I was confronted by a beloved relative on FB with regard to some of my recent political pronouncements. They felt they would correct me where they thought I was going wrong -- specifically in my intrigue and thus far support of Occupy Wall Street. The language they used in their argument, such as it was, made clear they or whomever they were being informed by were likely listeners of Glenn Beck. This isn't surprising, as this branch of the family is also evangelical Christian, and probably well-described as "conservadem". I was concise in my response -- a rarity for me -- but have effectively put the matter to bed for now, without really getting into it. Thing is, I know it's only temporary. What I wonder, as I formulate various lines of argument, is, would it be disingenuous for me -- an agnostic who leans hard toward atheism, and certainly has no belief in Satan -- to posit the possible motives of Satan for the purposes of this discussion, or would that just be putting the argument into a context they can better grasp and appreciate?
Wondering...
Wondering...
