Religious Knowledge Test
Quote: WizardCan anybody name a belief in any other religion that is more patently ridiculous?
How about reincarnation?
[edit] Although a quick Google search seems to indicate reincarnation may not be a Buddhist tenet.
Quote: CalderHow about reincarnation?
How is that any more absurd than the notion of heaven or hell? At least that can't be obviously proven false, like the notion that a piece of bread is actually a piece of Jesus' body, but still looks, smells, and tastes like bread.
Not bad for a radical Atheist ...
--Dorothy
Quote: ruascottI heard a blurb on the news that self desribed atheists and agnostics had a greater knowledge of religion than those of religious persuasion. My response was duh....
It isn't a coincidence. This quiz was a small version of the one used in that survey. The official survey had 30 questions, I believe.
I think they said the religion that did the best was the Mormon church. That does not surprise me. Before you can become a member you have to take classes to learn the fundamentals. That is something I respect. If you must join a religion, you should understand what you profess to believe in.
Quote: WizardCan anybody name a belief in any other religion that is more patently ridiculous?
Since you gave the Mormons some 'dap', for balance I'll take the liberty of saying that, as a whole, I have the greatest difficulty with that religion in accepting the general message of their Scriptures. Way, way out there for me. Certainly I recognize some explanations for that, including being numb to some of the more dubious aspects of the regular Christian beliefs I was brought up with.
But they seem like fine people generally, although I've heard some say that if you run into one of the fundamentalist Sects with the multiple wives and all that, supposedly 'fine people' is not in the picture.
Quote: odiousgambitSince you gave the Mormons some 'dap', for balance I'll take the liberty of saying that, as a whole, I have the greatest difficulty with that religion in accepting the general message of their Scriptures. Way, way out there for me. Certainly I recognize some explanations for that, including being numb to some of the more dubious aspects of the regular Christian beliefs I was brought up with.
Would you care to cite (corrected) some examples?
Quote: WizardWould you care to site some examples?
Without taking a refresher course, just quickly here, supposedly Joseph Smith found Gold Tablets buried on his farm in New York with a tale of the lost tribe of Israel actually coming to America. Whatever happened to those folks I dunno but Smith was tasked with resurrecting the practice of that Religion. God of course wanted Smith in charge of things and to have so many children he needed to have mucho wives. The wording of these scriptures is exactly that of someone badlly imitating the King James version of the Bible, with the speakers saying "Yea" all the time. It borders on the profoundly ridiculous.
Quote: WizardWould you care to site some examples?
I can offer one: the notion that one (presumably rule-following) Mormon can unilaterally "bind" his or her soul to that of another, thus ensuring that the "bound" person's soul winds up in the same place as the "binder", no matter what horrible things the "bindee" may have done or may do in the future!
Although it doesn't strictlly answer your question, I could also cite the belief that Joseph Smith carried around in a horse-drawn wagon two immense tablets made of gold (upon which the Mormon version of the Ten Commandments was supposedly inscribed), even those those tablets, as he described them, would have weighed more than twenty tons.
It used to be a horrible sin for Mormons to drink caffeinated beverages, until the Mormon Church bought a large block of a certain common stock--then Pepsi machines started showing up on the campus of Brigham Young University.
I think the entire Mormon religion is completely batshit. It sounds like something that was made up when a bunch of guys got drunk around a campfire one night. It WAS a work of malevolent genius, though, as Brigham Young employed it--he became the absolute monarch of a region larger than England, with immense wealth and sixty-nine wives, to boot! Damn, I wish I'd thought of it first.
I hasten to add that the Mormon CULTURE was all but ideal for settling and taming an extremely harsh and unforgiving environment--an antlike sense of community was pretty much essential, given the primitive technology available, if anybody was going to survive. Mormons today are actually pretty nice people to get along with. Even though they can't cook worth a damn, I mean, darn.
Quote: WizardWould you care to site (sic) some examples?
There are too many examples to fit in the margin ...
This is my favorite essay of all time about Atheism, it was a radio bit, and I don't like the "you-tube-itization" of it at all, but hey, at least you can hear it.
This I believe, Penn Jillette
--Dorothy
Pepsi Machines: Is that the best you can do for a church scandal? Compare that to the current pope, who turned a blind eye towards pedophile priests for years before he was promoted to pope.
