Ethical monotheism

[Hebrew Hammer]

LMFAO...thanks to all of you for hijack shitting on this thread.

A thread is like a gentle dove that you set free to find its own way in the world. Sometimes they turn into crack whores.

HH, why does it have to be monotheism, and not just theism?

The first five of the 13 principles of Judaism build on theism: They posit God as creator, one, not physical, eternal, and that prayer should be only to God. Since these are the universal principles, I will argue for them later.

[Bobby]

Let`s not forget that jews can have some pretty strong views about other etnic/religious groups as well.Once worked with a jew raised in north africa.He then moved to Israel,before meeting a swedish woman and moving to Sweden.You should have heard him talking about arabs and the views he expressed about them.
But him right up with the stormtroopers,when it comes to ethnic/religious hatred.Nice enought guy otherwise.

[Thatcher II]

HH, I'm not "angry at religion". I'm angry at the undue influence and quasi-diplomatic immunity bestowed on it by society. Not government alone. Society.

I don't care if you want to worship Yahweh or not. But when you tell young people over and over that they're different because of these inherited beliefs, that they must propagate these same beliefs, that others are different and "live less fulfilling lives" because they don't believe what you believe, I have a problem.

For a trial lawyer, your comprehension is weak. You project anger onto me in a wholly incorrect way. Fact is, I pity you. You've been born a Jew and you have been massively influenced to perpetuate the faith of your forbears. To not do so, particularly after the Shoah, with all that has been done to provide a homeland, would seem like treason and betrayal to you. The virus has taken hold. Marry outside yor faith and you "do Hitler's work". Fail to pass on the faith and you become the first weak link in a chain stretching back 6,000 years.

And so it goes on.

And on.

And Ibrahim does the same thing.

And Krishna.

And Mario.

And Glassman.

And the ideas are peoetuated and come fully equipped with the prickly defence mechanisms of all good survivors. Before we even engage, I know you'll have an answer for everything I say. It'll be finely honed and tested and out it wil come. The structure is circular and stone-built.

Is there anger on my part? Yes when I see how fucking divisive it all is. How needlessly tribal. How self-aggrandising, self-perpetuating and unrelenting.

For you to define my life as "cribbed" is quite extrairdinarily ridiculous.

[Hebrew Hammer]

So, to move the argument forward, I've offered definitions of atheism, etc., and posited that atheists/materialists don't live up to the fullness of human potential. I then discussed ethics a bit, the first part of ethical monotheism, and separated out two strands. The first is the ethics of leading a good life, and the second the ethics of doing the right thing. To tie arguments one and two together, I'm saying that atheists, etc. lack in the first notion of ethics, the fullness of human potential.

Now lets turn to belief, and its relation to action. Some beliefs don't tie to action. Whether or not I believe the Lions will win the Super Bowl next January, I will act the same. To the contrary, If I work out with kettlebells and believe GS is the OTW, I should, if I'm rational, do GS workouts. The belief leads directly and logically to the action.

Some might treat religious non-belief as the first type of belief. From the point of view of ethical monotheism, if you believe in G-d, then you should act differently from the way you might otherwise prefer -- you act in the way you believe God expects you to act. Otherwise your god ends up being a projection of you -- the kind of god who thinks guys like you are A-OK -- not a fanatic, not a nihilist, but in the center ring of the bulls eye.

This becomes a distinction important for understanding agnostics. Agnosticism can cover a wide variety of beliefs. For example, I read that Mother Teresa's diaries expressed periods of significant doubt. But she never stopped acting the way she believed God expected her to act. I think many believers have doubts, but still explore deeply and try to act in the way that God-with-ethical-expectations wants. I think this is fulfilling human potential.

At the other end, is the agnostic who doesn't care or who doesn't change his conduct because of the possibility that God may exist. In this sense, agnostic are similar to the atheist - they both act everyday as if as if a God-with-ethical-expectations doesn't exist. I think something is missing in this type of life, a lacking in human potential.

This for the most part ends the preliminary discussion of atheism, etc.; the two types of ethics; and the notion of belief and action. All these concepts that will come into play in making the case for ethical monotheism.

