Dont Christians (and some Moslems) just love lots of blood every where! And arent they both gearing up for the ultimate collective blood spilling, that will make all other previous conflicts seem like Sunday afternoon picnics?

I wonder which century Sells lives in? And besides which his essentially dim-witted scribblings are hardly enough to inspire anyone.
Christianity is just another idea (and a rather childish and half-baked, one at that) among many, all of which are freely available via the internet.

The usual Christian just has a different set of ideas rattling around in his brain.

The usual Christian is just another self-possessed ego indentified with a mortal body-mind and as such is full of hell deep fear and trembling.

Being self-possessed the usual Christian ego is infinitely godless and in effect always, in every moment, at war with the Divine or Real God---utterly impervious to Divine Grace.

The dogma of scientism prevails in this time and place---and with deadly force---have you read the news? This ruling dogma cannot be effectively countered by conventional exoteric religion, because conventional religion is based on a calling to embrace a culture of beliefs that cannot be upheld or supported by the presumed-to-be-separate (fear infused) egoic body-mind that would want to believe in it.

The Feeling-Heart, which is the core of a truly religious consciousness, cannot be touched by the usual callings or dogmas.

There is certainly no evidence of such a calling or message in Sells scribblings.

Please check out The Heart Has A Question at:

1. http://www.dabase.org/tfrbkyml.htm

Plus Real God Cannot Be Proven

2. http://www.dabase.org/rgcbpobk.htm

Plus Touch: the essence of being fully human

3. http://beezone.com/AdiDa/touch.htm

I had hoped this sort of nonsense had gone the way of flat earth and a six thousand year-old planet.
The writer says the Christian message is ‘truth’ and therefore children should be indoctrinated with it. Truth? That there is an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient superman in the sky? That after death an invisible unknowable part of every human ‘lives’ in a heaven – despite having no body? that Christianity is relevant today? That it is about love? Ha! Sick joke!
As for the lack of martyrs – there have been victims enough! Half of all suicides are gays whose lives have been destroyed by Christianity's ill-informed diatribes against them, pitting citizen against citizen. Lives are destroyed because Christianity engenders such hatred in the hearts of its followers against homosexuality that gay men marry when they don’t want to, to conceal their orientation.
Thousands of unwanted children are born to live lives of misery and disadvantage because Christians hate planned parenthood.
Wars are not about religion? How about Ireland's ‘troubles’? Iraq’s religious war. Recent bombings in India. Israel and Palestine. The stoning to death of adulterers in Africa and the Middle East is religious. The flogging to death and torture and imprisonment of gays in Africa and the Middle East is religious… these are wars against individuals.
As for social services… religions have always only served their own, whereas the state looked after everyone. Now that religions have clawed back so many social services the old inequities have resurfaced and those not deemed suitable are denied services. $8,000,000,000.00 profit the Catholics made in 2005… untaxed and unaccountable – the others are the same. When religion raises its head, decency, fairness and reason flee. Like sex, religion should only be practiced by consenting adults in private.

Mate..

Crap like this should be kept to your churches' sunday sermon for the sheeples that believe in this sky daddy wank.

I can only hope YOU are the first martyr in your fantasy.

It bets me how you could be a Research Officer at a University and yet be deluded by a myth started in the Bronze Age.

I certainly hope you don't get to teach anyone!

The most significant comment in the article is the last one:
'the church is failing in Australia and was perhaps set to fail from the beginning'.
Not surprising when you consider that our first settlers were torn away from a society which had been conditioned to accept a ficticious god, a mythical jesus and all manner of fairytale dogma.
People have become aware they they, and only they, are responsible for the outcomes in their lives, not some religious corporation.
It's interesting to see TV coverage of the religious loonies in the US to confirm that power is the goal of religion.
I've mentioned before how apposite it is that god and gullibility both begin with "g".

TriikaG: "Crap like this should be kept to your churches' sunday sermon"

Actually, I think that's precisely what Sellick's OLO articles generally are, i.e. recycled sermons. However, I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't appear elsewhere - we are, after all, quite free to not read them.

While Sellick's sermons are often abstruse and ponderous, they also give insight into the workings of a particular kind of Christian mind. At least he generally doesn't flood the comments threads with raving loony claptrap like some other Christians do.

Ho Hum

By far the most innocent blood is poured out daily in Australia by our secular humanist who in the name of human rights murder unborn children. The next most violent lot in Australia seem to be the extreme lefties who turn up at every anti government rally in order to cause violence. Don't see to many salvos doing to much damage!

Here is an idea. Why doesn't the author of this piece of sententious, canting rubbish find a cross and get himself nailed up on it, and make sure that the media is well in attendance. Then Australia will have its own martyr and all our problems will be solved. The church in Australia is 'beginning to founder'? In fact the people of Australia are beginning to wake up - and long may we continue to do so!

Peter, your article is a wake up call to the Christian denominations in Australia. But do not be despondent, there are many many people who are disillusioned with playing church, because churches have lost the plot, and do not truly live as the alternate society. Remember what Jesus said, that many would come in His name, false Christs, that is, and seek to lead His true followers astray..
Three days ago I discovered a website about Nazarene Judaism. It makes absolute sense to me in the place I am at in my journey of faith. It concerns the faith of the apostles and the early believers. These men and women, many of whom were martyred for their faith in Yaweh, through His Son, Yeshua Adoni, the Messiah, were Jews. Jesus did not come to start a new religion. The believers were followers of The Way, and as you would be aware, the word Christian was a derogatory mocking name put on them by their persecutors.
Keep up your good work. Get the people of God thinking and discussing Him and His Way.
Amber

There are plenty of martyrs of the churches in Australia.
They would be all of the kiddies that have been abused physically, sexually, and economically by the churches (of most denominations).

These are the children who become part of the machinery of the churches in their scramble to get money and power, who as mere tools, emerge from the churches deadly embrace as criminals, prostitutes and drug addicts.

For example, the Anglican Church informed a senate inquiry a few years ago that they recieved $500,000,000 annually to provide child welfare and protection services across the country- most of that is tax payer dollars.

This is a crazy situation that puts the biggest abusers in control- much like letting alcoholics run the breweries, or bank robbers the banks!

Perhaps you can recast your opinion in light of that!

Jesus has visited the thread....and he is using the name of HIREZ.....

well said Hirez.. if Jesus really was here today and writing, he would probably write along the lines you did.. after all, he took the pharisees and saducees to task for abuse of true faith.

While you are condemning the 'Church' you might also consider to 'promote' its founder a bit..and contrast the 'believers' with the one they are supposeD to believe IN.

That... would then be a balanced contribution :)

This is less obtuse than most of Sellick's pieces, though its revelations are sadly one-dimensional.
Whilst much of the commentary here does seem to be knee-jerk anti-christian sentiment, close analysis reveals conclusions based on the supposition that Christianity is the ultimate truth.

Therefore, there is no room for those who do not accept that. I'm afraid that is the very definition of dogmatic.
Once pared down, the simple conclusion in this article is that faith is faltering because society has stopped accepting Christianity as an absolute truth.

Whilst I see some merits in the discussion of the symptoms Sellick claims are a result of this - murder, rape etc. I certainly don't see the merit behind the central hypotheses here.

Take this ridiculous paragraph for instance: "In our education system it is commonly thought that students should make up their own minds about religion. However, education presupposes that they do not yet have minds enough to make up. If the gospel is about truth how come students are expected to decide for themselves? We do not undermine other disciplines in this way. What if we told them that they must make up their own minds about chemistry or history?"

I would be very distressed if this paragraph was taken seriously. Sellick assumes Australia is entirely Christian, however the recent census figures show that religion is on the decline - even those who count themselves christians are more likely to be considered only nominal ones.

Sellick gives no answer for those who disagree with him. We are all to accept Christianity and that is the crux of it.

Well, I for one, do not, and I'm left with no option except to deride this piece as the preachings of tunnel-visioned dogma.

Excellent article Peter, displaying an understanding of our history that few within or outside the church comprehend.