Binding Souls: I don't know much about that. However, if you're going to invent a religion, it would seem appealing to say that your loved ones on earth will be with you in the afterlife, even if one of them is worthy on his own. Meanwhile Christians have to live with worshipping a god who will send their loved ones to hell if they don't have the same religion. No, if I must choose a god, I'd choose a nice one.
Quote: CalderI guess if you think this is the point I made, you may claim to have refuted it.
By the way, know a good hangover cure?
The only one I know is to stay drunk...
I reread your post, and I'm sorry that I missed your point and attributed to you a stance you hadn't taken. In my defense, I can only say that I'm not used to people making reasonable and cogent statements on the internet.
To paraphrase it back to you, to make sure I got it (no sarcasm; I'm interested) your point is that the relationship between belief and intelligence is not direct. If so, that is mine as well; we are in agreement.
Quote: Mosca
Newton or Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizm?
I have to give this one to Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizm. So +1 for Islam!
Who's next?
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizm or ????
This raises a another question.
What happened to the very clever Islamists?
If they still exist, they don't seem to have much influence anymore.
Quote: WizardPepsi Machines: Is that the best you can do for a church scandal? Compare that to the current pope, who turned a blind eye towards pedophile priests for years before he was promoted to pope.
Well, the Church turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, so buggering altar boys seems rather trivial by comparison.
Re the Mormon Church: if I want to relate a scandal, I need to look no further than the Mountain Meadows Massacre. They're STILL trying to hush that one up in Salt Lake City.
The Pepsi example was more meant to show the Church's hypocrisy. Caffeine is WRONG and AN EVIL DRUG unless we can make some bucks off of it. To me, this is emblematic of the fact that the Mormon Church was originally invented purely as a moneymaking endeavor; sort of like Scientology.
Besides, you had asked for the ridiculous, not necessarily the scandalous.
Quote: mkl654321Well, the Church turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, so buggering altar boys seems rather trivial by comparison.
If you meant trivial by the amount of harm, I think child sexual molestation is just as bad as murder.
If you meant trivial in scope, then I agree the Holocaust was obviously far worse.
Quote: teddysI personally think Mormonism is the most batsh*t crazy religion out there.
Of the current religions it may be. But if you want something a lot weirder, try reading the "Popol Vuh" It's an ancient Mayan religious text. Did you know the gods fashioned people out of corn?
Quote:I think Scientology is similar; in a while, it will become an accepted religion just like Mormonism is now. I think L. Ron Hubbard just made a bet that he could create an actual religion out of his science fiction books.
Scientology is a scam. Hubbard started it as a kind of psychotherapy, but had to give it up since it was subject to oversight. A religion can do as it damned well pleases.
Quote: mkl654321Well, the Church turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, so buggering altar boys seems rather trivial by comparison.
Good point.
Quote: mkl654321Re the Mormon Church: if I want to relate a scandal, I need to look no further than the Mountain Meadows Massacre. They're STILL trying to hush that one up in Salt Lake City.
That is going back a ways, and the Mormons have their version of it. Can you elaboriate on the hushing it up in SLC? I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to learn something.
Quote: mkl654321The Pepsi example was more meant to show the Church's hypocrisy. Caffeine is WRONG and AN EVIL DRUG unless we can make some bucks off of it. To me, this is emblematic of the fact that the Mormon Church was originally invented purely as a moneymaking endeavor; sort of like Scientology.
I knew they softened their position on caffeine, but not the reasons why. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mormons would say that their church is a work in progress. How else could you explain the change of position on polygamy? I think I prefer flexibility to the unchanging dogma of Catholicism.
Quote: WizardI knew they softened their position on caffeine, but not the reasons why.
I've two Mormon coworkers. I've been very careful not to ask them questions, because it's my experience that Mormons take curiosity as permission to proselytize. But sometimes they do talk about their faith. from what I understand, caffeine and alcohol are not forbidden, but are discouraged. It's not like Judaism and pork, for example.
BTW, they are two of the nicest people I know.
Quote: MoscaThe only one I know is to stay drunk...
If only my boss was as open-minded...
Quote: WizardGood point.
That is going back a ways, and the Mormons have their version of it. Can you elaboriate on the hushing it up in SLC? I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to learn something.
I knew they softened their position on caffeine, but not the reasons why. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mormons would say that their church is a work in progress. How else could you explain the change of position on polygamy? I think I prefer flexibility to the unchanging dogma of Catholicism.
