In Australia they reasonably expected to find ample space to grow food, build shelter, get a recognisable life going. Later they unreasonably expected to strike gold on the first turn of the shovel. But on Mars, they can't even expect a bucket of air, let alone food to hunt or trees to chop down and live under. Not even close to the same thing.

It wouldn't stop blocked editors from simply re-registering and continuing their noble and righteous correction spree.

Just for the sake of objectivity - did the authorities believe the hormone therapy a punishment or a treatment? If they thought it a treatment (since homosexuality has throughout all of human history been considered more a disordered inclination rather than a calculatedly malevolent crime) then it would be more appropriate to attribute the authorities with a benevolent intent (curing a problem) rather than a(n arguably) penal intent (exacting retribution for wrong done).

I appreciate your interest to my contribution! You have made an excellent distinction between the interpretations of people with different ecclesiological (Puritans vs Catholics) and philosophical (neo-anthropologist) backgrounds.

There is no denying that at its most basic level the Song of Songs discloses a very intimate and detailed sexual relationship. This first point is of great importance because it is the lens by which all other potential insights from the text are examined - for a Puritan Christian, to whom all sexual matters (for argument's sake) must be a hidden, perhaps even shameful affair, the inclusion of this book is at best an embarrassment and at worst an account of Jewish depravity.

For a (catechised) Catholic on the other hand, this book is conclusive proof against the claim that the Catholic religion hates sex - indeed, an entire book of the Bible happily glorifies in sex, and speaks to the joy of what Catholics believe sex should really be (namely, the fullest body-and-soul expression of eternal love between husband and wife).

It's a lot harder for first-language Anglophones to speak about the Orthodox and other Eastern Christians (since their cultural milieu and theological heritage have developed so differently to ours in the Latin West), so please forgive me for leaving them aside.

In my experience most people (believers and non alike) have no exposure to the more obscure books of the old testament - if it doesn't feature Adam and Eve or Moses, people generally don't know about it. This means that when they do stumble upon it, they are generally unprepared - they don't know what to make of it, what it means, why it's even in the Bible. If one is not familiar with the characterisation of God as the victorious bridegroom delighting in his wife, or Israel as the "land that will be married" (both from the Psalms) how can they be expected to read the Song of Songs as God delighting in his eternal marriage to Israel?

This comes back to my point previously about intrinsic and extrinsic consistency - with a text as obscure and confusing as the Song of Songs, one must be suitably prepared to fit it into the greater framework of Sacred Scripture - familiar enough with the other books of the Bible to fit this one into its proper place, and interpret it in light of the others. If taken by itself, without that greater context, then the Song of Songs absolutely does become nothing more than ancient erotica.

But then, returning to context Christians (and Jews, and in a slightly different way Moslems) believe that each book of scripture is divinely inspired, and has a rightful place in man's religious duty to God. Since erotica for its own sake is a selfish act (one that aims at gratifying oneself alone, rather than ordering all things to the greatest good), to conclude that the Song of Songs is simply ancient, self-gratifying erotica places it at odds with the belief that the entirety of sacred scripture is right and good.

You could probably tell me more about what this means to an agnostic, if you have lasted through my ramble. Apologies for my lack of brevity, I sometimes value comprehensiveness at the expense of straightforwardness.

Let me go back to my original post, first of all, and enforce a distinction that I originally made - a particular level of understanding is necessary to understand the Song of Songs. Your question conflated the necessity of learning to understand the Song of Songs with the whole Bible, which is not what I claimed. If we are to talk about the whole Bible, then I would immediately say that different levels of learning are necessary for different books - and the Song of Songs would be at the high end of that range.

Your (and my) Bachelor of Liberal Arts would put you in a better position to critically interpret certain phrases and idiomatic expressions than, say, a Bachelor of Science or high school student. It would not do us much (or even any) better on matters of theological interpretation, since it involves no study of theology.

This leads into the question of the quality of learning - Mr Phelps may claim to be learned in matters theological, but what is the quality of his learning? Are his beliefs intrinsically and extrinsically consistent? Are his theses defensible?