Next we'll turn to principle 1: God created the world.

[Hebrew Hammer]

HH, I'm not "angry at religion". I'm angry at the undue influence and quasi-diplomatic immunity bestowed on it by society. Not government alone. Society.

I don't care if you want to worship Yahweh or not. But when you tell young people over and over that they're different because of these inherited beliefs, that they must propagate these same beliefs, that others are different and "live less fulfilling lives" because they don't believe what you believe, I have a problem.

For a trial lawyer, your comprehension is weak. You project anger onto me in a wholly incorrect way. Fact is, I pity you. You've been born a Jew and you have been massively influenced to perpetuate the faith of your forbears. To not do so, particularly after the Shoah, with all that has been done to provide a homeland, would seem like treason and betrayal to you. The virus has taken hold. Marry outside yor faith and you "do Hitler's work". Fail to pass on the faith and you become the first weak link in a chain stretching back 6,000 years.

And so it goes on.

And on.

And Ibrahim does the same thing.

And Krishna.

And Mario.

And Glassman.

And the ideas are peoetuated and come fully equipped with the prickly defence mechanisms of all good survivors. Before we even engage, I know you'll have an answer for everything I say. It'll be finely honed and tested and out it wil come. The structure is circular and stone-built.

Is there anger on my part? Yes when I see how fucking divisive it all is. How needlessly tribal. How self-aggrandising, self-perpetuating and unrelenting.

For you to define my life as "cribbed" is quite extrairdinarily ridiculous.

I teach Sunday School because I believe Judaism will help my kids lead fulfilling lives with compass pointed north no matter what life brings.

You're critique of Judaism shows a close knowledge of the Jewish world. What's the connection?

Two more questions:

Would you prefer a government that banned religious belief, or perhaps, like the French Revolution, allowed it within enlightened parameters?

Do you think the world would be a far better place if everyone rejected religion as you have?

[Thatcher II]

HH, I'm not "angry at religion". I'm angry at the undue influence and quasi-diplomatic immunity bestowed on it by society. Not government alone. Society.

I don't care if you want to worship Yahweh or not. But when you tell young people over and over that they're different because of these inherited beliefs, that they must propagate these same beliefs, that others are different and "live less fulfilling lives" because they don't believe what you believe, I have a problem.

For a trial lawyer, your comprehension is weak. You project anger onto me in a wholly incorrect way. Fact is, I pity you. You've been born a Jew and you have been massively influenced to perpetuate the faith of your forbears. To not do so, particularly after the Shoah, with all that has been done to provide a homeland, would seem like treason and betrayal to you. The virus has taken hold. Marry outside yor faith and you "do Hitler's work". Fail to pass on the faith and you become the first weak link in a chain stretching back 6,000 years.

And so it goes on.

And on.

And Ibrahim does the same thing.

And Krishna.

And Mario.

And Glassman.

And the ideas are peoetuated and come fully equipped with the prickly defence mechanisms of all good survivors. Before we even engage, I know you'll have an answer for everything I say. It'll be finely honed and tested and out it wil come. The structure is circular and stone-built.

Is there anger on my part? Yes when I see how fucking divisive it all is. How needlessly tribal. How self-aggrandising, self-perpetuating and unrelenting.

For you to define my life as "cribbed" is quite extrairdinarily ridiculous.

I teach Sunday School because I believe Judaism will help my kids lead fulfilling lives with compass pointed north no matter what life brings.

You're critique of Judaism shows a close knowledge of the Jewish world. What's the connection?

Two more questions:

Would you prefer a government that banned religious belief, or perhaps, like the French Revolution, allowed it within enlightened parameters?

Do you think the world would be a far better place if everyone rejected religion as you have?

LOL. You're not able to teach your children to be decent people without Judaeism? That's bullshit. You're investing their moral compass in a religion. If they turn their back on it are they then without a moral compass? Isn't your strategy dangerous?