Re polygamy: the Territory of Utah met the qualifications for admission into the Union as a state by 1850. However, the issue of polygamy attracted sufficient opposition to the granting of statehood. When the US Army invaded Utah in 1857, they withdrew only after promises were exacted that polygamy would eventually be outlawed by Mormon leaders. Polygamy became a federal crime in 1862, but the laws against it were not enforced. However, it continued to be made clear that polygamy would be a barrier to statehood. In 1890, Mormon leaders issued a manifesto against polygamy, which was communicated to Washington. Utah was finally granted statehood in 1896. The change of position on polygamy was due to the desire of Utahns to be full-fledged US citizens, and send representatives to Washington. Utah was in danger of being marginalized and bypassed due to its lesser status as a territory. The invasion of 1857 lingered fresh in Utahns' minds--it was legal for the army to invade a TERRITORY for the purposes of restoring order/putting down "insurrection", but not a loyal state.
Re Mormon Meadows: http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_mountainmeadosmassacre.html
I've visited the site of the massacre. Read the post on the website above for a vivid description of the site--it's accurate. I was appalled at the lack of truth at the site where 120 men, women and children were slaughtered.
As far as Mormonism being a work in progress, I believe you're correct. I, also, see them as less dogmatic than Catholics. (But that's not saying much--Mao Tse Tung was also less dogmatic.) Mormons are almost always very nice people (if you can fend off the conversion attempts); you would like to have them as neighbors. I see them as having taken a religion that was (is) a travesty of an actual religion and turned it into something worthwhile. That's in direct contrast to the Catholics having taken something that was worthwhile and turned it into a travesty.
Quote: mkl654321
Mormons are almost always very nice people (if you can fend off the conversion attempts); you would like to have them as neighbors.
I have no problem with Mormons. They have good family programs, excellent youth programs, excellent work ethics.. There will never be a Mormon war. It has its quirks, but a society of mostly Mormons or a society of mostly Muslims? No contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqSZhwu1Rwo
But the craziest stuff usually doesn't survive to compete with the big 3.
Quote: WizardSomeone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mormons would say that their church is a work in progress. How else could you explain the change of position on polygamy? I think I prefer flexibility to the unchanging dogma of Catholicism.
A recent TV interview with a Mormon Prophet helped explain this. Mormon practices can change through the input of Prophets, he said. And of course they believe Prophets are not just from yesteryear. Pretty clever!
btw, I had forgotten about Scientology. I hope they have living Prophets, you'd hate to think they aren't ever going to change their practices. Personally I view them as a "Cult" rather than a Religion. The IRS gives them full Religion status, however, and such may be the only hard standard out there. If we are to view them as a Religion, yep, I would put them as wilder in their basic beliefs than Mormons.
I guess also you have to hold up Scientology as an example of the fact that no Religious Doctrine is too nutty for at least some people to accept.
Quote: mkl654321I see them as having taken a religion that was (is) a travesty of an actual religion and turned it into something worthwhile. That's in direct contrast to the Catholics having taken something that was worthwhile and turned it into a travesty.
Although Catholicism itself is a travesty, most Catholics I know are about the same as atheists, as far as day-to-day life goes. They only go whack for an hour each Sunday. I'll take the average Catholic over the average fundie any day.
Quote: mkl654321Re polygamy: the Territory of Utah met the qualifications for admission into the Union as a state by 1850...
Yes, of course, that is the real reason they changed their position on polygamy. However, I doubt that is what their version would be. They probably say that one of their profits probably was told by god that he changed his mind on that issue. It wouldn't look good to put politics before god.
The thing I want to say in the defense of Mormonism (it that the right term?) is that at least it is improving. Religions that are set in stone are doomed to suffer ridiculous and failed policies like transubstantiation and chaste priests.
I also agree that most Mormons I've met are very nice people. I can't think of another faith I could say that about.
Quote: WizardThey probably say that one of their profits probably was told by god that he changed his mind on that issue.
"Profits"? Sorry, but that gave me a good chuckle. I know it was a typo, but my problem with the Mormon church (not the people in general) is that they own numerous multi-billion and multi-million dollar businesses, which in my opinion is not what Christianity is about. I have no problem at all with any individual of any religion owning any sized business, but when the church itself owns them, that's another issue.
