What is a 'Christ'?

[firstfloor]

It's not so much leading edge as it is complete and utter twaddle.

[One Bad Pig]

You're looking to Robert M. Price for validation?

[Adrift]

I see you've latched onto a new author to idolize because the spew nonsense you want to hear. Of course, you've been that way since you joined and had the faith designation of "Armstrongist"*. This sounds rather descriptive of you and those you've put on a pedestal.

2 Timothy 4:3 [Full Chapter]
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

*That was back when he was reading Karen Armstrong I believe.

If I recall correctly, he also went through a "bishop" Spong phase.

[Christianbookworm]

Spong???

[firstfloor]

I'll take Spong. Anything but magic.

[Cerebrum123]

I have found what seems to me to be a productive seam. We all have teachers and we all follow our favourites. This is leading edge and controversial stuff mainly because the field is so ultra-conservative. Tradition has its place but it will copy errors endlessly.

How did you even type that with a straight face?

[firstfloor]

Don't you think that history should inform your religious convictions? In which case, religion should not be taught until the history of Roman conquests and the economy and politics of the region are understood.

[firstfloor]

And that understanding requires more than canon.

[Cerebrum123]

I'll take Spong. Anything but magic.

Pretty much proving G. K. Chesterton right with this.

Source: G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy. Chapter 9

Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

[Christianbookworm]

Pretty much proving G. K. Chesterton right with this.

Source: G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy. Chapter 9

Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Precisely. The reason I might not believe some cutesy modern miracle story is that there isn't a source for it to check validity. Not because it's a miracle.

[firstfloor]

It is not that I or we have a doctrine against miracles but that Mother Nature forbids them. Mother Nature even rules God.

[Cerebrum123]

It is not that I or we have a doctrine against miracles but that Mother Nature forbids them. Mother Nature even rules God.

I think I'll believe my own eyes, medical history, and past in general over your assertions any day.

[firstfloor]

I know you will. It is never wise, it is laziness to take someone else's word for it. Always check you facts.

[Christianbookworm]

I think I'll believe my own eyes, medical history, and past in general over your assertions any day.

How could nature rule God??? That's like saying that a computer programmer can't do stuff with his own coding that the end user of the program would not be able to do.

[firstfloor]

Nature can be manipulated of course but the rules are fixed.