I do not advocate banning or undermining of religion by the State but I do believe the State should be entirely neutral and go out of its way to stop religion impinging on public life. For example, swearing to "one nation under God" is absolutely insidious. Why do we perpetuate these belief systems in this day and age? Do we lack moral authority or morality itself without them? I truly don't believe so. Yes, I believe life for humanity on this planet would be better if all religion were abandoned. I do not see us all running into a moral wasteland as a result.

Mate, I know very little about Judaeism and you can lose me in 10 seconds in a detailed argument on the ME. But I know that it is a very successful idea judged from the perspective of whether or not it perpetuates itself. Look st the separateness of Jews in Europe since the time of Christ alone. The Angles, Saxons and Normans integrated into England and no one now knows who is what. But Jews know they are Jews because they are told tey are Jews first and foremost from the time they can understand language. That's a hell of an idea. Islam is similarly virulent. If you ask me, the whole thing is bollox but I'm not going to tell you you're going to have an "unfulfilled life" or a "cribbed" existence. You can live a very full, satisfying, good life within those constructs. I only ask as follows:

public life and the State should be separate from religion
children should not be indoctrinated but should instead study all religions in school
don't denigrate people of other faiths or none.

[Kazuya Mishima]

Does anybody know why the Jews walked around in the desert for 40 years?

They heard that somebody dropped a quarter.

[Hebrew Hammer]

HH, I'm not "angry at religion". I'm angry at the undue influence and quasi-diplomatic immunity bestowed on it by society. Not government alone. Society.

I don't care if you want to worship Yahweh or not. But when you tell young people over and over that they're different because of these inherited beliefs, that they must propagate these same beliefs, that others are different and "live less fulfilling lives" because they don't believe what you believe, I have a problem.

For a trial lawyer, your comprehension is weak. You project anger onto me in a wholly incorrect way. Fact is, I pity you. You've been born a Jew and you have been massively influenced to perpetuate the faith of your forbears. To not do so, particularly after the Shoah, with all that has been done to provide a homeland, would seem like treason and betrayal to you. The virus has taken hold. Marry outside yor faith and you "do Hitler's work". Fail to pass on the faith and you become the first weak link in a chain stretching back 6,000 years.

And so it goes on.

And on.

And Ibrahim does the same thing.

And Krishna.

And Mario.

And Glassman.

And the ideas are peoetuated and come fully equipped with the prickly defence mechanisms of all good survivors. Before we even engage, I know you'll have an answer for everything I say. It'll be finely honed and tested and out it wil come. The structure is circular and stone-built.

Is there anger on my part? Yes when I see how fucking divisive it all is. How needlessly tribal. How self-aggrandising, self-perpetuating and unrelenting.

For you to define my life as "cribbed" is quite extrairdinarily ridiculous.

I teach Sunday School because I believe Judaism will help my kids lead fulfilling lives with compass pointed north no matter what life brings.

You're critique of Judaism shows a close knowledge of the Jewish world. What's the connection?

Two more questions:

Would you prefer a government that banned religious belief, or perhaps, like the French Revolution, allowed it within enlightened parameters?

Do you think the world would be a far better place if everyone rejected religion as you have?

LOL. You're not able to teach your children to be decent people without Judaeism? That's bullshit. You're investing their moral compass in a religion. If they turn their back on it are they then without a moral compass? Isn't your strategy dangerous?

I do not advocate banning or undermining of religion by the State but I do believe the State should be entirely neutral and go out of its way to stop religion impinging on public life. For example, swearing to "one nation under God" is absolutely insidious. Why do we perpetuate these belief systems in this day and age? Do we lack moral authority or morality itself without them? I truly don't believe so. Yes, I believe life for humanity on this planet would be better if all religion were abandoned. I do not see us all running into a moral wasteland as a result.