We have indeed compromised far too much with our culture, including bowing down to the two big ruling gods: materialism and human reason (not that Christianity is against either, only the worship of same).

Yet God's plan for His creation is completely on track. Even though the Western church is decadent, with both liberals and fundamentalists captured by culture, He is able to bring the individual through it all to the place promised.

...john

And thus John kosci provides a prime example why this article won't help the church.

Put simply - if the church wishes to reverse its decline, it will need to engage people outside the religious focus - articles that simply state that the church is failing because it isn't accepted as an absolute truth won't engage anyone but devoted Christians.

They will only generate a chorus of agreement from those already enmeshed within that belief framework.

Those who aren't convinced will hardly be engaged with such blatant disregard for other ideologies.

Mr Sellick. What Australian Church please? I've heard of many but never an Australian Church. Is it a new cult or just another like the Exclusive Brethren that hides in the shadows and follows lifestyles more relevant to cave men than today's humans?

If you are so desperate for martyrs why don't you volunteer?

That way we wouldn't have this garbage being printed at all.

Hands up anyone who agrees Pete should be at the head of the volunteer queue? After all he really wants someone to die so the church can validate itself.

Now Pete. I'd suggest a cross would be best. And let's nail you to it and stand you at the top of a small hill. Say, near Parliament House where Howard and Rudd can prove their Christian values by worshipping you. Oh, and they could spirit you away to a doctor and then claim resurrection. Now why didn't anyone else think of that?

And do remember Pete that there actually was a supposed martyr for ALL christians. Or doesn't he count for Aussies?

"If the gospel is about truth how come students are expected to decide for themselves? We do not undermine other disciplines in this way. What if we told them that they must make up their own minds about chemistry or history?"

Maybe a deal with the state which allows myth to be taught to impressionable children as one view of truth. Perhaps the gospel should be treated on the basis of what is verifiable and consistent with the observed universe. We could then treat it in a similar manner to the way alchemy is treated in the chemistry classroom.

If historical precident is important perhaps we should be teaching about the dreamtime as truth, it has a far longer history than Sell's more recent unproven truth.

R0bert

To see why we need a separation of church and state, read this article. Every religion has its zealots dreaming of blood and martyrdom, but no sane society allows that kind of mentality to drive public policy.

This whole argument is a kind of curious reversal of what I think of as a normal view of the world. That is, most of us PREFER to live in a country where religion is not a life or death matter.

"Wars are not about religion? How about Ireland's ‘troubles’? Iraq’s religious war. Recent bombings in India. Israel and Palestine."

Get a life ybgirp! Like the 'humanitarian interventions' in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, underpinning the 'troubles' in Ireland and the other 'Economies' you cite are the 'strategic' plans by the Capitalist colonisers-imperialists to divide local populations and exploit their coveted natural resources and 'cheap labour'.

'Religious intolerance' is simply a smokescreen

Poor Sells, from the vehemence of some of these responses, martyrdom may not be such a remote prospect!

We should treat our martyrs carefully. Yheir commitment and courage are inspiring, but we should beware the creepy sado-masochism that infused some of the preoccupation with martyrdom in the early church, middle ages and reformation. Some of the gory paintings of martyrdoms from old European churches would make Tarantino blench.

Fanatics court transformative death and suffering, and it can be is a short step from being willing to die for one’s faith, to being willing to kill for it. Fox’s book of martyrs may have been inspiring, but it was also coarse propaganda filled with lurid exaggerations that fuelled the persecution of Roman Catholics. In our era, suicide bombers exemplify the potentially toxic mix of (perceived) purity of purpose, totality of commitment and willingness to die for a cause.

Old soldiers may have fond memories of the comradeship of battle even if they the true horrors of war. We may wish for the effects shared suffering produces, we should not wish for the suffering itself.

I agree the Church has a prophetic duty to critique society. We can’t do that if we’re too comfortably integrated into social structures around us, nor if we stand to gain too much from the patronage of the establishment. Nor should we be intimidated into silence by those who interpret the principle of separation of church and state as meaning that the Church has no legitimate voice in politics. But a touch of humility might be called for, as we consider both the diversity of views on most political issues within the churches, and the dumb and ill-informed political comments some church leaders are wont to make as they seek to use their positions to impose their ideological prejudices.

Christians are members of society not just commentators on it, and – as the protestant martyrs of the reformation understood very clearly – Christ’s message is best communicated to people in language they understand and though the culture and symbols of their everyday lives.

It amazes me that we have so many god haters on these posts. Nothing like a little self righteousness to make people think of themselves more highly than they ought. Jesus could not have been more accurate when He stated that the Light came into the world but men loved the darkness more than the Light lest their deeds be exposed.

People mock the church when it is tiny and seemingly irrelevant and get hostile when churches like Hillsong and the like have a influence on society. The author should know that even if all Christians were like mother theresa you would still have the scoffers and mockers. Thank God that throughout the earth His church is very healthy and growing!

...and even in a society of Saints , there would be deviants ...!!

Amanda,

Your words were lovely to read; a 'spark' of brilliance, in amongst a dung heap.
Thanks

We will see some Australian martyrs when the microchip/mark on either the right hand or forehead of Revelation 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 comes to our fair shores (hopefully it might stay in Europe where I expect it to come from). The initial propaganda for this global financial/ID system ("no one can buy or sell without the mark") is beginning to appear in the media even as I speak. The great pickle for committed christians is to refuse the mark/ID microchip, the size of a grain of rice and get exluded from the world financial systems or take it an suffer the consequences spoken about in 14:9-11. The mark is attributed to the "beast", the coming world antichrist, whose appearance will herald in the Bibles endtimes. Two choices have we as christians. If we align ourselves with the new system, monitoring daily people movements via satellite, we also align ourselves with satan and his new Adolf Hitler. Interesting days coming... this is for sure. Want to conduct further research click on mark of the beast. As for me and my household, we will resist the new system for The Lords sake.

Peter is concerned about values, morals, caring, love for one another. He is trying to engage us in the big question about the meaning of life. He does this through the eyes of a Christian believer. I am happy enough to hear this. But I do worry about the amount of rationalization and sophistry that is consumed by Peter's need to cling to some kind of acknowledgement of the virtues of Christianity. Peter, join the club, join the host of secular humanists who would like to make the world a better caring place and who struggle to realise that we are mere specks in the universe.

Fencepost.

Gawwwwwwd, Peter, who painted your portrait with that red clown's nose and the lolly coloured sky background?

It never ceases to amaze that there are individuals who have been infected by this teddy mind virus that is so well designed to the point that many victims cannot detect their presence so won't know it and may even vigorously deny it but seek to make it a truth.

Peter's articles are becoming increasingly depressing. Here again we can observe this serious delusion at work where "teddy" virus writers and cheerleaders should be allowed authority to maliciously hack in on the vulnerable (e.g. young children in schools) and penetrate all bases by disabling mechanisms essential to human functioning. This is not active love but the promotion of mindless worship with control masquerading as friendship ..... a journey into a tragic, psychotic, twisted, imprisoned world.

There are no solutions in pure selfishness and ignorance.

“a careful study” when ever you read or hear a religious person say that you can be sure that what follows is complete and utter revisionism at best.
Peter makes the same tired silly mistakes that religious people do, you see they just can’t cope with the idea that their religious beliefs might not be shared by others. You can tell this is the case because when he say religion he really mean Christianity. A devout Hindu read his piece could well agree that religion should be a focus of our society. But it is clear that a society with Hinduism as it’s focus would be a very different one to one that is focussed around Islam or the Nordic Gods for that matter.
The rest of his piece descends into a thinly veiled hatred of the Australia we live in. His description of which is shallow strawman of the Real Australia. The funnies line would have to be “the race to extend our life spans” I mean what is the prise that Christianity dangles in front of it’s followers, ever lasting life! Add to the fact that this God business is a load of crap it makes the whole thing a joke.

Whew, thank Darwin that Australia got the convicts, whilst
most of the religious fanatics went to the US. Its got
to be hereditary!

