Yeah, I thought we'd been over that 

Anyway, I've got some atmospheric chemistry papers to pick useful results out of, so I'm out for the night. It's been a pleasure, folks. John, many thanks for the civil and well thought out discussion.
EDIT: And by that I don't mean "I ahve the lastword! AHAHAHAHA!", just that I won't be able to reply again till probably tomorrow evening and by then the discussion will have moved on. Case in point- the concept of hell. Apparently.
-Nick
I've never considered the Bible to be anything other than option c), myself. I don't think that invalidates the philosophies and wisdom found in it, but I feel it should always be considered in the context of the time in which it was written or, before it was written down, first told. Every human observation contains the bias of the viewer- it's why there are four gospels, I suppose. An attempt at verification.John Galt said:However, the Old and New Testaments clearly show that something went off in God's noggin. Either he a) Actually wrote the Old Testament and decided being a prick wasn't going to work anymore. b) Did not write the Old Testament and then sent Jesus to clear things up (This would invalidate a large chunk of the Abrahamic faiths). Or c) None of it was written by a divine hand and is therefore subject to the individual prejudices of the men who write it.
Oh, there have been people doing that for centuries. What's stopping them is usually people dismissing them as nutters. Hell, when Jesus started preaching in his home town he got laughed out of the synagogue- he was just the carpenter from down the road. It would take a very special individual with a very powerful message to turn enough heads to make waves of the kind you're suggesting within a major religion.John Galt said:There is nothing really stopping anyone from coming in a few years from now, claiming to be the son of God, and then radically changing the doctrine to something else.
This is true. The only way followers can protect themselves is by familiarising themselves with their own scriptures and staying alert for people who would lead them astray. As I see it, the sum total message of Christianity can be summed up in three words: "love one another". People can quote chapter and verse till they're teal in the face but if they come out with *anything* that contradicts those three simple words they are wrong, and if I found myself in their presence I would tell them as much.John Galt said:However, many people have and do regard the letters as gospel and have acted upon them. Even in the Protestant Churches, you have horrifying amounts of literalism and gay bashing (Jerry Falwell comes to mind). Isn't this just another case of the clergy preaching something different to suit their needs? The Reformation did not solve anything along those lines.
I wouldn't say I want to avoid it- just that I don't see it as being realistic. Modern societies (sort of) function when people from a wide range of ideologies can agree on enough to get by. We'll never agree on everything, and maybe that's for the best because, as we've seen in this thread, it keeps people thinking about their own valuesJohn Galt said:However, this is just the utopia that I'll be delivered to if I follow your faith. Something even you seem to want to avoid.
I'd rather have mutable doctrine than immutable, since having a set of rules that *cannot* be changed or reinterpreted can lead to either apathy or fundamentalism. Again, it would be assuming that their organisation has created perfect rule in an imperfect universe. One good thing about our cynical modern society is that anyone claiming to 'have a direct link to God' really has their work cut out for them proving it.John Galt said:This exposes another problem with the mutable doctrine. Only a few centuries ago, 'be baptised or be buggered' was a widely accepted sentiment. There is nothing stopping it from being changed in the future, so long as you have someone who claims to have a direct link to God.
Entirely possible. In the end it's a question of faith- to believe the testimony of the followers, or not.John Galt said:On Jesus stating that as a fact. Is it possible for him to have been self-appointed. Outside of the OT prophets, no one really said he was the son of God other than his followers. It is also possible that he simply shaped his ministry to correspond with the OT's prohpets and thus net him more followers.
Anyway, I've got some atmospheric chemistry papers to pick useful results out of, so I'm out for the night. It's been a pleasure, folks. John, many thanks for the civil and well thought out discussion.
EDIT: And by that I don't mean "I ahve the lastword! AHAHAHAHA!", just that I won't be able to reply again till probably tomorrow evening and by then the discussion will have moved on. Case in point- the concept of hell. Apparently.
-Nick