Quote: OahuPlayer"Profits"? Sorry, but that gave me a good chuckle. I know it was a typo, but my problem with the Mormon church (not the people in general) is that they own numerous multi-billion and multi-million dollar businesses, which in my opinion is not what Christianity is about. I have no problem at all with any individual of any religion owning any sized business, but when the church itself owns them, that's another issue.
Don't they say that the current church president is indeed a church profit? If I were to create a religion, then I think that is a good idea. No more church splits as new questions come up, as there is someone in direct communication with god you can ask for guidance.
About the church owning businesses, I don't have a problem with that as long as they don't abuse the power. The blessed are the poor part of Christianity I find rather depressing and a tough selling point.
Quote: WizardDon't they say that the current church president is indeed a church profit? If I were to create a religion, then I think that is a good idea. No more church splits as new questions come up, as there is someone in direct communication with god you can ask for guidance.
About the church owning businesses, I don't have a problem with that as long as they don't abuse the power. The blessed are the poor part of Christianity I find rather depressing and a tough selling point.
Well, they may say he's a church PROPHET, but I think they leave the profits to their business division. They have several subsidiary corporations, some that rival Fortune 500 companies in size, and that (naturally) are treated very favorably tax-wise by the Utah government (which is secular in name only).
Quote: mkl654321Well, they may say he's a church PROPHET, but I think they leave the profits to their business division. They have several subsidiary corporations, some that rival Fortune 500 companies in size, and that (naturally) are treated very favorably tax-wise by the Utah government (which is secular in name only).
Don't you admire their success in the business world? Maybe that is better than the alternative of begging for a big donation in the offering tray every week. I don't know about how much state income tax they pay in Utah, but I would, of course, oppose any special treatment.
Quote: WizardDon't you admire their success in the business world? Maybe that is better than the alternative of begging for a big donation in the offering tray every week. I don't know about how much state income tax they pay in Utah, but I would, of course, oppose any special treatment.
Undoubtedly. But despite the fact that they make beaucoup bucks, they still expect every member to "tithe" one tenth of his income annually. This has been interpreted in various ways, to mean one-tenth of GROSS income, or, alternatively, one-tenth of NET income. The latter calculation seems more congruent to established Church doctrine, which states (in Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible) that one-tenth of "surplus" should be tithed. Of course, many Mormons simply tithe one-tenth of their gross incomes, and the Church doesn't give the excess back; you are allowed to tithe any amount you want in excess of the minimum.
The amounts thus collected have been, historically, far in excess of what was needed to finance the day-to-day operations of the Church, so the surplus was used to finance far-flung missionary expeditions, invest in businesses, and establish a generous welfare system. The excess funds that were invested are the roots of the many large business enterprises the Church owns today.
Despite the fact that the Church runs at a large surplus, the tithe amount requested of members has not declined. In fact, the pressure on members to properly tithe has, if anything, intensified. And that pressure is applied seven days a week, not just on Sundays (like the Catholics' collection baskets). Mormon officials have access to state tax returns and compare members' net incomes to the amounts tithed. Fall short and you're likely to get a knock on your door.
It would also seem a good thing that a church is financially healthy and saves for a rainy day. That is a good example to follow. Investing in their own businesses also seems like a good idea, compared to giving it to a greedy mutual fund manager. Compared to the debt the federal and most state governments are running up, taking in more than you need seems a much better alternative.
Checking tax returns to ensure their members are tithing is something I also applaud. I can't condone snooping in state records. However, it would seem reasonable to ask for evidence of income to compare to donation records. That way you remove the temptation to cheat.
p.s. Did you notice the change of font in the editting frame, per your complaint?
Quote: mkl654321Fall short and you're likely to get a knock on your door.
What a load of crap. FYI, my sister is a Mormon and she was unemployed and had no money to tithe with and Church embraced her, they didn't 'knock on her door'. You're an idiot, you make stuff up and then pretend its the truth.
Quote: WizardYou say all that like it is a bad thing. It is biblical to tithe. I don't think you can fault them for following scripture on that. Personally, I'd prefer to just tithe and get it over with than suffer through a carefully crafted pitch to separate me from my money every week.
It would also seem a good thing that a church is financially healthy and saves for a rainy day. That is a good example to follow. Investing in their own businesses also seems like a good idea, compared to giving it to a greedy mutual fund manager. Compared to the debt the federal and most state governments are running up, taking in more than you need seems a much better alternative.