Runnner, as you sure that you don't want to live in
America ? :)

The blood of the martyrs is indeed the seed of the church. Which is why over time those with the courage, leadership and intellect to to do so rose above this kind of barbaric, brainwashed fanaticism and eventually succeeded in loosening the grip that the church once had on the minds and lives of our society.

You live in the best country on Earth, Peter, and you are right, it got this way due to a secular way of thinking. Hence, by now it should be becoming clear to you that secularism and a separation of religion and state equals relative peace and harmony whereas religiosity, fanaticism and a constant pining for the afterlife equals oppression, hatred, exclusion and bloodshed.

You say, “But sin abounds. Murders and rapes are committed.”. I think you would need a scroll the length of the entire country to note down the rapes and other atrocities that have come to light from the church in recent years.

“This saw the state take over all of the areas of life for which the church had previously been responsible.”. This is because the church had actually been irresponsible and we are still paying for the remnants of this irresponsibility today.

The most troubled places on Earth still suffer with by the full force of this irresponsibility and it is only through education without religious interference, and collaboration through a breakdown of precisely the kind of egotistical fear mongering that you preach that we can come any closer to solving them.

A man who invests as heavily as you in educating one's self should have something good if not, at least, mildly helpful to offer . If this is all that your years of academia have produced, then I'm afraid you have failed.

This article is so depressing I think I want to kill myself. Are this guy's articles always like this? He needs serious help. Talk about morbid. I'd be seriously concerned for any kids he teaches. This isn't a balanced mind we're talking about.

RELIGION from the latin word religare TO BIND UP, TO PUT IN BONDANGE. Jesus of Nazareth was a devout adherent to the Law of Moses. His Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He came to destroy the works of the evil one and set the captives free so people who so desire can have free access to the God of Israel through Him, the Way the Truth and the Life. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Only those who are led by the Spirit of Truth will understand. Where I live in NSW there are satan worshippers, witches and warlocks, deeply spiritual people who know that they are at war with the Spirit of God.The 10 commandments given to the Israelities are for the protection of the people, given by a loving Father for his children to live in harmony and blessing through their obedience. Without rules for guidance any child could perish just crossing the road.
Australia may be the best country in the world to date because it was initially called The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit. I found the truth of the spirit dimension of good and evil, through being a spiritist medium (following a devout roman catholic upbringing). I experienced the dark side, and was rescued by the Light. Those who have eyes to see, will see. Those who have ears, will hear.
Totally agree with you Gibbo. The nanochip that will make each human being a trading commodity in the not too distant future will see an upsurge in martyrs, and not all of them will be so-called Christians. The anarchists and even humanists (perhaps?) may refuse to be chipped. No one will be able to buy or sell without that mark e.g.Centrelink recipients will be chipped or cut off benefits.
Interesting times ahead,for those who belong nominally or otherwise to the Australian Christian denominations (?the Australian Church Peter speaks of)

Sells said:

The church lives by those who are convicted of the truth of the gospel. There can be no Constantinian establishment of Christianity, the church must make its own way in the world.

and

It is no wonder that the church is failing in Australia and was perhaps set to fail right from the beginning.

Sells also makes liberal use of the word 'we' suggesting that his readereship focus is primarily Christian.

A few points:

1/ The 'Church' needs to be viewed 'globally' not nationally.
2/ Growth and conversions in many countries is 'mind boggling'
3/ Due to the nature of the Body of Christ and the Gospel which comes to us in a 'whosoever will' package.. there are many,under the influence of secularism and ease of materialism 'wont'.

SOME Denominations might be in decline, but 'The Church' is not one particular denomination.

The 'depressing and almost defeatist' tone of the article is quite foreign to the exhuberant and victorious tone of the Book of Acts, and the New Testament, and also quite foreign to the growth and life of the Church in many other countries.
I will never forget the image of being on East Coast Parkway beach in Singapore on a public holiday, and not being able to turn in ANY direction (360) withOUT seeing some group of Christians.. singing, praying, fellowshipping...they were EVerywhere.. 65% of the medical fraternity in Singapore at that time was Christian.

As for me, I'm totally optimistic and full of joy at the prospect of encountering the world in the name of Christ. Thrilled to the eyeballs at the opportunities now with us.

Life is a total joy when walking with the Lord Jesus.
He is not a 'dead Jesus' but a Risen Christ .... yes.. really.

Sowat, what does ‘get a life’ mean? I’ve had a brilliant life – richer and happier by far than anyone I know. When someone is reduced to insults, you know they're losing the argument. Of course the aim of all wars and conquests is material gain for the ruling elite, that’s a no-brainer… but who is going to sacrifice their life to help the rich get richer? No one. That’s where religion plays it’s part. Tell everyone it’s for the glory of god and they’ll do any damned thing. Read some true history – especially of the first 1500 years of Europe that tells the truth about the connivance between religion and state to strip lands and countries and enslave individuals.

What a nutty article, Sellicks seems almost envious of Islam's martyrs- perhaps he can convert.

Gibo, thanks for entertaining me. Are you sure the Bible doesn't say anything about posting on the internet at times containing the mumbers of the beast?

Look:
>>Posted by Gibo, Monday, 27 August 2007 6:53:56 PM<<

Phew, you posted just in time.
Three minutes later and you would've had three sixes appear in your date and time. Scary huh?

But don't feel relieved yet; add up all the numbers next to your name and:
2+7+8+2+0+0+7+6+5+3+5+6=51 =5+1=6

OH OH another 6; it appears that you have posted at the time of the beast.

........................................................................................666.......................................................................................................................

Add up the numbers in any other way, e.g. 27+8+2007+65356 and they will add up to 6 also.

Gibo adds up to 6 as well.
Perhaps you're the hidden martyr Sellicks has always prayed for.

Yabby

I don't know if I want to live in America or not. I have never been there but would be happy for someone to pay my way. I sure think it would be better than living in the druggie land of the Dutch or the Saudi Arabia where more than likely I would be beheaded if my beliefs were made public.

I actually find it hard to imagine that their would be a greater place to live than in Australia. We are a greatly blessed land with opportunities for many people from many different places. I thank God everyday for a wonderful country with a largely tolerant group of people.

And you, Celivia, are 7. Is that for the seven who went to heaven?

I think we ALL could become martyrs in the Bibles endtimes. Doing a bit of casual research in my early christian days I came across as many as 14 or so different references in the form of visions and prophecies from The Lord to committed christians here in Australia regarding an asian invader on Australian soil as far south as Byron Bay NSW...God's allowance because of the sins of the people should they fail to repent. Most revelations seemed to point to the great Chinese/asian confederacy army known as THE KINGS FROM THE EAST of Revelation 9:16 and 16:12...200 million soldiers heading westwards across asia towards Israel and Armageddon; with a possible southwards movement on to Australia according to our sin at the time. Actually I collected so many revelations I moved out of QLD and back into NSW (theres faith for you in the "Divine product"). Do you think Australians will engage national Christian revival and avoid the Judgment? Or are we too pig-headed a people to know what sin is any more? See you in a lively christain church this Sunday?

Boaz David, Thanks for the good report, especially of Singapore and the global church.

Gibo, I heard on ABC Radio a Wollongong Uni Lecturer in IT talk about the nano chip, and how it will soon be available to microchip the USA armed forces. The current chip is deemed too large or it would be done already.
A person with a scanner will also be able to park outside your home and the scanner will identify not only the occupants but all the food items etc. that are in the house.

Peter, Good on you for starting the thread.

But Runner, given your posts, you would just LOVE the
US bible belt, in the south!

Churches on every corner, tele evangelists on every
tv channel, state govts hanging up the 10 commandments,
trying to ban abortion clinics, denying kids sex education.
They even want to ban the teaching of evolution in
schools.

Tolerance is another question. I had a net friend who
lived in that area. Once she talked about "coming out
of the closet". I was surprised, as she had not mentioned
her sexual preferences before. It turns out that it wasn't
sex, she was on about, but religion. As a humanist, she
was too scared to admit that publicly, in case she lost
her job. Its all bible bashers in that part of the US.

