jhimm - you seem to have become very upset with some very innocuous comments. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? In an attempt to disentangle some of this, here are some things you have said, and my responses to your comments.

You said:

“I do not see two claims of universal narrative as conflicting. I see two human constructs which are inherently incomplete because humans are incomplete laying claim to something impossible to claim.”

- I think syncretism may be overstating things, but the implied direction of the comment seems to me to be syncretism. No need to get upset about it. If that wasn’t the implication - tell me what you did mean (if it wasn’t syncretism).

You said:

“I am absolutely not trying to make either Judaism or Christianity into “something else”. (Talk about vague?)”

- “something else” (my comment) is anything other than “particular” (of Judaism/Christianity). It’s not a case here of better or worse, just that on their own terms, Judaism and Christianity don’t allow for incorporation into a harmonising synthesis with other religions. I agree, you could make the point that religons exist now that didn’t then, with which Christianity, for instance, might harmonise. I doubt it, however; the claims of Jesus for himself, and the traditional view of the church about Jesus, bring him into direct conflict with other religions, when you look closely into what they are saying. Bhuddism and Taoism are somewhat different in not being, in essence, religious systems - though it’s arguable that Bhuddism has become that.

You said:

“I never said anything remotely like “there is no truth except my truth and your truth”.”

- It sounded like it to me. Thank you for your correction, and apologies if it misrepresented you. But what you go on to say sounds like saying we would all agree on a deeper level if only we could find the right words to express it. Isn’t another alternative that people do substantively disagree, and that one view may present a better or more accurate picture of things than another?

You said:

“How can evidence be apparent without comparative research?”

- Evidence can of course be apparent without comparative research - but oddly, you seem upset about something with which we are in agreement, that comparative research would be a good thing! However we probably disagree about the possible outcome of such research: that not all explanations of the way things are equally compelling.

You said:

“Where we disagree is on the notion that somehow one is being disrespectful, not listening and somehow striving to change what someone else’s narrative is by refusing to buy into the decidedly non-post-modern notion that truth exists, and is purely objective, and therefore conflicting claims to an exclusive, universal meta-narrative demands that at most one can be “right” and the rest must be “wrong”.”

- You seem to be saying what you originally denied having said or believed: ‘there is no truth except my truth and your truth’. However, I’m not entirely sure what you are saying - and would appreciate some help here.

BTW In the light of your concluding ‘strapline’ - interesting that Jesus’s last words on the cross were “It is finished” - John 19:30 (literally - “It is perfectly perfect”) . Or maybe it wasn’t? I wouldn’t want to appear inflammatory!