From what I can tell, your post has little or nothing to do with the argument at hand. Yes there are many valid points in there about the 'evils' of orthodoxy and how they set us back several hundred years. And yes, much of the story around Christ seems to be borrowed from other religions (the early Church Fathers noted this and wrote it off as tamperings from Satan) but none of this disproves an historical Christ figure.
What is more, there are several mistakes. The part about three Magi is crap. There is no refrence to how many Magi there was (we only know that there is more than one due to the plural), it is just assumed that there are three because there was three presents.
Also, the points you state are central to Christian faith is not accurate either. They are central to Catholic faith. That is not the same thing. Although you rightly state that all modern christian groups stem from the Catholic Church, for several centuries after (and before) Constintine the majority of Christians would have disagreed with your points.
I would like to state that I am taking this argument down a secular angle and that as a starting point, all miricles are assumed to be coincidence and embelishment.
'I don't "do" theists links BTW ... I expect anyone advancing their own views in such contentious areas to be able to write a fully justify their own POV.'
The reason I presented the link was that it pretty much covers the basics of the argument and provides a starting point for debate. Did you read the link or did you made up your mind when you saw the thread title?
What is more, there are several mistakes. The part about three Magi is crap. There is no refrence to how many Magi there was (we only know that there is more than one due to the plural), it is just assumed that there are three because there was three presents.
Also, the points you state are central to Christian faith is not accurate either. They are central to Catholic faith. That is not the same thing. Although you rightly state that all modern christian groups stem from the Catholic Church, for several centuries after (and before) Constintine the majority of Christians would have disagreed with your points.
I would like to state that I am taking this argument down a secular angle and that as a starting point, all miricles are assumed to be coincidence and embelishment.
'I don't "do" theists links BTW ... I expect anyone advancing their own views in such contentious areas to be able to write a fully justify their own POV.'
The reason I presented the link was that it pretty much covers the basics of the argument and provides a starting point for debate. Did you read the link or did you made up your mind when you saw the thread title?