Robertson and Falwell appear on tv, telling people that its
all that fornicating that causes hurricanes and even 911.

Its "true believer" country, bibles everywhere!

Here in Aus, its ex convict country. One of the least
religious countries on the planet. But one of the most
tolerant, I grant you.

runner: "We are a greatly blessed land with opportunities for many people from many different places. I thank God everyday for a wonderful country with a largely tolerant group of people."

Indeed, but aren't you always banging on about how there's too many depraved secular humanists and heathen Muslims here? I'm with Yabby - I reckon you'd be much happier somewhere in the American bible belt.

It doesn't cost that much to get there, really, and you'd only need a one-way ticket :)

Come to think of it, Sells might be happier there too. He could even get a job in Creation Science, thus potentially solving his major existential problem.

"And you, Celivia, are 7. Is that for the seven who went to heaven?"
Oh yes ybgirp, and I'll be an angelic angel and make sure I'll spill enough Heaven ice cream so it will rain Heaven in hell to cool those poor, burning souls.

Yes, Yabby, that Bible belt is highly interesting- did you watch 4corners last week about Friends of God in the US?
All these disturbed evangelicals; I found them seriously scary.
Imagine having to spend eternity in heaven with these freaks- it'll be hell. No wonder nobody wants to be a martyr these days.

'Evolution is from the devil.'
Someone wearing a Tshirt reading: "Former Embryo".
Would there be a market for "Former one-night-stand" Tshirts, I wonder?

The scary and sad part was when all these little kids were indoctrinated about creationism.

Another scary thing is that they think America is the best country in the world- God's country, and that it is worth fighting and dying for.
Potential martyrs market- perhaps Sellick SHOULD move there and place an ad in the Bible belt's local paper: "martyrs wanted", I bet people would line up.

Australian Martyrs?
I doubt it. They might not like the job description or the workers' conditions. Insurance companies might reject them also.
They'd rather be Happy Clappers than martyrs.

Here are some famous Aussie martyrs (straight off the top of my head), Graeme Staines and his two sons.

If I did a few minutes more research I could probably find some more names.

Sellick needs to do more research before he serves us up more under developed meanderings.

www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s97157.htm

Mick

Graham Staines murderer has been sentenced by an Indian court to life imprisonment. It was a shocking murder and given the murderer's alleged motive I suppose it could be regarded as a sort of Martyrdom but I do not believe it is exactly the sort of thing Sells is talking about. It did not happen in Australia and is not likely to be particularly formative of mainstream church life in Australia.

Australia's true martyrs were the indigenous people massacred on their own land by troopers and landowners who either enjoyed state backing directly or indirectly in that they were never prosecuted for their crimes... if indeed they were regarded as crimes.

Given the close relationship between church and state that has existed in Australia since European settlement it seems the Church is actually implicated on the 'wrong' side of the story. Australia's true martyrs will not form the Church but, rather, they are shaking its foundations. Show me a Christian who was executed for speaking out against the massacres of indigenous Australians and I will show you a Martyr for Christ. I dont know of any but, for the Church's sake, I certainly hope there were some.

the Scottish Martyrs were deported to Australia for sedition in 1794, however I think most of these were not strictly Christian, but unitarians, influenced by that 'heretic' Thomas Paine.

Thomas Muir. Convict - Jacobeans - Constitutional Reform
http://www.australiahistory.com.au/zz%20BNP-indexes/1793-thomas_Muir.htm

Waterboy,

Thanks for your comments, and thanks for helping to interpret Sellick. I do find him hard to understand.

However, I would not agree that the life of Graeme Staines is not an inspiration totally appropriate of the word martyr. The example of Australia’s missionaries abroad giving their lives in service and self sacrifice are a true legacy that could even help shape the Australian church.

And while the history of the church’s dealings with aboriginal Australia is terrible stained (no pun intended), I don’t like the way this history is rarely balanced by the positive stories coming out of the indigenous church.

For example, in May this year saw the completion of the first whole Bible translation into an indigenous language. The Kriol Bible project, the ‘Holi Baibul’, taking over 27 years, was a wonderful example of people from different cultures working side by side for the benefit of future generations and the glory of God

Mick V – how can the translation of a book full of lies and half truths, violence, genocidal massacres, racism, sexism, wars and dreadful retribution, be of value to anyone? The bible is a tendentious translation of an English tendentious translation, of a tendentious Latin translation, of a tendentious Greek translation of a compilation of myths and legends in Hebrew used to justify the genocide, rape and pillage the Jews indulged in, in unsuccessful efforts to gain control of Palestine and create a theocracy several thousand years ago – neither uplifting, nor moral.
Now, had they translated the writings of Thomas Paine, Montaigne, Russell… and other great moral philosophers who actually understood the human condition and desired the good of humankind – not the elevation of a religious sect and the violent and foul suppression of all dissent, then I would applaud the efforts.

Mick

The Staines murders are still very close tous historically and our responses tothat event are still coloured by our emotional reactions toits horror.Perhaps you are right and in time the church willrespond to their sacrifice in ways that recognise the Staines appropriately and take them asa model for Christian spiritual formation.

There is,however,a particularly powerful effectthat derives fromthe deaths of martyrs at the hand of the state.It isof crucial importance tothe formation ofthe early church that Jesus was executed by the state as a direct result of His prophetic ministry.Similarly, the Early Church was formed inthe crucible of violence,suffering andstate persecution.

My observation thatthe state sanctioned violence against our indigenous people is closer tothe sort of event that produces martyrs ofthe sort that Sells is talking about in no way diminishes the Indigenous Church.In fact the mainstream,European Churches,have found it necessary to recognise their own role inthe poor treatment of indigenous Australians (and the aboriginal peoples of all the colonies)and rethink their relationship tothe state.In my lifetime I have seen avery definite shift inthe Church's relationship tothe state.Today the Church has a farmore prophetic role in questioning and criticising the government.

Of course,the imperfect nature ofthe Church itself has alsobeen exposed very publicly over the last thirty years.Its prophetic voice,as important asit is,is still regarded with deep suspicion by the secular public as a result of the public humiliation of Priests and Church officials.The future of the Church in Australia hangs very much in the balance of how this problem works itself out.

How isthe IndigenousChurch embracing its history of victimisation atthe hands of Church and state?Is it a vigorous force in its own right?Isit able to speak out prophetically against the mainstream Church?
Can the mainstreamChurch be redeemed ordoes it deserve tofade away?
How mightthe mainstream Church find redemption in its relationship withthe Indigenous Church?

If Sells'analysis,viz-a-viz martyrs in the Church,is anywhere near the mark thenthe potential exists forthe IndigenousChurch to play a very powerful,possibly redemptive,role in the reformation of a truly Australian Church.I certainly donot know how this would work out butthere seems tobe some potential here.

Ybgirp,

It is important to record and remember the good AND the evil. You might have noticed that my attitude to the Church is ambivalent at best but there is a dimension of human existence,which religion explores, that goes beyond morality,philosophy and natural science. As you say,the Bible records much that is evil in the History of Judaeo-Christian culture.It also records the struggle of a wayward people to relate toand respond tothat spirit which lifts our lives up above the merely physical and organic.They don’t always achieve that ideal goal and the Bible records that fact.
While I admire the moral philosophers fortheir clever thinking I donot feel thattheir lofty,sanitized sentiments are as practically useful asthe crazy,muddled,sometimes ugly and brutal reality ofthe Bible.

I know that Spirit isa much abused word and I actually like it for that because youcan take it many different ways.You can love itor hate it!At least you can argue aboutit.For me thereis muchmore to spirituality than ethics/morality.It has todo withthe essence of being,of engaging the world forthe brief span ofone short life,enjoying ittothe utmost,and then letting go graciously.I don’t believe inany afterlife so I REALLY mean letting go!