Mate, I know very little about Judaeism and you can lose me in 10 seconds in a detailed argument on the ME. But I know that it is a very successful idea judged from the perspective of whether or not it perpetuates itself. Look st the separateness of Jews in Europe since the time of Christ alone. The Angles, Saxons and Normans integrated into England and no one now knows who is what. But Jews know they are Jews because they are told tey are Jews first and foremost from the time they can understand language. That's a hell of an idea. Islam is similarly virulent. If you ask me, the whole thing is bollox but I'm not going to tell you you're going to have an "unfulfilled life" or a "cribbed" existence. You can live a very full, satisfying, good life within those constructs. I only ask as follows:

public life and the State should be separate from religion
children should not be indoctrinated but should instead study all religions in school
don't denigrate people of other faiths or none.

I believe I could teach my own children to be decent people without judaism, but I couldn't teach other kids. That goes into the notion of a tradition, which strays far from my topic in this thread. I believe all parents can teach their children to be decent people without religion. But I think it's hard to teach other children to be decent people (other than by example) without a tradition.

As to your broader views, you appear to have an authoritarian itch, perhaps of the Robespierre variety.

[tough old man]

I've found that with few exceptions religion leads to intollerence, exclusionism and hate.

[kreator]

I do believe the State should ... go out of its way to stop religion impinging on public life.

And how exactly do you propose this happens?

If a majority of the population believes in X, which leads them to support bill Y (which has no bearing on an individual's ability to practice their religion), what are you going to do about it? Does that count as "impinging" in your mind?

For instance, what if it was believed a religious miracle occurred on some unoccupied piece of boreal forest, and the majority of the voting population believe it should be turned into a nature preserve as a result. What would your State do to prevent people from voting according to their values? Say "no no, we can't do that because you used religious terminology?"


I'm just trying to understand how you envision separating a highly religious population from public life.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I believe I could teach my own children to be decent people without judaism, but I couldn't teach other kids. That goes into the notion of a tradition, which strays far from my topic in this thread. I believe all parents can teach their children to be decent people without religion. But I think it's hard to teach other children to be decent people (other than by example) without a tradition.

And here is the crux of the matter. You want to help children to be decent and tradition provides a history, examples, and a path for them. You apparently believe that there is a G_d and He has a set of ethics for Himself and us who are created in His image. Let's assume that is exactly correct.

The truth, however, is that regardless whether or not G_d created us in His image, we create G_d in our image by our actions every day. That is why we have beautiful examples of love and self sacrifice living daily with examples of hatred and destruction. If you are shallow and cribbed, your G_d (or belief system) will be as well. If you are deep and open, so will be your G_d (or belief system). Hence the glory and shame of religion - and all of our beliefs.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are a great example of ethical theism - sometimes poly and other times mono - and also ethical agnosticism in that he allows for the possibility that there is no G_d or gods but his actions are the same regardless.

[Turdacious]

public life and the State should be separate from religion

There are no explicit religious tests in the US for political office. If you're suggesting that only certain interest groups should have the right to influence public policy-- define what those groups are (I'm guessing that, in your mind, that only the groups you agree with should)

children should not be indoctrinated but should instead study all religions in school

In the US, parents have the right to send their children to private religious education. They have the right not to. Are you are suggesting that they shouldn't have that right?

don't denigrate people of other faiths or none.

You are far too sensitive for the bad place.

[odin]

if God wanted us to believe in him, he'd exist.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I believe I could teach my own children to be decent people without judaism, but I couldn't teach other kids. That goes into the notion of a tradition, which strays far from my topic in this thread. I believe all parents can teach their children to be decent people without religion. But I think it's hard to teach other children to be decent people (other than by example) without a tradition.

And here is the crux of the matter. You want to help children to be decent and tradition provides a history, examples, and a path for them. You apparently believe that there is a G_d and He has a set of ethics for Himself and us who are created in His image. Let's assume that is exactly correct.

The truth, however, is that regardless whether or not G_d created us in His image, we create G_d in our image by our actions every day. That is why we have beautiful examples of love and self sacrifice living daily with examples of hatred and destruction. If you are shallow and cribbed, your G_d (or belief system) will be as well. If you are deep and open, so will be your G_d (or belief system). Hence the glory and shame of religion - and all of our beliefs.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are a great example of ethical theism - sometimes poly and other times mono - and also ethical agnosticism in that he allows for the possibility that there is no G_d or gods but his actions are the same regardless.

