I think it takes an amazing disregard for evidence to hold on to being a Christian. We're not really talking about deep mysteries of the universe here. The Christian myth is so obviously false to anyone who takes an even casual look at the historical evidence.

So how is it that the human mind, while being so good at reasoning in one sphere, can be so easily defeated in another.

I have nothing against the culture or ethics of Christianity or Christians. I was raised and hold dear those ethical teachings, myself (well, some of them). It's just that it's historical myths are so obviously false - it literally does baffle me that their belief is still so pervasive in Western society (actually, much more in the US than European society).

> The Christian myth is so obviously false to anyone who takes an even casual look at the historical evidence.

Could you elaborate on that a bit? My first instinct would be to assume you are talking about Jesus rising from the dead, but your words seem intentionally more general.

Professor Ehrman's works have been helpful to me in learning more about the historical context of Chritianity and the Church. He has some excellent videos from The Learning Company as well as several books on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

It's pretty easy to realize that all the miraculous tales from the bible are false - unless you've been indoctrinated since you were a child. Ehrman's works helped me to understand how the collection of ideas that became the Christian canon, were able to take root and spread.

The ideology is far from static and has evolved over time to address challenges to its validity and acceptance. I find the history of Christian thought to be a far more interesting topic than Christianity itself.

In understanding the malleability of Christian beliefs over time, it establishes that the roots were not handed down from God and set in stone, but fit nicely into into a very human framework of an adoption of a set of memes that have evolved and become institutionalized over time.

This is only thinly related, since I'm pretty sure Larry Wall isn't a deist, but it's always interesting to note that a number of the people involved in the United States inception didn't believe in Christianity in the way a lot of Christians think they do. For instance, Thomas Jefferson's edit of the bible (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

a copy of the text: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html

I think if you read the article, you have to come to the conclusion that Wall is a diest.

"Wall is also a serious evangelical Christian, a member (and webmaster) of the New Life Church's Cupertino Church of the Nazarene."

as well as some of his direct quotes in the interview.

I fail to see how the article, and particularly that quote in any way peg Wall as a Deist. Or were you rather arguing that he is a theist (not a Deist)? Deism and Evangelical Christianity aren't even close to the same thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[edited to put in a needed question mark]

My bad. You were right about my mistake. Thanks for the link ... I have idea if Wall falls into this category - seems unlikely.

I'm really only vaguely familiar with Deism. I encounter most of this sort of thing second-hand from a friend of mine who is fascinated with all manner of religions. We both grew up in the same church, so we talk sometimes.

I just didn't want to slap that label on him without knowing. Seems like you're ahead of me on that curve, heh