Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Re: More JRRT items

Expand Messages
  • WendellWag@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/26/2001 4:53:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... I wouldn t call the U.S. an unchurched population. There s some argument among
    Message 1 of 42 , Dec 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/26/2001 4:53:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      chowlett@... writes:


      > While the United States
      > is considered a very religious and specifically Christian population (with
      > apologies to all minorities), it is a fairly unchurched population, so a
      > small number of people can seem to talk for a lot of folk who aren't in the
      > conversation at all -- and don't even know there's a conversation going on.
      >

      I wouldn't call the U.S. an unchurched population. There's some argument
      among sociologists about what proportion of the U.S. population goes to
      church in any single week - evidence varies between 20% and 40%. In any
      case, it's way more than many other countries and, if we eliminate countries
      with a single religion that everyone must belong to, it's one of the highest
      proportions in the world. What the U.S. isn't is a country with a lot of
      people with detailed, specific Biblical knowledge. The proportion of people
      regularly attending church hasn't changed that much, but the general
      knowledge of people about the Bible has. What's really surprising is that
      quite a few of the people who say that they hew to an absolute literal
      interpretation of the Bible don't actually know that much about the Bible.
      This is why it's hard to argue with these people by telling them that they
      should read the Harry Potter books before they comment on them. These are
      people who take their interpretation of the Bible from other people, so it's
      natural for them to take their interpretation of the Harry Potter books from
      other people.

      Wendell Wagner


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • WendellWag@aol.com
      In a message dated 12/31/2001 12:12:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Thanks for the suggestion, but I ve never used brackets in my messages. I use AOL 7.0 and
      Message 42 of 42 , Dec 31, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/31/2001 12:12:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
        Stolzi@... writes:


        > Could you have enclosed the quoted words in brackets <> causing AOL or
        > Yahoo perhaps to think they are HTML code and leave them out?

        Thanks for the suggestion, but I've never used brackets in my messages. I
        use AOL 7.0 and Windows 98 and somehow this interacts with Yahoo mailing
        lists so that occasionally when I quote a message (by highlighting it with
        the right mouse button and hitting "Reply", causing it to be quoted in my
        message), it looks all right in the message when I send it. However, in the
        message that's actually received by the members of the mailing list, some or
        all of the quoted words have disappeared.

        Wendell Wagner


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.