I've read parts of the Meditations, and read about them, and find them inspiring. So no disagreement. And I think there's much that's inspiring in most other religions and some philosophies. I also agree that people who have no religion or set philosophy can lead praiseworthy lives. I think, though, that only living traditions can convey a way of life effectively, and that the philosophy of the Meditations is mostly for the lonely few who can read and understand and live them.

As to our creating God in our image, I think I understand what you're saying, but my sense is religion should be countercultural and lifting so that it points us to do the right thing rather than follow life's otherwise robotic path.

Regardless, my argument here is the reasonableness of believing that God-with-ethical-expectations exists, and then sorting out how that affects a person in realizing his potential as opposed the effects of a belief in atheism, materialism, etc.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Andy double-post

[Gav]

An atheist could not become President, for example.

Yeah it's totally nuts how Americans wouldn't vote for someone who didn't resemble their values on a fundamental level.

If only we voted against our values, everything would be A-OK.

K,

He's right. Even if some miraculous atheist politician who really cared about the average American, and could solve all your probs came along, he'd never get in. If you think otherwise you are just being naive. All politicians know how many votes siding with the church will get them.

Only its gotten a bit out of hand. GWB deciding to make banning gay marriage an election issue was probably the beginning of this polarization that has us all but completely quagmired. Its hard to get people to agree on things when they think their political opinions are ordained by God.

There is an expression Italy "A country has the leader it deserves".

Berlusconi has been in 3 times here and may be again soon. What does that say about them

[Thatcher II]

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try
No hell below us, above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one.

[Gav]

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try
No hell below us, above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one.

John Lennon for president! Oh, shit, sorry, I forgot he was killed by a religious nutjob.

[kreator]

It's nice to sing songs sometimes.

[odin]

I believe I could teach my own children to be decent people without judaism, but I couldn't teach other kids. That goes into the notion of a tradition, which strays far from my topic in this thread. I believe all parents can teach their children to be decent people without religion. But I think it's hard to teach other children to be decent people (other than by example) without a tradition.

And here is the crux of the matter. You want to help children to be decent and tradition provides a history, examples, and a path for them. You apparently believe that there is a G_d and He has a set of ethics for Himself and us who are created in His image. Let's assume that is exactly correct.

The truth, however, is that regardless whether or not G_d created us in His image, we create G_d in our image by our actions every day. That is why we have beautiful examples of love and self sacrifice living daily with examples of hatred and destruction. If you are shallow and cribbed, your G_d (or belief system) will be as well. If you are deep and open, so will be your G_d (or belief system). Hence the glory and shame of religion - and all of our beliefs.

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are a great example of ethical theism - sometimes poly and other times mono - and also ethical agnosticism in that he allows for the possibility that there is no G_d or gods but his actions are the same regardless.

I've read parts of the Meditations, and read about them, and find them inspiring. So no disagreement. And I think there's much that's inspiring in most other religions and some philosophies. I also agree that people who have no religion or set philosophy can lead praiseworthy lives. I think, though, that only living traditions can convey a way of life effectively, and that the philosophy of the Meditations is mostly for the lonely few who can read and understand and live them.

I agree with this. It is a great shame that Stoicism and Epicureanism were subsumed by Christianity, as the works that remain from these philosophies point towards a western strain of thought that rivals the great Eastern traditions (Buddhism, Taoism). However, you simply don't have enough in terms of literature or community to sustain an ongoing application of this in your life in any kind of 'authentic' way imo. You can take advice or inspiration from Marcus Aurelius, or the translations of Epictetus, but you can't really proclaim yourself to be a Stoic, as no such thing exists any more, despite some revivalist attempts.

[Hebrew Hammer]

So far I've definined and briefly commented on atheism, materialism, etc.; good-life and right-action ethics; and belief that entails action. Those concepts will recur in the discussion that follows.

