In his essay, Edwin Curley, breaks down some pretty generic, and widely accepted tenants of Christianity. i know, i know.....you're all going to say that all people don't HAVE to believe the same things and people interpret scripture differently....blah, blah, blah. However; the themes that he breaks down are :original sin, the need for personal salvation, the problem of evil and free will, and eternal reward or eternal punishment. i think anyone that is not trying to confuse the issue would agree that these are widely accepted pillars in moderate christian theology across the board. he touches on predestination but this is not as big a hit these days. Curley believes that the Christians who hold the scripture as having unchallenged authority have more squares to circle, but also have more real estate atop the moral high ground. If there is no way to validate what parts of scripture is binding and which are not, then the good hearted cherry picked morality of thoughtful believers cant be supported with the same veracity as the fundamentalist whack jobs can. I totally agree. Either God occasionally writes books.....or he doesn't. Do thoughtful Christians have an equal claim to call themselves Christians as the fundamentalists do when they consciously reject, or at the very least neglect, the portions that don't suit their innate sense of fairness, justice, and decency?
Fact Q: In Dostoevsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov, what is Ivan's maxim?
A: If there is no god, then anything is permitted.