2/...
As for belief in the divine nature of Jesus, the Anglican Church still, I believe, requires its ordainees to avow their belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles, which includes the following:

"Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."...

"Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day."

And I understand the official creed of the Catholic Church is similar.

So if belief in the divine birth, death and resurrection of Jesus is 'fundamentalist', then the entire Anglican and Catholic Churches are fundamentalist bodies. Won't the Archbishop of Canterbury be surprised!

I would be telling my child that today as always we are worshipping the loving Jesus. In the context of that Luke 14 passage, the phrase compares the love for family and one’s own self with the requirement of following Jesus. Nothing must compete with one's devotion to Christ.

All Scripture has its context and it's usually clear enough.

And I would agree with Jon J's earlier sentiments that the Christian faith as revealed in Scripture is pretty plain and clear, that the bodily resurrection of Christ is a foundational tenet of the faith, which was believed upon by the early church as a witnessed event of history (and later confirmed in the Anglican articles of faith and other orthodoxies.)

And a miraculous event such as the resurrection of Christ is not of much or any qualitative difference from other creative miracles such as the creation of man or the virgin birth. So I can't see the sense in believing in one and not the others.

Speaking earlier of consensus, a consensus may at times be valuable. But it's no ultimate guiding principle. A consensus didn't help those in Noah's day. They were all pretty much in agreement that it didn't look like it would rain.

noah created an interesting conundrum
like the theory being it wasnt world wide [as such]..but only the mediterrainian flooding with sea rise breaching gibralta..5.3 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

its one of those connundrums..cause [apparently]..humans only evolved 70 to 100 [thousand]* [*not million]..years ago..

and while its likely..that the story was told
long before writing was invented...the flood[of the med]..happend

to many it would 'look like' the whole world flooded
but how could the huh?mans..pre invention of writting..
have kept the story true to that now infured as..[interd]..as holy

only by devine guidence of spirit
recalling an event..plus 5 million years ago..
as fresh as if it mearly happend a few thou years ago

anyhow
5 million years ago..wernt we one continent?
yet science seems firm that eve..[renamed lucy]
cant have witnessed 5 million years ago..nor properly envision a global event..[thus infurs local witness..of a local event...as seen in its time..by living flesh being..or flesh made [born again]..into spirit]

Am enjoying the discussion;

Re Jon J's comments on fundamentalism and Anglican & Roman Catholic orthodoxy; a couple of things to note: fundamentalism began in the US as a movement to safeguard what were considered orthodox beliefs like the Virgin Birth, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus, and his second coming; and so it was, historically, an expression of orthodox Christian beliefs (as Dan points out). However, fundamentalism (even in its historic expressions) cannot be equated with orthodoxy; in opting for inerrancy it went beyond the historic creeds, for example; and, over time, fundamentalists have tended to add to the list of 'fundamental' or 'non-negotiably important' beliefs - with a tendency to sectarianism (eg. 'our church is more Biblical than yours!').

Moreover, Anglicanism and Roman Catholocism - though containing fundamentalistic elements or sub-groupings - are quite diverse - and, in many cases, very open to contemporary knowledge - on things like Noah's Flood, for example. I think it would be safe to say that most Anglicans (world-wide) and most Roman Catholics would not take the early chapters of Genesis literalistically - which tends to be the way of most fundamentalists these days.

Re Jesus (or the Gospels) being contradictory in his (or its) teachings, Dan has answered that one well!! Hyperbole to make a point, surely.

Re the flooding of the Mediterranean 5.3 million years ago - that is helpful to know ('one under god'); if that is the most recentlarge scale Noah-like flood, it is unlikely (as you say) to have played any role in the creation of flood stories. The flooding of the Black Sea in about 5,600 BC is more likely to have influenced the creation of flood stories - later picked up and modified by Hebrew story-tellers.

A most interesting and worthwhile article, and I congratulate you, Keith "Restless" Mascord, for this insightful explanation of a part of your journey to such an enlightened and evolutionary viewpoint.

I also find myself bound to take a broader view of the 'compilation' of the bible and associated works as evolutionary, rather than static; as part lesson, explanation, mythology and guide, rather than as infallibly prescriptive or as an immutable revelation of all that was and all that will be. (Not that I would dare to compare my understanding or my journey with yours, for I am truly as a mere child in the wilderness of wonder and discovery.)

The message I take from Noah is that of husband-er and shepherd, carer and caretaker of this our home, and of all it entails and offers. My God is of the universe and of all things, both in them and of them, and our role is to nurture, and in turn to receive nurture; ours is to savour, and not to abuse, misuse or destroy in ignorance or in arrogance.

My God is guide and benefactor, providing lessons whereby we may prevail in harmony and common interest, and avoid risk of error and downfall, either by our own hand or by that of another. Some are indeed hard lessons, which I fear we have not yet learned or taken fully to heart - much to the dismay of so many residing in hardship and in peril.

Our arrogance, either of belief or of self-interest is our pathway to division and destruction, and perhaps our destiny. A pity that some tenacious adherence to literal 'belief' precludes vision and true understanding - and thereby precludes a wholehearted embracing of opportunity and of possibilities. Only my opinion, of course. Unlike with Noah, we are most unlikely to have a second chance.

I find myself in an unusual position of agreeing with stevenlmeyer's initial comment. This perplexes me. :o)