You are wrong about many things! Christianity begins withthe death of Jesus Christ.Linguistically this event occurred ina language melting pot where Hebrew,Greek,Latin,Aramaic andother languages wereall in use.The play of languages is very important to any understanding ofthe NT.Translating the Bible is natural toit and hasthe effect of relativising it.It expands the metaphorical and parabolic nature ofthe text demanding thatitbe read in a certain way that isnot literal,thatis authoritative without being authority.Furthermore,modern translations are NEVER direct translations of the English,fromthe Latin etc.They refer toall available texts,particularly those texts which careful study suggests are most likely tobe close tothe original text.They certainly depend directly on Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Your post is self-contradictory.You condemn the Church for its “violentandfoul suppression of dissent” inthe same post asyou advocate the censure of literature thatdoes not suit your taste.Dare I suggest that you seema little hypocritical.It makes sense forthe Church to translate and transmit the Bible.Others can translate their preferred literature.

While a fellow Christian, Sells articles not quite my cup of tea.

Martyrdom is a real live experience for roughly speaking 100,000 Christians per annum, give or take a few tens of thousands. In October we will have the second anniversary of the martyrdom of 3 school girls beheaded by Islamic in Central Sulawesi. Australian Christians care deeply about the persecution of their brothers and sisters, often at the hand of Muslims, but Communists did their bit as well.

Good to read BOAZ_David's trip to Singapore. I notice a Chinese Government official recently acknowledged the number of Christians in China had now risen to 10% of the Chinese population, many former theists of course, but then atheism is a hopeless faith to embrace, as evidenced by a number of comments on this thread.

An interesting angle, Mr Palmer.

>>Martyrdom is a real live experience for roughly speaking 100,000 Christians per annum, give or take a few tens of thousands<<

Who are these people? You obviously have a specific segment of the population in mind, given the precision of the number. Are they listed somewhere, so that we can keep track of them? It would certainly add an interesting dimension to Sells' lament for the absence of Australians in their company if we could understand how they are identified, and who counts them up each year.

Intriguing.

>>In October we will have the second anniversary of the martyrdom of 3 school girls beheaded by Islamic in Central Sulawesi.<<

Could you perhaps provide a reference for items like this? Is it another of Boaz's YouTube propaganda piece, or something more credible? And it would also be useful to know whether these are actually the same kinds of martyrs that Sells concerns himself with. Somehow, I suspect not.

>>but then atheism is a hopeless faith to embrace, as evidenced by a number of comments on this thread<<

This is obviously one of the lines that Christians are taught on their "How to argue with atheists" courses.

But no matter how hard you try, folks, you are never going to get past the fact that atheism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith. Atheists, unlike religionists, do not share any common characteristics except that their absence of belief in deities.

Yours is not an argument that holds water. Never has. Never will.

Pericles,

You object to atheists being criticised for their faith, since, by definition, they don’t have faith in anything. Can I try and put this into some perspective.

I once heard Australia’s most famous atheist, Philip Adams, asked what he believed in. He answered, “Nothing”. I can respect this provided the position is held consistently.

You are correct in saying atheism is not a faith. It is the antithesis of theism. A theist believes there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. You could argue neither are faiths. They are philosophical positions on a similar philosophical plane.

But when you start fleshing out these positions with metaphysical beliefs, then it becomes reasonable that you be asked to defend them, as would people who openly defend their faith convictions.

For example, I have no problems describing 20th Century communism as a faith position, despite it being based on atheism. It had all the required elements. It had its true believers, its own holy books, prophets, and evangelists (think of the thousands of Maoist youth moving across China, spreading the message of their little red book). Communism had its own definition of sin (something to do with economics and greed), its creation myth (Darwin’s evolution), and its vision of the apocalypse (the Revolution).

All up, it was a pretty well developed faith, finding converts the world over. Many of the atheists who have commented on this thread may not have quite developed their beliefs to such an extent, but some have indeed adopted faith positions approaching those in the previous paragraph.

That they are willing to argue their positions so vehemently displays how much they are wanting to convince others of their positions and convictions, and within a metaphysical domain. Such willingness to explain your position and convince others is often a religious characteristic. If they truly believed in “Nothing” they would not be so passionate about it.

If atheists say they don’t believe in anything, then that’s fine. But often their words and actions betray them.

Mick V - your description of atheism is the best I have encountered. Well Done!

Mick V - in relation to atheists I hear what you're saying. But I don't believe it can be applied to agnosticism.

There are only 2 sorts of people in the world. Evangelical Christians and 'others'. There are those who are saved and those who still need to be saved and that's all that matters! If you belong to the 'others' then it hardly matters whether you are agnostic, heathen, atheist, buddhist, calathumpian or whatever because you are 'unsaved'.

Agnosticism, of course, is the only 'rational' position given that the non-existence of god is as unprovable as the existence of god. I have the greatest respect for agnostics simply because it is an intellectually honest position. True agnostics are rare. I also believe, however, that life is far more interesting than can ever be experienced through rational processes and the irrational believers and atheists end up being much more interesting people. The most boring people are those who try to rationalise their 'beliefs'.

Jesus was interesting! Not all martyrs are interesting

There are Australian martyrs but in a romanticised or archaic version of martyrdom there is difficulty in recognising them. I am surprised that the name of Graham Staines and his little sons were not mentioned. Their martyrdom has been covered by the major press. Thanks to "waterboy" for highlighting that martyrdom. Then there are the New Guinea martyrs of World War II. Australians who are memorialised across Australia in numerous Anglican buildings. Read about them at my blog, The Eagle's Nest at http://eaglesplace.blogspot.com. I would draw attention to the six martyrs of the Melanesian Brotherhood, an Anglican order in the Solomons. Australia has been very involved in brokering peace in the Solomons. So have the members of the Melanesian Brotherhood who were viciously murdered. So the blood of martyrs may not have been shed on Australian soil but Australians have shed their blood in the public practice of their faith. I am sure there are others whose deaths are longer ago or less heralded. One thing I think should be remarked upon about the martyrs mentioned is that their lives were given to God long before their dreadful deaths. Their lives were distinguished in Christian service but it seems one more thing was required of them - their lives. It may be difficult for those who don't own to a faith whether Christian or another to understand the way martyrdom might be perceived. Many martyrs have penetrated secular life - Gandhi; King; the many non-Jews who perished because of their assistance to Jews. There are the Russian journalists who have died for speaking the truth. They are surely secular martyrs in a common humanity. Their deaths are recorded and will be remembered. Let's rush neither to judgment nor to romance - but let us value by remembrance and honour those who have given their lives in great causes to value other human beings.

"True agnostics are rare. I also believe, however, that life is far more interesting than can ever be experienced through rational processes and the irrational believers and atheists end up being much more interesting people."

I'm agnostic and as I always say "whatever gets your through
the night" :) Hey, be as crazy and interesting as you like,
just keep me out of it! I have no problem with peoples lifestyle
choices, just problems when they try to make it compulsory
by law.

Mick says "An atheist believes there is no god. " and then tries to make a case, contradicting his definition, using Philip Adams as an example, that an atheist believes in "nothing". This is funny stuff. i.e. If an atheist believes there is no god then that is belief .... say no more.

When people in particular talk about belief, one needs to offer some clarity. My point is that religion is simply belief in belief for its own sake rather than belief derived from some factual information which is where intelligence evolves. Religious faith or belief in belief alone, has always been a fact free zone because never is the connection between thought and action considered. Where is the need reinforced with an effective assessment of the situation, strategy, and the appropriate action to be taken? If the subconscious message is one of "simply believe, and it will be so." then this is nothing more than cultural codification of ancient magical thinking, a solipsistic dream, a drug, a mind virus and its implied corollary is "don't think negative thoughts, you might cause bad things to happen".

We have here one of the most dishonest concepts ever perpetrated by people. There is no truth in this delusional belief in belief. Because for many people, our brains seem to treat beliefs we consider to be true, almost exactly the same as facts, we need to learn to distinguish the two.... and it is that simple.

ps I'm sure it's possible to regard the idea of nothingness as just that, an idea and fictional too.

Yabby, it's more than just "by law".

