Honestly, Bugsy, are you a teenager or something? Almost everyone else in this thread has, of late, managed to share their views without resorting to condescension, sarcasm and plain rudeness. If you don't like what I say, or think I'm stupid for saying it, then that's your opinion. Most adults are capable of sharing their opinions politely. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Peter the Believer,

"Atheists have put Judges and Magistrates in the position of Almighty God for the personal gain of a great many of their believers."

I suppose you'll be putting a submission before the forthcoming Royal Commission, giving the names of all the atheist magistrates and judges?

Oh, no, perhaps you won't. "The Magistrates and Judges are truly to be feared. They are gods, and totally an atheist creation."

But for OLO participants, dear Peter, would you be so kind as to give us a list of all the magistrates and judges who are atheists? What do we make of those of their rank who are frequently seen at Church? The Devil in disguise perhaps?

Daviy,

I do not have a copy of “Jesus the Man”. I was thinking of “Jesus of the Apocalypse”. I agree Theiring seems to delve into speculation.

What I do like about Theiring from the little of her work I have read is she looks at the historical Jesus from the perspective of Jesus the Jewish teacher and Jews ministering the Gentiles, towards the end of the fourth (Jewish) millenium. It sets a different scene than the Divine Jesus senscario. Here, the timeline laps into the first century based on the destiny of Judaism in Roman occupied lands.

With the latter history, Christianity develops in spurts from second century and accelerates after Constantine gives his endorsement. As Roman falls, the Holy Roman Church becomes entrenched.

Again I agree early records are the best. Matthew and Thomas the are earliest gospels. Yet, even these gospels were written after a period of spoken lore.

The Dead Seas Scrolls give some firsthand insight into religion in Jesus’ time. Not only the NT. Rewrites of parts of Genesis have been discovered.

Over many posts, I have unsuccessfully tried to encourage Sells to examine the history of the Christian Church and recognise the Creeds coming from Nicaea, are not representative of the historical Jesus. Also, that the Christian Jesus is an embellishment.

Regards,

O

Bushbasher

Its not merely a question of vocabulary. God is the appropriate word for my purpose.
Interesting that you should be moved to persuade me to modify my ‘beliefs’. Are you a ‘proselytising’ atheist?

You ask what would be lost. Well the first thing that would be lost would be a connection with about three thousand years of theological reflection.
Reference to the Divine differentiates theology from psychology and philosophy. It leaves open the possibility that there is more to life than biological machinery. We are, as you say, “just a bunch of atoms” but what a remarkable bunch of atoms we are. What other ‘bunch of atoms’ actually knows that it is just a ‘bunch of atoms’? What other bunch of atoms contemplated the possibility of the Divine. What other bunch of atoms can actually ‘imagine’ something greater than themselves, greater even than the vast expanse of the universe. What other bunch of atoms contemplates the purpose of its own being?

Science may help me to explore the universe but it does not help to be all that I might be. I don’t think I’ll abandon the G word for the moment , in spite of your admonitions.
God Bless

There is absolutely no conflict between believing in god and accepting the fact of evolution. The only conflict is between the fact of evolution and self-serving, ego-gratifying religious fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists don't oppose the teaching of evolution because they want to protect god from atheists, or to preserve the accuracy of science. They do it because they feel vulnerable and unimportant without the reassurance that they were made specially by god, who will reward them for their unquestioning obedience to a particular interpretation of a Bronze Age folk story. Without that to rely on, they are forced to make their own judgements and risk bearing responsibility for their choices.

It's a childish caricature of god that brings the concept of a divine creator down to the level of a father substitute who will relieve us of the burden of making our own moral decisions.

Oh, crud. I posted to the wrong thread. It's still relevant.