Checking tax returns to ensure their members are tithing is something I also applaud. I can't condone snooping in state records. However, it would seem reasonable to ask for evidence of income to compare to donation records. That way you remove the temptation to cheat.
p.s. Did you notice the change of font in the editting frame, per your complaint?
I draw a rather large distinction between voluntary giving and compulsory giving. A person should be able to give any amount of his income that he chooses, from 0% to 100%, without coercion. The way the Mormon Church conducts its business makes it seem as if they are the only church in America that charges for membership. I realize that other churches solicit donations, but this seems a little too...commercialized. I certainly agree, they are a profitable and efficient organization. I just wonder how many members they DON'T have, because of the tithe.
And yes, I did notice the frame editing font change--it's 100% better now. Thanks for changing it.
Quote: odiousgambitbtw, I had forgotten about Scientology. I hope they have living Prophets, you'd hate to think they aren't ever going to change their practices. Personally I view them as a "Cult" rather than a Religion.
You know the difference between a cult and a religion? Numbers and time.
"This new religion, Christianity, they are so poor...."
"How poor are they?"
"They are so poor, they only have one god!"
Mel Brooks as "Comicus, the stand-up philosopher," in History of the World Part I.
Quote: mkl654321I draw a rather large distinction between voluntary giving and compulsory giving. A person should be able to give any amount of his income that he chooses, from 0% to 100%, without coercion. The way the Mormon Church conducts its business makes it seem as if they are the only church in America that charges for membership. I realize that other churches solicit donations, but this seems a little too...commercialized. I certainly agree, they are a profitable and efficient organization. I just wonder how many members they DON'T have, because of the tithe.
I guess we disagree on the merits of setting a specific expectation for giving. Personally, I like to know the rules of things. Just tell me what is expected of me, rather than trick me with a sermon of which the gist is "the more you put in the offering tray, the more god will give back to you."
Every church has to solicit donations somehow. A good and rare few don't do it publically, to not put anybody on the spot. Ultimately, somebody has to pay the electric bill.
Also, does anybody know how they solicit donations in Judaism? I know you have to buy a ticket for the most popular holy day services. However, they must get more coming in than that. I've asked a number of Jews about this, and can never get a straight answer.
Quote: WizardAlso, does anybody know how they solicit donations in Judaism? I know you have to buy a ticket for the most popular holy day services. However, they must get more coming in than that. I've asked a number of Jews about this, and can never get a straight answer.
Not quite, but I can tell you of what I know.
The synagogue my parents go to sells memberships, which are renwed for a fee each year. The membership includes tickets for the high holidays (the Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur, which take place ten days apart). In theory no one pays for attending services. In practice they won't let you in without a ticket on the big two because there's no room. They also charge a fee for ceremonies like weddings and bar mitzvahs.
They take donations, too, but I've no idea how they go about it. Typically the bigger donors have assigned seats for the high holidays, also nearer the front. Also the donors tend to be called to read the Torah on such holidays (that's a missnamed ritual, actually, but also another matter), and to take part on the ceremony attendant to such reading (it's highly ritualistic).
When they were building a branch temple farther to the west of town, they did send letters and fliers asking members for donations.
This synagogue labels itself Conservative (which means they have more liberal rules than the Orthodox; such as men and women pray together and not in separate sections), which is not the most popular denomination in Mexico; and you should hear what they say about the one Reform temple in the country. Anwyay, it's made its own sub-community within the larger Mexican Jewish community. So they also operate social organizations and things like summer camps for kids, all for which they charge a fee.
The titular Rabbi and Cantor will perform ceremonies and duties off-temple, too, such as weddings at hotels or toher venues, and such as graveside prayers at funerals and other related occasions like the unveiling of the headstone at the one-year anniversary of death, or the evening prayer on the last day of Shivah. They charge for weddings, I don't know if they charge for funerals and such but I suppose they do
Too bad you dind't ask back in May.
I've a related question: how do cemeteries get an income? I know they sell plots, but once the body is in the ground and the headstone's up, do they get paid anything else?
Quote: JerryLogan"Donations" of one kind or another are a part of being actively involved in religion. Even Atheism has a price: They are the unhappiest, most cynical people on earth.
Can you support that generalization with evidence?
Quote: mkl654321Can you support that generalization with evidence?
I second that request.