Judaism's first five principles of belief are universal. The first principle is that God created the world. If you accept Sinai revelation, this one's pretty easy. But if not, you have to turn to reason to consider it. Here's the argument:

One question that seems unanswerable is why there's something rather than nothing. Where did matter and energy come from?

The materialist might say that "nothing" doesn't exist; only things we can perceive exist. Our perception can extend back only to the big bang, and to ask about anything before that is fruitless metaphysics (or, if it can be tested, theoretical physics). The logical empiricist, using similar reasoning, might say that the question is meaningless because it asks about something that can't be perceived and tested. The agnostic might say "I don't know; it's just as reasonable to assume that matter and energy are eternal or some other explanation other than a creating God." The atheist might say, "I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not "because God created it."

All those answers are reasonable, but they seem to me to be cribbed. They cut off the exploration of what is a reasonable, and I think the most likely, explanation: There is a force beyond our comprehension that created something from nothing, and that force is what we call God. To recognize that possibility is an opening to explore it, and to try to figure out whether there is a purpose to this creation or whether it's, say, more like a meaningless random number generator.

Given our human consciousness, intellect, emotions, and our capacity for awe and a sense of transendence, I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, you're not living up to your full human potential. And given the possibility that this is a belief that could entail action -- living life with an acquired compass -- I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, that you are morally cutting yourself off what could be the best guide for living.

So, to sum, the notion that God created the world is the most likely explanation of existence, though not one that can be scientifically proved. Part of the good life entails exploring this possibility with open heart and mind.

[Gav]

HH,

Just think, if you added up all the minutes you've taken to think about and write all this how much good you could have done for the world on a practical level.

[beefheart]

Operation Distraction --- Hebrew Hammer Division:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxWuC6jhCX4[/youtube]

[Hebrew Hammer]

HH,

Just think, if you added up all the minutes you've taken to think about and write all this how much good you could have done for the world on a practical level.

You overestimate my ability to help the world and underestimate the power of dialogue on Irongarm.

[The Cunning Stunt]

So far I've definined and briefly commented on atheism, materialism, etc.; good-life and right-action ethics; and belief that entails action. Those concepts will recur in the discussion that follows.

Judaism's first five principles of belief are universal. The first principle is that God created the world. If you accept Sinai revelation, this one's pretty easy. But if not, you have to turn to reason to consider it. Here's the argument:

One question that seems unanswerable is why there's something rather than nothing. Where did matter and energy come from?

The materialist might say that "nothing" doesn't exist; only things we can perceive exist. Our perception can extend back only to the big bang, and to ask about anything before that is fruitless metaphysics (or, if it can be tested, theoretical physics). The logical empiricist, using similar reasoning, might say that the question is meaningless because it asks about something that can't be perceived and tested. The agnostic might say "I don't know; it's just as reasonable to assume that matter and energy are eternal or some other explanation other than a creating God." The atheist might say, "I don't know, but I do know that the answer is not "because God created it."

All those answers are reasonable, but they seem to me to be cribbed. They cut off the exploration of what is a reasonable, and I think the most likely, explanation: There is a force beyond our comprehension that created something from nothing, and that force is what we call God. To recognize that possibility is an opening to explore it, and to try to figure out whether there is a purpose to this creation or whether it's, say, more like a meaningless random number generator.

Given our human consciousness, intellect, emotions, and our capacity for awe and a sense of transendence, I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, you're not living up to your full human potential. And given the possibility that this is a belief that could entail action -- living life with an acquired compass -- I think that if you choose not to explore this with open emotions and intellect, that you are morally cutting yourself off what could be the best guide for living.

So, to sum, the notion that God created the world is the most likely explanation of existence, though not one that can be scientifically proved. Part of the good life entails exploring this possibility with open heart and mind.

To write off the first explanations--or acceptance of one not existing--and then make a big logical leap of faith, deem it most likely, and provide no further explanation.

Your intellect, emotions, awe and sense of transcendence could be byproducts of your upbringing. If not that, then heavily influenced by it.

Kids are easily convinced of most things. You provide them with the idea that accepting things at face value is OK--what happens when they question their beliefs to understand them? How are you equipping them for this task?