When they villify others and try and create a climate of intollerance for those who don't choose the values of their faith it can create an amazing level of harm to others.

I watched the stories of a couple of men recently who had accepted that they were homosexual as adults and the pain they went through because of the hateful biggotry in part inspired by people claiming faith in the christain god. One of the men was a christain paster at the time. The one that touched me most was the man who grew up with a dad who made the most vile statements about homosexuals to his friends and family.

Meanwhile he had a teenage son growing up struggling with his sexual orientation. Years of pain trying to live as a straight male, husband, father etc while really he was doing none of those roles in a manner as himself. The power of narrow minded bigotry. Not entirely a church thing but much of the responsibility for ongoing intollerance and a refusal to accept the scientific evidence on that issue lies with those who claim faith in old middle eastern gods.

R0bert

Waterboy, I do not advocate censorship, I merely ask what possible use a book of ancient Semitic myths can be to Australian Aborigines in 2007. Especially galling is that the perpetrators of this idiocy are permitted to claim their nonsense as “The Truth”. If religions were not beyond the reach of all Australian laws, but subject to the same ethical demands as secular organisations, then they would be required to substantiate their claims. [They would also have to abide by Australian anti-discrimination laws and pay their share of taxes and open their accounts for auditing.]
Mick V, you are sorely misguided in your notion of faith and atheism. Atheist don’t believe there is no god, they merely state that there’s no reasonable evidence for any of the twenty thousand or so gods humans have invented and worshipped over the millennia, of which yours is a relatively recent example. Of course Communism is a faith… citizens were expected to believe, without evidence, in the advantages of communal ownership of everything. The fact that this required the suppression of other forms of faith such as Christianity, is beside the point. The pogroms and terror were in the name of Communism – never in the name of atheism. No war has ever been fought to promote disbelief in gods – on the contrary, too often they have been fought to force belief on others.
Atheists are not contributing to OLO or anywhere else in order to convert, but to prevent the usurpation of government by religious bigotry, to rescue children from indoctrination, and to preserve what's left of our once secular society. As for believing in nothing, don’t be silly. Most atheists value fairness, justice, kindness, compassion, freedom of thought and speech… in other words all the worthwhile traits heretofore lacking in the treatment of citizens by religion whenever they gain political power.

Well put R0bert,
I can attest to the harm done by religion in this regard, having known many sufferers. I only escaped by leaving this bigoted land as a youth, finding a partner from a country that valued humans, not faith, and not returning until I was secure enough to cope. If you tell a boy he’s sinful, unloved by god, his love is worthless and he is on the path to hell, then it makes it difficult for him to develop a sense of self worth. All he wants to do is hide. To conceal his true nature. And if that means marrying, then he will do it despite knowing he will be making his wife miserable. The fact that half of all youth suicides are gay boys is directly attributable to religious disinformation and hate campaigns. No other group or organisation disseminates homophobia, yet religious organisations are exempt from antidiscrimination laws! And it doesn’t end with youth. Older men too, are suiciding because they can't live with the hatred and fear. A dozen hate murders and about ten thousand cases of GBH against gays are recorded in Australia every year – all due to religious vilification. It is murder by remote control – murder of the body and murder of the joy in living. A few years ago my partner and I were harassed for months by youths at the instigation of religious people nearby. We are both well educated, had held responsible jobs, and yet it became intolerable. We had to sell up and go to another town where we have become social recluses because of the psychological harm that harassment did. Until then we’d been sociable and had plenty of friends. But the lies continue. We have just celebrated our 41st anniversary, yet we are told by the government that our love is not real. It is somehow perverted – not worthy of protection. We are not worthy of equality before the law, We now avoid contact with humans as much as possible. The harm of religious inspired homophobia is real and horrible.

Ybgirp

The Bible is literature, human in origin and records nearly a thousand years of humanity struggling to find meaning in life. It is religious because it comes from a time when that was pretty much the only world view available to people to express these things. Even the Greek philosophers wrote out of a particular religious/theistic culture and they were certainly not homophobic.
I do agree with you that the fundamentalist and evengelical sub-cultures within Christianity cause a great deal of damage.. not just by their homophpobia. The fact that they have corrupted the Bible by their shallow, cultic/dogmatic interpretation is not sufficient evidence to justify your claim that the Bible is of no value. There is still value in reading Shakespeare, Plato, Homer etc etc and there is still value in reading the Bible as literature. There is real danger in leaving the Bible to the fundamentalists. It needs intelligent, critical reading that exposes the flaws in contemporary contemporary fundamentalist and evangelical cults. I wonder if your dismissal of the Bible is any less shallow than their dogmatic literalism.

Robert, yes lots of sad stories of intolerance out there.

I happen to believe that sexuality is hard wired, various hormones
affect the development of the foetus at the time of sexualisation
of the brain. We all start as females, it goes from there.

Amongst all this religous intolerance, there are also some amusing
ones. Clearly alot of religious folks are in denial about their
own sexuality and would like to wish it away, but it doesent work
like that.

I remember reading the story of a couple of newly born Xtians,
(hey I was born right the first time :) ) who started a group
to help assist gay Xtians become hetero. They had all these
so called good intentions, but eventually ran off together as
one happy couple :)

Deny the laws of nature at your peril!

I find your argument a little hollow, MickV.

>>I once heard Australia’s most famous atheist, Philip Adams, asked what he believed in. He answered, “Nothing”.<<

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Using the position of one atheist to illuminate the position of all atheists is a nonsense. The only thing that joins them is their shared lack of belief in the existence of a deity.

I, for example, do not believe in "Nothing". But Adams and I are both atheists.

>>A theist believes there is a god. An atheist believes there is no god. You could argue neither are faiths<<

But I don't. Belief in God is undoubtedly a "faith", since there is no evidence of his existence. By definition, therefore, you need "faith" in order to hold that belief. Not believing in God is, patently, not a faith.

Kieran tries a neat sidestep with:

>>If an atheist believes there is no god then that is belief .... say no more.<<

Sophistry. "I do not believe in God" is the opposite of "I believe in God", and cannot be defined as "a belief" however many times you repeat it.

>>For example, I have no problems describing 20th Century communism as a faith position<<

That's your choice. Not mine. Communism is a political stance, one that strengthened its hold over its people by banning religious observance. It is categorically not a faith, since it is based upon atheism, which requires none.

>>Such willingness to explain your position and convince others is often a religious characteristic. If they truly believed in “Nothing” they would not be so passionate about it<<

There you go. Taking Adams' statement as being common to all atheists, and drawing a conclusion from it. Also, it is the case that very few atheists are so insecure in their atheism that they need to evangelize it. I have never recommended it to anyone, for instance, instead I just take potshots at the more egregious examples of religious nutterism that pop up here.

Especially when they are accompanied by anti-Islamic rants, as so often happens.

Quite so, Pericles. I'm an atheist too, but unlike you I regard the degree of credulity required to adhere to any religious faith as a kind of intellectual disability.

However, I have no need to preach this or to try and convert people to my way of thinking. But I do get some satisfaction out of lampooning the more ridiculous and hateful examples of religious intolerance that appear all too frequently on this and other forums.

If unbelief in gods is a faith, then logically, unbelief in the tooth fairy is a faith. disbelief in unicorns is a faith. not believing in father christmas is a faith.... goodness so many faiths -- the mind boggles.

ybgirp

Well said! Faith, as giving, or denying, intellectual assent to some odd unprovable proposition, is silly as you have pointed out so wittily.
Likewise, religion as faith in the above sense, is pretty silly.

True Christian Faith is to be found in the just and loving actions of a people informed by the complex of interacting symbols we associate with that religion. Jesus said "Love your neighbour" and in this one simple formula he combined Love and Justice into a guiding principle for all our actions. To the extent that our actions are consistent with loving our neighbour they are Faithful. Not all self-professed believers act in accordance with this guiding principle and the most common failure of faith is to be seen in the legalistic, judgemental behaviour of many evangelical and fundamentalist so-called Christians. Jesus most definitely did not say "Judge you neighbour". Some have more faith in Paul than in Jesus!