Quote: Nareed
This synagogue labels itself Conservative (which means they have more liberal rules than the Orthodox; ... and you should hear what they say about the one Reform temple in the country.
Perhaps you've heard the old joke about the Jewish Robinson Crusoe? One of the things he did while shipwrecked alone on this desert island was build two Temples. So the people who found him asked him about the one he first showed them, and he went on and on about it. Finally they asked him about the other Temple, and he said "that place? I wouldn't go near those people!!"
Quote: WizardI second that request.
Here's another request for evidence.
Quote: Nareed
I've a related question: how do cemeteries get an income? I know they sell plots, but once the body is in the ground and the headstone's up, do they get paid anything else?
This is a problem, the funds from selling the plots is also supposed to provide for maintenance "in Perpetuity". What actually happens is that the cemetery is in a jam once all the plots are sold, the money runs out. The cemetery can start to look pretty seedy unless a church or whatever is taking care of it. Property taxes, of course, cannot be collected; and I don't think anyone has ever tried to make an arrangement for funds with living relatives.
Quote: NareedI've a related question: how do cemeteries get an income? I know they sell plots, but once the body is in the ground and the headstone's up, do they get paid anything else?
That is getting way outside my area, but I once watched a show on Dateline, some similar show, about this. There is indeed a problem with cemeteries filling to capacity, going broke, and then falling into disrepair. What I think usually happens is that if the cemetery is not that old, and in a desirable part of town, the city/county will assume control and keep things maintained. If it is a pauper's cemetery in a bad part of town or rural area, chances are nobody will do anything. With really old cemeteries, when gravestones were usually small and horizontal, sometimes people forget there even is a cemetery. The closing scene of the movie Gangs of New York portrays such a situation. Someone correct me if I'm wrong; again I'm getting really out of my area with this.
Here is a related question for you Nareed. I've noticed driving along rural highways in Mexico that people set up roadside shrines along the side. This isn't just a thing I've seen once or twice, but you can see these things average once a mile or so at times. Why do people do this? Is this the spot where somebody actually died, perhaps in a car accident, or is it just convenient to put these things on the road?
Quote: WizardHere is a related question for you Nareed. I've noticed driving along rural highways in Mexico that people set up roadside shrines along the side. This isn't just a thing I've seen once or twice, but you can see these things average once a mile or so at times. Why do people do this? Is this the spot where somebody actually died, perhaps in a car accident, or is it just convenient to put these things on the road?
I don't know for sure. Yes, there are many of them. I've always assumed, as you did, where people died either in car accidents or by being run over (a lot more likely in poor areas).
I do know Mexican Catholics will set up shrines just about anywhere. I think there are two shrines to the Virgin of Guadalupe for every inhabitant, or at least it feels that way. Have you ever visited a rural church? The shrines they make for saints can be extreme. And the less said about offerings overall the better.
I think Catholic iconic quasi-polytheism fit well with the native's iconic polytheism.
Quote: NareedI don't know for sure. Yes, there are many of them. I've always assumed, as you did, where people died either in car accidents or by being run over (a lot more likely in poor areas).
I do know Mexican Catholics will set up shrines just about anywhere. I think there are two shrines to the Virgin of Guadalupe for every inhabitant, or at least it feels that way. Have you ever visited a rural church? The shrines they make for saints can be extreme. And the less said about offerings overall the better.
I think Catholic iconic quasi-polytheism fit well with the native's iconic polytheism.
The obsession with images of death also fits in nicely with an earlier, shamanistic religious culture. That's always been one of the strengths of Christianity--it assimilates elements of indigenous religions, thus making itself more palatable to the inhabitants of those religions. Christmas is the Christian version of the Druidic winter solstice festival, for example.
I do wonder why more images of the Virgin Mary haven't been found in tortillas, since so many of them are cooked in Mexico every day. Miracles are rare, I guess.
Quote: MoscaHere's another request for evidence.
Here's a third. I doubt I'll get it though, as it's a flippant comment from mock authority.
Quote: Wizard
Here is a related question for you Nareed. I've noticed driving along rural highways in Mexico that people set up roadside shrines along the side. This isn't just a thing I've seen once or twice, but you can see these things average once a mile or so at times. Why do people do this? Is this the spot where somebody actually died, perhaps in a car accident, or is it just convenient to put these things on the road?
This is done here in Pennsylvania; they are placed at the sites of fatal accidents.
