’t mine, and in some cases aren’t those of anyone else I know, or possibly totally contrary to most Christian ideas. I mean, I know there’s a fairly broad range of Christian beliefs out there when you consider all the little breakaway sects and quarrelsome schismatics or near-schismatics and the lamentable lack of religious education of some adherents, but sometimes the stuff people come up with about Christianity are really bizarre.

Leaving aside the small minority (I assume) who are setting up straw men, I suspect a lack of theological education is the problem. Most people have difficulty trying to put themselves mentally in the position of someone they disagree with thoroughly, and it takes a bit of time and effort to work your way through what’s actually being taught and the theological implications thereof. A lot of people who are actually churchgoers don’t do it, so it’s not surprising that opponents don’t.

I think I just have an analytical turn of mind, as well as a lack of experience with and knowledge of folk Protestantism (well, unless you count one or two rather odd discussions about dinosaurs and how actually attending church should be determined by what you got out of it and how you felt about it). If someone is saying something about the Old Testament or bits of it applying or not applying today, I like to read up on what people have been saying about the place the Law should have in a Christian way of life. It never occurred to me (until I read people claiming that it should) that I should take every single law in the Old Testament literally, because nothing I read or heard indicated that. What I read was more along the lines of the meaning of the word ‘murder’ or ‘killing’ than on following ritual laws that hardly any Christian in history has obeyed.