Great title for your article, Daviy. That should get the hares running!

The virginity of Mary was probably a big deal to medieval Catholics, but it's hardly a central issue today. Not all of us believe that sin is literally transmitted genetically, or that we are literally descended from Adam and Eve!

Hold the phone... Did I just read what Eckadimmock posted?

If the virgin birth is no big deal why do Catholics pray to the "Virgin Mary"?

And did we hear that many people don't believe in the literal meaning of the words?

Well someone had better tell the churches can the ACCC investigate them for false advertising?... They are all getting tax free status pedaling this stuff and getting mighty wealthy in the process if this article is true.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16261.htm

Did Jesus say these following things or not?

Jesus allegedly said (Matthew 6:24) "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Well the churches sure are trying as hard as they can... Who is correct Jesus or the churches?

Jesus also allegedly said Matthew 19:21 "If you would be(A) perfect, go,(B) sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have(C) treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

If this can be taken literally as Jesus' word what are the churches waiting for?

If Jesus was the son of God ( or God himself as some believe), WHO KNOWS ALL THINGS PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE, why didn't he tell us not to take him literally? It would have saved a lot of debate.

This makes David Young's statement "Jesus could be extremely valuable to humanity with his teachings and philosophies, if he can be delivered from the clutches of Christianity" very justifiable.

Lets privatise the churches! OOps they already are... Let's nationalise them then...

I was told the Christian Bible was inerrant, infallible and God's word... I want my money back!

Eckadimmock
<The virginity of Mary was probably a big deal to medieval Catholics, but it's hardly a central issue today. Not all of us believe that sin is literally transmitted genetically, or that we are literally descended from Adam and Eve!>

If you don't then you are not a Christian. The problem with trying to pin down a Christian on what exactly they believe is that the story continually changes to suit the circumstances. When it is laid out what Christianity is about they come back with 'but we don't believe that any more.' So what do Christians believe?
It could be that many who say they are Christians just do not understand what Christianity means. It is a system based on Paul with two immovable foundation stones, the woman eating the fruit and the purity of Jesus. Anything outside of that is not what we call Christianity today

The two posters above need to understand that there is a difference between truth and literalism. Jesus said he was a gate for the sheep, for example; do you suppose he was claiming to be a piece of wood?

Much of the Bible is myth, in the original sense that it is an allegorical reference to deeper truth. The insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Jesus's sayings are quite a different form of narrative, but do need to be understood in the context of the time when they were uttered.

Much atheist and fundamentalist writing has the same flaw: it tries to reduce a long and intellectually rich tradition into simplistic either/or interpretations of ancient text.

The statement "The crux of the matter is that Christianity is not a religion, it is a legal system." is difficult to fathom, as it appears to be somewhat unsupported.

I have yet to see any Christian legal system in practise. The claim that the church is always right is a legal system is extremely tenuous.

In fact the entire article is based on nit picking through various interpretations of the gospels and apocryphal texts which at best were written several generations after the death of JC.

As the gospels themselves contradict eachother in several places, fine interpretation of a cobbled together text is an exercise in futility.

As one that claims that there is no evidence for the existence of god, (the sargent Schultz approach "I know nothing") this is like a detailed play by play analysis of a hyperthetical football game that might be played if anyone bothers to turn up.