but wait there's more

In the face of proclaiming that the "...foundation of Christianity is the ressurected [sic.] Christ, defying death and the wages of sin on behalf of all of us sinner, you say you do not "...endorse a 'literal' resurrection" -- well then, in what kind of resurrection do you believe? To espouse the belief that what "Jesus as a minister and rabble rouser taught to the spritually [sic.] hungry masses" as being what's most important, that is, well... a bit silly, don't you think? Especially in light of what you go on to say vis-a-vis Mel Gibson's The Passion which, you say, "...focused on a few relatively unimportant moments in Christ's life." Unimportant moments? I've been a reader and participant in your blog for weeks now and I don't understand why you continue tossing out such baseless professions? Is your intent to take exception with why Jesus came? Or is your problem with Gibson, his movie making, and imperfect life (you mention Gibson's DUI, his supposed desire to generate interest in anti-semitism, and disapproval of what he did with profits from the film. Actually, I don't happen to know how much money, if any, he might've donated -- and where it might've gone. Do you?) I applaud Paul Newman and the Newman Foundation for all they've done. Truly. Though, if you were wondering, in Isaiah it says, "But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags." Our good works -- outside of those we do in Christ's name -- don't mean a thing to God. If our good works could get us to heaven, then Jesus came and died in vain. If "how or where [Jesus] ended up is truly secondary to the importance of what he said and did" then you have reduced Jesus to being just another "good man" or prophet. In short, if that's what you feel, then obviously Jesus is of little consequence -- not only for you but the world as you see it, as well. However, I find that difficult to parse when you say (I know, I'm repeating here, quoting you, but it's key) that the "foundation of Christianity is the ressurected Christ, defying death and the wages of sin on behalf of all of us sinners." Huh? By your own admission, Jesus defied death. Nobody else, in all of history, has done that; you acknowledge He did this on our behalf, to propitiate for our sins. Don't you find a disconnect here? I do. (I would also suggest the numerous misspellings and other grammatical errors in this posting indicate a rather thoughtless and hurried web offering.) You then go on to talk about "customizing" Christianity to meed your own needs. If Christ(ianity) can't meet your needs, why bother with the "chop job"? Dump Christianity all together and find something else that works. Really. But as for others (and here you talk about Paul and the early church) "customizing" Christianity... What are you talking about? I mean, literally, be more specific. Otherwise, you're just a loud gong making noise for no reason. I wish there were more here to chew on, about which to have a lively debate. However, since there isn't more to discuss, I'll finish by asking you and Mr. Cameron: Do you really think that a bunch of men could or did synthesize the 66 books of the Bible, written by 40 authors, over thousands of years to come together as one coherent book all by themselves? Without God's help and authorship? Do you honestly think that they could wire up the hundreds of specific prophecies about Jesus? About the destruction/exile/dispersion/presecution/re-gathering/and restoration of the nation Israel? Do you think God would send mankind a "love letter" and not care about what He says? I go back to a question someone posed a while ago here on this blog: Have you read the Bible? I encourage you to do so if you haven't. Read it critically, read it thoroughly, but read it with an open mind and open heart, and ask God to reveal Himself to you in His word. If you do that, I guarantee, the Creator of the universe will show you things you never thought possible. (Of course, there're always those "theories" you hint at in closing. You could put your faith in them.) It's your choice. God bless you.
 

Hear, hear to the previous posting... especially to what he/she said in closing: It's your choice (in what you decide to believe). You state in your blog header that, in part, you're a "pro free will kind of guy." God gives all of us the opportunity to choose. I think He does this for so many reasons, not the least of which is that you can't force anyone to love!
 

As to your "customizing" Christianity to [fit your] own needs, why the hell shouldn't [you]?" You are now making a god to suit yourself and that is a violation of God's first commandment. Of course, from what you've written here throughout your blog, that doesn't seem like something that would concern you.
 

Since a theory is simply a proposed explanation, contemplation or speculation, I suppose any theory about the "origins of the four Canonical Gospels can, in fact, be "valid". However, there is only one truth. And when it comes to theories about evolution... well, like I said, there is only one truth. I suspect I already know where you come down, RW.
 

RW... I don't suppose you're Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury? No. I can't imagine he'd bother jotting down his zodiac year and astrological sign. Cheers!
 

325 AD. Are you Catholic? I ask only because I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion.
 

Here's the thing: the way I see it, you either "buy into" the whole thing: Christ, Genesis to Revelation, 2nd Coming... or you don't. If you don't believe God's word is without error (and by that I mean if you haven't chosen to trust and have faith that it is -- never minding the prophecies that've come to pass, the secular-historical validation, ets.) -- then how do you know what to believe? Or what parts do you believe? Do you just pick and choose? This isn't a salad bar. So, to mix an analogy, with Christ, you're either in the boat or you're out.
 

Christ's murder and resurrection. "Unimportant moments?" You're... at very least, misguided.