God as the ultimate child abuser

[Elok]

No, but I know the Anglican "archbishop" is a joke. He held this revolting interview with Philip Pullman and fawned over him. Oh, and my parish priest used to be Episcopalian. He left their ranks to form our church, together with his wife and about a dozen parishioners, after a referendum stating that "clergy should abstain from extramarital sex" failed to pass at some conference. And then there's that absurd lesbian-bishops fiasco. Everything I hear about the Anglican Communion (though I admit I don't bother to follow closely) hints at a watering-down.

[Dr Strangelove]

Lesbian bishop?
Phillip Pullman?

We've had our share of converts from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, in fact our priest switched from studying to be an Eastern Orthodox priest.

[Dr Strangelove]

OK, Phillip Puillman is a children's fantasy writer. Big Deal.
The real question is......... what's the Archbishop's position on tinky-wink, right?

Seriously Elok, are these the issues on which you pick a church, what type of children's books they read or who gets to stick which body part in which oriface? Personally I don't go to church to find narrow-mided people to associate with. (I can find them on any street corner.)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Straybow

If by putting it in quotes ("Christianity" [sic]) you mean the centuries of superstition and Greco-Roman philosophy that has come to represent the bulk of Christian tradition, yes. If you mean Jesus' teachings, the miracles, the death and resurrection, no. You have absolutely nothing concrete to support that assertion, only your distaste for anything supernatural.

Not at all. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural. It's patently obvious that the Gospel stories describe violations of the natural order, and for that reason (as Hume argued) are to be discounted. But that is a separate argument.

My argument here is that we know very little about the historical Jesus, and even his existence is in doubt. The evidence we have are religious writings from well after the facts (if there were any), and we simply know that in their early stages, religions are highly malleable, especially once the "founder" dies and there is a struggle for dominance among the remaining members.

Nothing you have said counters that argument. Your position seems to be: "I really want the Gospel stories to be true, so they must be".

On the other hand, if you had spent a lot of your time dealing with ancient biography and texts purporting to reveal the ideas of ancient thinkers, you would know that the evidence in this case is extremely thin. In other words, if you apply the standards of modern historical research to the Gospels and early Christian writings, you will discover that there is very little reason to believe that the Gospels represent a historical record in the modern sense of the term.

For centuries this did not matter, as scholars simply did not have the resources, methods or evidence to subject the Gospel stories to fact checking. Now we do, and it does not look good for them. So what if a lot of people have a lot of emotion invested in these stories, the facts speak for themselves.

[Agathon]

Why is it that there are tens of thousands of Xian sects and denominations and you choose to focus upon one that is perhaps the most divisive and contrarian in modern history? Why don't you consider the case of Luther, or Calvin, or other prominant 16th cen reformers? What about John and Charles Wesley, more nearly contemporaries of Smith?

Because they aren't equivalent cases. They aren't people claiming wholly new revelations. The Quakers would be a better example.

[Jon Miller]

SDAs don't claim any new revelations.

JM
(There is only one unique doctrine in SDAism, and I don't think it came from EGW)

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
one point which I think makes the redemption story rather implausible but atheists hardly ever bring up is, was this the only planet in the whole universe where the sentient beings needed to be redeemed?

If not, did Jesus have to die multiple times around the universe in redemptive acts?

This question, I'm told, was the subject of lively discussion back in the 19C.

Lewis has an interesting (and probably heretical) spin on it in Out of the Silent Planet.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's patently obvious that the Gospel stories describe violations of the natural order, and for that reason (as Hume argued) are to be discounted.

Ah well that's the real problem for you isn't it. Now we're getting somewhere

If you can't make the leap of faith then you are right, it all must be bunk.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Ah well that's the real problem for you isn't it. Now we're getting somewhere

If you can't make the leap of faith then you are right, it all must be bunk.

And if it's all bunk, then there's no reason to make the leap of faith. So if you don't whether or not it's bunk in the first place, why make the leap of faith?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Lorizael


And if it's all bunk, then there's no reason to make the leap of faith. So if you don't whether or not it's bunk in the first place, why make the leap of faith?

It has been compared with the way the apostles left their boats behind.

Of course they didn't exist so its poor example

[Lorizael]

This is a multicultural board, so try giving an example from Hinduism or Druidism or Native American animism - you know, some other religion that requires a leap of faith.

[Alexander's Horse]

They all do don't they?

I wonder if Agathon thinks Buddha existed. Pliny doesn't mention him.

[Lorizael]

Of course, for most it's not really a leap of faith, what with most people simply accepting as true the mythological stories of whatever culture they grow up in.

Unless the story is old and no one cares about it anymore. Those crazy Greeks and their Hercules. Whatever happened to him, anyways?

[Alexander's Horse]

a lot of truth in what you say

[Lorizael]

Have I crushed your faith yet?