I also found it interesting. Ayn Rand also suggested that certain elements of ethical individualism are at the root of ancient Christianity. Love your neighbor as yourself rests on an explicit assumption. And on a tangential note, I know from the history of astronomy that the MEDIEVAL church was highly supportive of science. The Galileo Affair involved the Church of the Counter-Reformation, a different set of men, entirely.

The fundamental problem that I see is that no one can say what "The Bible" really is. The actual manuscripts are highly suspect and the KJV and other editions are only translations, i.e., interpretations. Only the actual original works can be considered the Word of God - and those are not available. In fact, they were held for a thousand years by men who had every reason to change history.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Apostolic church. Coptics for instance, but also a tradition in India, trace their history to other Apostles whose writings can only be accepted as Scripture. How would you reconcile any of that for internal consistency?

I agree that the Christian Egoist quoting Jonathan Edwards seems like a nice guy. Beyond that, I think that he is stretching a point ... and not actually making a line of reasoning...

And myself, I have more of an affinity for Buddhism: God is within you; and you must find your highest self. But, really, I easily classify myself as an atheist. Nothing else seems objectively consistent: rational and empirical.