If I am going to be in on this discussion I am going to have to pick my issues because there are too many questions.

Neohuman. I am neither a creation science person nor an intelligent design person. Creationism fails to realize that biblical literature is a mixture of legend composed in historical context and history composed in a theological context. The creation stories belong to the former, how could they be the latter? Creationism sets up a Christianity that looks more like a modern cult with God beaming down secrets of the universe. Intelligent design is based on the difficulty of imagining the complexity of life being accidental. However there is no evidence that it is not. If the work of a designer could be demonstrated it would have nothing in common with the God of the bible who is “enthroned on the praises of Israel”.

I never said other religions were wrong. Although I insist that Christianity has no foundations in modern thought (that is rather a limited claim given the parameters of modern thought) we might point out the kinds of human beings and societies that Christianity at its best produces and compare them with what the other religions, at their best produce. i.e by their fruits you will know them. This survey does not rely on religious prejudice, but on levels of government corruption, sanctity of the individual, the ordering of public life. As I have pointed out before, theological systems produce social systems.

Many of the questions raised could be dealt with if we worked with a more biblical doctrine of God instead of the God of the philosophers. Forget the philosophical attributes, our God rules from the cross, a scandal and a sign of absolute weakness. God is weak in the world! It is only out of this weakness that he is triumphant and makes the powers of the world weak.

Trinity, I think I fit into the 'same old crowd' but there is value in the various positions discussing volatile issues.

Garra, you seem to be (still) feeling that any effort by Christians to influence the legislative process in shall we say "family friendly" ways, or, who speak their mind in this forum is an assault on your freedoms or is trying to 'force' you to do this and that. I'm wondering what kind of ugly and bad experience you must have had with a church or a Christian which has left you in this sad condition. (we have all had 'those' experiences...trust me)

Peter has some valuable things to say, and tries to communicate them in a caring way.

Oh...
Pricillian,

you made a bit of a booboo in your point "D" about the gospels being selected because the reflected the ideas of Paul.

That is actually very demonstrably INcorrect. It is one of the strong claims to authenticity that the gospels in fact do NOT reflect Pauls doctrines, as one would certainly expect them to do if they were a product of the church founded by Paul.

Have another read of Pauls writings and then the gospels.

Last wednesday in Bible study we looked at these profound words

Ephesians 3
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God

Sells wrote
>Neohuman. I am neither a creation science person nor an intelligent design person. Creationism fails to realize that biblical literature is a mixture of legend composed in historical context and history composed in a theological context. The creation stories belong to the former, how could they be the latter? Creationism sets up a Christianity that looks more like a modern cult …...

Thank you Peter for your considered and sincere reply, I hope to see you take that point up with Aslan at some stage.

>Intelligent design is based on the difficulty of imagining the complexity of life being accidental. However there is no evidence that it is not. If the work of a designer could be demonstrated it would have nothing in common with the God of the bible who is “enthroned on the praises of Israel”.

You are right again even if we could show an Intelligent Designer –which there us no evidence for- it not need be the Christian God it could well be a number of likely alternatives.

>I never said other religions were wrong.

No Peter, but your doctrinal centrality of Jesus, and the theology that goes with it, sin, Trinity etc must by it’s nature invalidate most if not all other religious traditions. For Islam Jesus is not the son of God but a prophet, karma and reincarnation is meaningless, the myriad Hindu gods become social/cultural creations.

>…. we might point out the kinds of human beings and societies that Christianity at its best produces and compare them with what the other religions..

That certainly is a new spin on it Peter, a functionalist view validating Christianity. But what about things like Democracy –Pagan Greeks gave us that- or the rule of law, separation of powers, these can be done without invoking Christianity. What about the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Humanism does this play no part in their creation? Don’t forget the medieval world was dominated by Christianity, if Christianity brought about these social innovations why have we moved away from that model?

Thanks for your response, Sells. While I disagree with your claims to their continuing salience, I take your point that the Jesus myths probably constitute the central narrative of Western culture. Where we differ is that I think that they have passed their use-by date in the multicultural societies that now comprise the 'West', at least in terms of their unquestioned dominance.

I see that a couple of the drones have arrived - clearly, they have much to learn from a reasonable Christian like you.

Garra,
So the words of Christ have passed their use by date, and are irrelavent?

Quote by Garra, "Thanks for your response, Sells. While I disagree with your claims to their continuing salience, I take your point that the Jesus myths probably constitute the central narrative of Western culture. Where we differ is that I think that they have passed their use-by date in the multicultural societies that now comprise the 'West', at least in terms of their unquestioned dominance."

We certainly know Garra what you do not believe are relavent principles of absolute morality and pure human relationships. So I would like to know how you would define a modern society with best human relationships and social interaction? Delete any influence of Christ's words and teaching as it is no longer relavent according to you. Come on give it a go. It is easier to destroy as position than to build a position. Obviously you prefer to destroy, show us how you would build!! Or is your primary values based in DESTRUCTION?

Philo, no I don't wish to change my mobile phone plan... oh, you're not that kind of drone, you're one of the godbothering kind. Apologies for the error, but you read from a similar script.

Speaking of reading, if you removed your fundamentalist blinkers, you'd see that I acknowledge the salience of Christian mythology to our culture, but question its right to dominance in a multicultural society that incorporates many world views and religions.

As for the values that I think would help to create a better world, that's easy:

1. Peace and nonviolence
2. Ecological sustainability
3. Participatory democracy
4. Social Justice

There you go - I don't need any kind of mythological narrative to imagine a better future for all of us.