Pericles, if you believe something in the negative derived from some factual information then it is a decision you have arrived at and it becomes part of your belief. Similarly, if you cannot believe negatively of positively due to lack of factual information, it is also part of your present belief.

Belief isn't shaped by just looking only for positive trends and even if we define atheism as the absence of belief in deities, it is still belief.

Not so much a neat sidestep but it does see belief in a broader context. The term atheist is only relevant to people who believe in deities who all share a love of big bangs and going off like a firecracker.

What do you call the non-belief in other peoples gods?

Are you an athiest if you don't believe in a particular god or only if you don't believe in any of them?

At a guess all of us have a non-belief in the vast majority of gods (maybe some really dedicated panthiests around but I don't know any).

Hands up all those who reject completely somebody elses idea of god.

R0bert

I can only believe that this is self-parody, Keiran:

>>Pericles, if you believe something in the negative derived from some factual information then it is a decision you have arrived at and it becomes part of your belief. Similarly, if you cannot believe negatively of positively due to lack of factual information, it is also part of your present belief.<<

For a start, "if you believe something in the negative" is a nonsense statement. There is no belief involved, only a lack of belief.

Let me try to explain one more time.

You believe that the moon is made of green cheese. I believe that the moon is made of some sort of rock. These are conflicting beliefs: you believe one thing, I believe another. By landing on the moon and trying to eat a piece of it with a biscuit, we will learn that one or the other belief is true.

You believe in the existence of God. I do not believe in the existence of God, and have no alternative theory to offer. These are not conflicting beliefs, but can happily sit alongside each other, since there is no amount of evidence that you can present that will prove your case. I, in the meantime, have no need to prove my theory, since there is nothing to prove or disprove about my position. It is only your belief that exists, not mine; mine is an absence of belief, not a belief in a negative.

Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?

The only reason that makes sense to me is that you cannot imagine being without faith, therefore you have to ascribe some sort of faith in other people in order to validate your own position.

That, in psychological terms, is a form of transference.

>>if you cannot believe negatively of positively due to lack of factual information...<<

Another nonsense statement. There is no "negative" or "positive" belief involved here, merely an absence.

If something is absent, it is not necessary to believe in the opposite of its presence: it simply isn't there.

Absent. Non-existent.

It's sweet of you R0bert, and Pericles to attempt to reason with irrationality. Unfortunately, one of the worst side effects of childhood indoctrination with illogical, unprovable notions of invisible supermen in the sky, is the corruption of the brain's reasoning facilities. Once damaged, it is nigh impossible to reconnect these neural pathways, and forever after, rational thought in the area of gods, monsters and other supernatural hob goblins, is impossible. Hence the urgent need to stop Chaplains and other religious instruction and indoctrination in all schools.

Pericles are you saying funny stuff to me like ... "You believe in the existence of God." ? Where did that come from?

Perhaps what I am saying is that all these teddies (gods) only exist in the minds of infected unfortunates and vulnerable people. There are many such ideas that reside in people's minds but when we try to find them it is not only logically but physically impossible to find them. They are abstracts or illusions with a life of their own that make it almost impossible to see that we live in an infinite ever evolving material universe.

I fully agree with your "Absent. Non-existent." and I have said much about this topic on OLO. Some examples .... the idea of nothingness is just that, an idea. It exists in the minds of many teddy infected people but when we try to create a perfect vacuum it proves impossible. Why? That is why the big bang high priests have recently started looking for dark matter to fit their stooopid models. They will not find it of course but they may learn about plasma. If they listened to Keiran here they would not only save billions but have this best idea that nonexistence is impossible too.

One again I feel we are arguing about the word belief from different contexts .... I find that I need to include the broader understanding where belief can prove something false. e.g. If you go to an oncologist and following a full check over he expresses his belief that you are free from cancer, I'd be very happy with his belief.

They are f'rinstances, Keiran.

>>Pericles are you saying funny stuff to me like ... "You believe in the existence of God." ? Where did that come from?<<

From the same stable as "You believe that the moon is made of green cheese." I suppose I could have phrased it more precisely, but I hate to use "one" where "you" or "I" will suffice.

I did get carried away from that point and ascribed a broader set of attributes to "you", but I thought it was clear that I had the pesky evangelist in mind.

But it concerns me that you assert:

>>I find that I need to include the broader understanding where belief can prove something false. e.g. If you go to an oncologist and following a full check over he expresses his belief that you are free from cancer, I'd be very happy with his belief.<<

You are moving into the area of "opinion" here, rather than belief. The oncologist is trained to look for signs and symptoms. If he recognizes neither, he will proffer his opinion that you are cancer-free. Unfortunately, that does not guarantee that you are in that condition, simply that one physician has formed an opinion.

Hence the phrase "I think I'll get a second opinion". If this differs from the first, the chances are you will go for a third, would I be correct?

None of this involves belief, in the sense our godly friends use the word. To them, it is closely aligned with "faith", since - unlike your oncologist - there is no evidence to find, or even search for. Without faith, no belief.

Which is, incidentally, the main reason that I refuse to accept that disbelief in something is the same as belief in its negative. In the physician instance, it would be analogous to an absence of knowledge that cancer exists.

Think about it. It would be impossible to say "I do not believe there is such thing as cancer", if nobody could show you what is is or what it does. There would only be an absence of belief.

I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I believe He is the One True God. I also believe in the many and varied gods of the known religions of the world.
There are many deities people choose to worship. A lot of Australians worship the sporting gods of football, cricket or other sports. Some worship Lady Luck, the goddess of gambling. Some worship their car.
Your own personal god is who/what you expend the majority of your time/worship on and to whom you contribute your tributes (mostly your money).
My God acknowledges the existence of all the other gods. The first of the ten commandments makes that clear. I AM the Lord, YOUR GOD, you shall not have strange (other) gods before me, He commanded the Israelites.
I live near Nimbin in NSW, where the biggest part of the "alternative society" worship many and varied gods and goddesses and happily deride the God of the ten commandments. They do not doubt the spirit of God exists.
The spirit dimension is alive and active.
Could the very first question about athiesm be better put thus "do you personally believe in the spirit dimension? do you believe that human beings are tripartate beings, composed of a body, a soul (the mind, emotions and will) and an everlasting spirit?
Jesus said that God is Spirit, and those who worship Him truly worship Him in spirit and truth.

Amber asks: - Could the very first question about athiesm [sic] be better put thus "do you personally believe in the spirit dimension? do you believe that human beings are tripartate [sic’ beings, composed of a body, a soul (the mind, emotions and will) and an everlasting spirit?

No, Amber, I do not believe in the ‘spirit’ dimension, because there is no evidence – scientific or otherwise for such a thing. And all the atheists I know hold similar opinions. As to your second question; again, No. I support the dictum; Mens sana in corpore sano. A healthy mind in a healthy body… in other words, the mind is an inextricable part of the body. A body cannot exist without a mind and vice versa.. As for an invisible spirit… this is a nonsense notion derived from childhood, when tales about ESP and magic and so on enthralled us. The unpalatable fact that adults who cling to their childish hopes and fears must eventually face, is that like the tooth fairy and father Christmas, the spirit world is a figment of the imagination.
This quote – attributed to W. Darwin, puts it well: - "Man is an eating animal, drinking animal and a sleeping animal and one placed in a material world, which alone furnishes all the human animal can desire. He is gifted besides with knowing faculties, to practically explore and to apply the resources of the world to his use. These are realities. All else is nothing; - conscience and sentiment are mere figments of the imagination. Man has but five gates of knowledge, the five senses, he can know nothing but through them; all else is vain fancy. And as for the being of a god, the existence of a soul, or of a world to come, who can know anything about them? Depend upon it…. these are only the bugbears by which men of sense govern fools; nothing is real that is not an object of sense."

Amber, my comment is that love is not related to a need for worship.