Where they are, you should, and where they are not, you should not defer - but always do so thoughtfully.

What is sufficient for understanding legislation? An anatomy textbook? Slashdot news items? Is the ability to read enough to ensure you understand the meaning (obtuse and profound) of the above examples, or is one expected to have some learning and experience with the context of the text?

It would only be porn to people who assume that the ability to read is sufficient for understanding an ancient metaphysical love-song analogy for the love of God for Israel. But hey, EVERYONE knows that Slashdot is filled with self-taught genius experts in all fields, particularly philosophy and theology. Yup.

I wonder how long it'll take for someone to fly a plane into it?

Or is it "safe", in an Islamic/Arab country?

Coming to such a conclusion is your right, especially if you have given their arguments a fair hearing and drawn your conclusions on that basis.

Personally, I believe the argument isn't as much against universal health care reform as the model currently proposed. If someone offered you a free car on the condition that he get unlimited access to your wife, would you take the car? Surely you would say "there are better ways to get a car". That's what I believe these Americans have in mind - health care reform is an objective good, but the things that are being packaged with it mean that in this instance they must turn it down.

I am afraid you are consistently incapable of distinction. Or reading.

You said that people are delusional for professing to believe A, B or C. I said that this is nonsense, because people may profess to believe something, anything, without being delusional. I could profess to believe that I am a porridge and not be deluded, but you are too caught up in being the sole arbiter of fact to see this.

I'll make it simple for you by restating my point a couple of comments back: before ridiculing others for their beliefs, take a moment to try and understand what exactly it is they believe. Otherwise, simple folk like yours truly will come along and help you to show everyone else just how arrogant and invincibly ignorant you are.

I'm afraid you're engaged in a logical inconsistency. It does not follow that someone who says they believe A, B or C must be delusional. There are numerous other possibilities.

Quite frankly, your persistent refusal to acknowledge anything that could possibly exist in opposition to what you have already proclaimed "fact" demonstrates an astounding degree of arrogance.

Atheism is the assertion held on faith that nothing exists beyond the material. I refer not exclusively to deities because atheists must be strict materialists to maintain even a damaged logical consistency.

Since atheists are strict materialists, then they are unable to accept non-empirical proofs or methods for anything, and thus must accept on faith that nothing beyond the material exists.

You are the one who claimed that atheism is not a religion because it has no dogmas, and then claimed that atheism has no dogmas because it is not a religion. There is no clearer example of circular reasoning.

Your comment about Christians being unable to discount their pastors is totally ignorant - there are thousands of people running about who call themselves Christian yet act in complete independence, with loyalty to any pope or pastor. The fact that you think otherwise demonstrates only how little you know about religion in general and religious people in particular.

As for comparing the two texts as equal, please don't make the mistake of putting words into my mouth. Comparable is the attitude held towards the texts by their adherents (to speak logically, there exist atheists who hold "The God Delusion" in as high regard as Christians do The Bible).

We do seem to agree on your last point, however. You seem incapable of rationally considering two of atheism's dogmatic claims - that the universe is exclusively material, and that atheism is not a religion.

Let me guess!

"...because I say so"?

Dogmas are established by religions. Religions have dogmas. Atheism has no dogmas, therefore it is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion, therefore it has no dogmas.

Could you reason more circularly?

Many Christians have never read the Bible, and don't hold it up to nearly the pedestal that your typical western Atheist holds Dawkins.

There are thousands of Christians around the world who don't give a second thought to the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or whoever that guy who wrote "The Purpose Driven Life" is. It doesn't matter, because you'll just turn around and say "aha, but there are many Christians who do!" I do the same to you - a large number of self-proclaimed atheists acknowledge Dawkins, Hitchens and others as "leaders" of atheism, therefore they are.

So far you have given me nothing but circular reasoning, why is anyone supposed to believe that atheism is even remotely rational? You can't even get past introductory logic.