Dear Oliver,

Although Jesus, if he existed at all, was supposedly a Jew, the gospels appeared a number of years after his death. Scholars maintain that some version of all of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have existed in some version no later than the mid-second century. The New Testament has never been finally canonised. Martin Luther wanted to exclude four books. We can discount the miracles including the resurrection and the virgin birth as tales added to appeal to the taste of the age.

The first followers of Jesus formed two groups: the Jewish group which mainly followed James who claimed to be Jesus’ brother and the largely gentile group which followed Paul. With the failure of the 70 AD revolt against the Romans the Jewish group disappeared. From then on the main appeal of the new sect was to gentiles, and scripture was written with that in view.

According to Shlomo Sand in “The Invention of the Jewish People” Jews were also gaining converts to the Jesus-free version until the fourth century when Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire insisted on exclusive market share within that Empire.

Dear davidf and other heathens,
this is sacrilege!
The Bible is the Word of God for all time, ever and anon! Regardless of inclusions, deletions or accretions, notwithstanding translations, exceptions, innovations, obviations or the "good news'. Beneath all the adventures of Man (sorry ladies, you're with him) lies a paradox, a deadening/life-giving hypostasis; eternal ethereal life for this material life..
Since we're told we "must wager" in "This Sporting Life" (great film).
I'm with Khayyam:
Oh, threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain--This Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.

Dear Oliver,

>> This detatchment … does, I think, allow me to be very objective <<
It used to be said “since I (e.g. as a Catholic) know the Truth, I can better adjudicate between the claims of X and Y”. I think we all should strive for “knowing the truth” and being “objective”, as long as we realise that there is no absolute knowing nor absolute objectivity. Those who agree with you will see you as being “very close to truth” and/or “very objective” in judging other claims. As I wrote before, an outsider (to a belief system, to a culture, or e.g. to mathematics for that matter) can inform and enhance the insider’s view/knowledge but cannot replace it. If you know enough physics you can explain a bike rider why he does not fall off the bike, but that is not the same as knowing how to ride a bike.

>>there might be other unknown quasi-physical systems. It is here I suggest that the true debate about External Agency sits<<
This is the gradually receding “God of the gaps” approach: we needed Him to explain the nature of thunderstorms, now we still seem to need Him to explain the fine tuning of the Universe. However, “the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao” (Tao-Te-Ching - compare with Wittgenstein’s famous quote) or “Ein begriffener Gott ist kein Gott (a conceptualised god is no God) as put by the Protestant mystic Gerhard Tersteegen.

So let me try to finish this debate, that in spite of (or becaiuse of) our differences in approach made me think, with a quote from Chuang Tzu, as translated by Thomas Merton:

“If you persists in trying
To attain what is never attained
(It is Tao’s gift!)
If you persist in making effort
to obtain what effort cannot get;
If you persist in reasoning
About what cannot be understood,
You will be destroyed
By the very thing you seek.

To know when to stop,
To know when you can get no further
By your own action
This is the right beginning.

Dear George,

I like your quote.

Dear Squeers,

I think Marxism is no more reasonable than the supernatural brands of religion. In the twentieth century it produced a lot more corpses.

Dear Davidf,
I'm still assessing "Marxism" for reasonableness, though certainly I don't believe in any "isms". I do think Marx was eminently reasonable, though, of course, like the rest of us eminently reasonable people he was, in all likelihood, also wrong.
Have you considered, incidentally, that Humanism is tantamount to a religion?
Perhaps another time..

Dear George,
I admire your ambition to try and round off this discussion with some type of conclusion. And Chuang Tzu’s little poem was eloquent.

However, any valid conclusion must at least address the question in hand. In this sense it misses the mark.

This is the topic stated at the top of the page:
“The teachings of most mainstream religions are consistent with evolution.”

We’re free to talk about anything, and I myself am happy to stray off subject. But it might be better to keep some kind of goal or perspective in mind.

A vague poem about knowing the wisdom of when to stop not go further might be appropriate for a search for the meaning of life, the universe, and Everything. But does it address the issue? Do we care if there even is an issue, or do we just want to pontificate about our favourite subjects?