Radorth

Oops, I left a thought half completed. I meant to say

There are a miniscule number of churches I would ever go to because they misrepresent the grace, integrity and power of God. They teach "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" and such teaching is useless. They cannot do it themselves either. There are many people (esp legalists) in the church that I wish were not and many who have "fallen away" I wish were still in it. It would be more like what God intended.

Rad

Fiach

Slainte Mhaith, Boyo

Fiach

Radorth

You'd need to be motivated to begin with. Let me know when you are. The NT is full of objective tests and examples, so I take it you haven't read it. And actually, we aren't far apart on basic doctrine- as I said the Nicene creed unites us pretty well on basic doctrine. The questions have to do with whether PEOPLE control the church and it's agenda, or God does. Are there testimonies of supernatural happenings? Are backsliders coming back in large numbers? Is there revival? Is the grace and power of God tangible and overflowing? Are lives changed miraculously? Does it resemble the church Paul gave us many clues about?

I wouldn't define them that way. They are those who know the Bible and claim to keep it but ignore "the weightier matters of the law- justice, mercy and faith." They preach as I said "do not taste, do not touch, do not handle."

Paul wrote much of the NT, so you would obviously label him a "biblical literalist." But he was quite the antithesis of a legalist. A legalist has no clue what he is talking about half the time, and esp in Romans.

Rad

Fiach

Slainte mhaith,

Fiach

Radorth

Well yes I would, if you agree that persecution kept phonies out of the church before Constantine, and that it became fashionable to be a Christian after the king became one. Church offices began to be filled with the politically savy, simony in various forms, became common. Ritual replaced revelation for the Christian, so that praxis was lost. Thus the poor examples thereafter.

I don't know how to more simply define a legalist. If you can't understand what Paul was saying, perhaps you think like one, or you just need a Zen course.

Rad

Tercel

Fiach,

I sincerely doubt that. In my experience, atheists enjoy demolishing beliefs specific to particular Christian sects - generally fundamentalist protestant beliefs.
eg Original Guilt, Inerrancy/Literalism, Anti-Evolutionism, Exclusive Salvation, Belief-Based Salvation, Penal Substituation, a literal Hell etc.

Sure: have fun attacking those things. I, as a Christian, attack them too when I deem it appropriate: I believe narrow, and incorrect, theological views of some Christians has been greatly devestating to Christianity. Though I cannot, of course, approve of the anti-Christian motives with which you atheists attack such doctrines.

However, please do not confuse such doctrines with "core Christian beliefs". I sincerely doubt you have come remotely near close to sucessfully damaging any core Christian beliefs. The core Christian beliefs (as defined by universal Church declarations and as summarised in the Nicence Creed - a statement of faith accepted by all Christians everywhere for the past one and a half millennia) I would describe as follows:
-God is the ultimate creator of all that exists
-There is no being mightier than God
-The man Jesus "Christ", was God incarnate
-His incarnation was for our salvation
-He was crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended
-He will come again to end this world and assert his endless dominion
-The Holy Spirit is to be accounted a part of the God-being with the Father and the Son
-Life will continue after physical death

Perhaps a few more things might be added to that list (I certainly believe many more things than what is on that list), but those are what I see as being the absolute core Christian beliefs. And where Spurly suggests that Christians unite behind their core beliefs, these are what I'd assume he is referring to.

These aren't exactly what I'd call "core Christian beliefs"...
Original Sin: perhaps. However chances are probably fairly high that what you think of "Original Sin" you are referring to the fundamentalist protestant version that suggests were are guilty (see Original Guilt in my first list) of Adam & Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. Of course since many Christians don't agree with Original Guilt, many don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve or a literal Garden of Eden, that's hardly a "core Christian belief". But if by Original Sin you simply mean that the first humans (whoever they were) sinned, or that humanity in general is subject to sin etc then most Christians would probably agree with you.

:banghead:
As a liberal, I have a lot of time for scholars who dissect the Bible and find errors, propose hypotheses of composition (eg Two Source, Documentary Hypothesis) and so fourth. But there is such a thing as complete and utter stupidity. And if, by this comment, you mean you are one of those in the "the New Testament is based on a rehash of earlier ancient Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Babylonian and whatever else, myths and no actual real events" camp, then you can take a hike: Go join a "the moon landing never happened" conspiracy theorist group or something.

Gregg

The Universe emerged from the horn of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, peace be upon her. Disprove that, I dare ya!

It is kind of hard to damage assertions that aren't supported by evidence, other than to say that they're assertions unsupported by evidence.

Of course, if by "there is no being mightier than God" you mean that God is perfect and omnipotent, that is easily demonstrated to be false.Sorry, Terc. I'm a big critic of the moon landing conspiracy types, and the Jesus myth case does NOT fit in that category. You shouldn't dismiss out of hand things that you do not really understand. I suggest that you thoroughly study this Web site before you make any judgments about the mythicist case.

Gregg

Fiach

Despite the ad hominem, I am not going to be sucked into it. Sure I posit that N.T. Christianity is a composite of earlier Egyptian, Greek, Persian, and perhaps Babylonian paganism. I do so by reading books that describe the older religions and see the obvious similarities. I also have a right to the opinion that the whole Jesus of Nazareth story might be fictional, and the story largely plagiarised from older myths. There is no proof of Jesus and I stand by that until someone shows me evidence. I have no intention of "taking a hike" or supporting moon landing conspiracies (mostly from fanatical fundies.) You might not like what I say, but you can't shut me up. Not anymore, the Dark Ages are over in Europe. In America it is trying a come back.

Fiach

Radorth

Some of us prefer reading mythicist scholars who think scriptures like "James the Lord's brother" should be explained in more than two sentences, along with twenty other references to a historical Jesus, without being intellectually dishonest.

Oops, there are no such scholars.

Never mind.

Rad

Tercel

Gregg,
Well Gregg, it seems you do agree with me here, if not for reasons I'd prefer.

I meant what I said.
"Perfect" is so vague as to be meaningless, and when Origen (3rd century) used the word omnipotence to refer to God's power over all other stuff (as opposed to God having infinitely great power) I'm pretty sure what I said above was what he was meaning.

Gregg, I've argued this with you and others here enough before that you should know by I am well versed in your arguments. I am not remotely convinced, nor am I at all convinced that this is because I do not sufficiently understand the mythicist case. Such claims seem to me reminiscient of fundamentalist christian claims I see: that if an atheist Really understood the Truth then they'd believe.
At any rate, I have studied Doherty's website. In fact I have gone to the effort of starting to write a refutation of his main articles so I can link to it whenever somebody brings up the subject. (I get rather sick of repeating "don't be stupid" whenever somebody claims Jesus never existed, it'd be much easier (and more convincing) to say: "That's not true: See here for my argument why") My critique of his "Part One: A Conspiracy of Silence" is almost complete, though progressing at zero speed at the moment due to a work overload, and my list of verses in the NT epistles that refer to a historical Jesus is basically complete and is actuallyonline in really ugly draft format. (Your comments on that would be appreciated)