Love always maintains the critical functions of the mind and does not cripple Eros but worship certainly does a pretty good job with various degrees of destructiveness and depression where we see it can only create false versions of the world that clash with the reality. Worship effectively is designed to strip away critical functions and create obedient stooopids. If we observe the popular media we see that it is awash with the worship mindset and this cannot be good.

Blind trust ultimately relates to this worship mindset where the desire to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the love to find out and gain understanding.

Lesson 1, Don't ever become a worshipper, Keiran.
Lesson 2 Love is the source of real breakthroughs while worship embodies a psychosis and delivers at a cost nothing but very phony, cosy environments for those who conform (which is akin to Thanatos).

Peri

What do you see as the difference between agnosticism and atheism?

Pericles,

I think you have misinterpreted me slightly. I was trying hard not to say that all atheists believe the same things. (I know too well that not all Christians believe the same. This could be generalised even further. In fact, my grandfather once told me, “Only two people in the world are not loopy, me and you, but I’m starting to have doubts about you.”)

I don’t think Philip Adams really believes in nothing. He just said it as a quick summary statement. Rather, I know for one thing, he believes in the value of promoting the Australian film industry.

I can well see that my faith and your unbelief are very different in nature. However, what I was attempting to show was that atheists often hold to unprovable beliefs. For example, I pointed out the many unprovable beliefs of the communists, and generally speaking except for possibly around the fringes, they were all atheists.

There could here be an issue about definitions. For you claim (if I have this right) that you have an absence of belief in God, whereas the classical definition for an atheist is a belief in the absence of God. I wonder, if I had an absence of belief that a man had walked on the moon, would that be different from a belief that no man had walked on the moon?

I think if you want to make such a fine distinction, then you should call yourself by a word other than ‘atheist’, perhaps an agnostic or a religious sceptic. For by the dictionary definition, an atheist believes there is no God, and this is a position that is accompanied with as many difficulties with regard to evidence as proving there is a God (if not more).

OK, ok, if the classic definition of atheism is a belief that there is no god, then I hold that belief.

(Waterboy, an agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is not provable, as opposed to the atheist's view that God does not exist. Atheists are agnostics who refuse to sit on the fence.)

But I still maintain that the nature of my belief, that something does not exist, is a substantially different animal to that of a belief that it does.

To believe in a god requires not only belief, but faith, in the teeth of a massive and all-consuming lack of evidence. This creates an enormous chasm between the concept of "I believe", with all its inexplicability, and my "I don't believe", which requires no evidence or proof.

Which is why I reject MickV's supposition:

>>an atheist believes there is no God, and this is a position that is accompanied with as many difficulties with regard to evidence as proving there is a God (if not more).<<

There are no difficulties involved in a non-belief in God. No evidence is required, not to believe. No proof is required, not to believe.

To use your example: "if I had an absence of belief that a man had walked on the moon, would that be different from a belief that no man had walked on the moon?"

Strictly speaking, yes. I could hold the first view comfortably and safely if there were no evidence available that man had accomplished this feat; the second I could also hold, whether or not evidence exists, e.g. if I thought the whole thing was a conspiracy to fool us, and filmed in Burbank.

The fact is, you can point to evidence that man did walk on the moon. There are recordings. There were broadcasts. There were physical manifestations, people, machinery. If I were to hold such a disbelief, I would need to challenge this evidence in order to have any credibility.

As it stands, I need to challenge nothing in order to hold my disbelief in gods, singular or plural.

I like your writing Amber. Thanks for your support on the mark of the beast system. Irks me to think of all of the conspiracy that went into the ID chip on either the right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18/14:9-11). Someone said the Australian banking systems long knew about it. Henry Kissinger once said that "if we want to control all of the people, we have to know where they are". I guess this is the system he wanted. A number of pastors I know (one from up your way) are worried about the beast system, but I sent an e-mail and reminded them that The Lord fed the tribes in the desert 40 years, HE will feed us. My wife reckons their shoes didnt wear out either. I must look it up. Sounds better than Nike. I never buy their products because of the child labour they use in the poor countries. Its likely that there will be a "wall" between us and the system in the form of all of the G8/greenie/APEC protesters folk who wont want the mark either. Jesus says tough it out and HE will be with us. Maybe a year or two yet. No sign of the beast on the world stage.

I actually attended an open air combined church service in my small village this morning. There was discussion about what Jesus meant by saying "If any one wants to follow me, he/she must deny him/her self, take up their cross, and follow me". We talked about what these words actually mean to us individually.
Most of those very very few people present today know that in the future, possibly not too distant, the Australian believers in Jesus Christ will be persecuted.. But there was also talk about how God is in Control, and as you say Gibo, He did feed the Israelites and their shoes did not wear out over those 40 years in the desert. But there was also talk about how the Romans tried to kill off the Christians for sport with the lions and they were annoyed that the people died smiling and praising God.
During the boxing day tsunami a couple of years ago, a large group of Christians were told to get out of the place by the muslims, they could celebrate Christmas but far away. The group were on a hilltop away from the village celebrating God when the tsunami hit. They went into the village and gave aid and support to those that had hunted them away. The persecuted ones genuinely showed the Love of God through their faith in action towards their persecutors.
It is often said that the Church (underground) in china is the fastest growing and most faithful fellowship in the world.
Australians are growing fat in their complacency and material comfort.

Pericles,
"an agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is not provable"

Different to what I thought it was. I consider myself agnostic but more because I believe that the non existence of God is unprovable. I don't think any God exists but have not considered every possibility. It would be possible for a God if one existed and chose to do so to provide proof sufficient to convince me of their existence. That raises the old quandry of all advanced technology looking like magic to those unfamiliar with it but I hope you get what I mean. There is a point where almost anything is unprovable if we don't work with certain assumptions.

I'm agnostic because I've examined to my satisfaction the predominant beliefs about god which I'm aware of and found them unconsistent enough to be confident that those Gods don't exist.

Maybe sitting on the fence or maybe just accepting that there are some things I don't know. Not really a big issue, if there is a god or gods somewhere they clearly are not concerned enough about my belief in them to make the idea of their existance believable.

R0bert

R0bert, Pericles, and others, what sort of evidence would you be looking for or would be satisfied with if you were attempting to decide if there really existed a Supreme Being?

R0bert,
presumably, you are also agnostic about the existence of fairies, goblins, the tooth fairy, father christmas, the devil, satan, Zeuss, the Valkyrie, Odin, the great spagetti monster...??
What does it take to make you take a position? All an atheist says is, "There is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of gods or other supernatural phenomena." Is that too definite for you?
Should such evidence turn up, then atheists would all admit their error. Meanwhile, they are free to live their lives without the encumbrance of irrationality; something an agnostic with his shilly-shallying about "you can never be sure" is unable to do, just in case there is an avenging god out there ready to turn him into a pillar of salt.

ybgirp, I hardly need concern myself with threats of retribution from gods who can not be bothered to make their existance clearly known without cause for doubt. If I lived my life by the possibility that one idea of god might turn me into a pillar of salt for a particular choice what would I do about the other god who wanted the exact opposite choice?

I'm quite happy to be athiest about specific gods where claims are made about those gods which don't stack up in the real world.

If the definition of an athiest is "There is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of gods or other supernatural phenomena." then I'd happily take that label. That in my view is what an agnostic says.

I've heard athiesm described in terms of certainty that there is not and cannot be a god

Not phrased that way but the gist of it is in a definition posted earlier "the classic definition of atheism is a belief that there is no god"

Mick V, something consistant with the claims of that faith which was not duplicated in other faiths, which was verifiable and which did not have a reasonable scientific explanation. Not claims thousands of years old, healings which demonstrate the amazing potential of the human mind and which occur across a variety of belief systems, not reports from far off lands or demonstrations of the power of group think.

Perhaps in the case of the main monothiestic gods a clean up of their houses. All those who preach hate in their names either removed or changed, all those who preach morality while horizontal dancing with the church office staff, kids in their care or hookers finding themselves lacking the equipment to continue to do so. If that happens I'll sit up and pay serious attention.

R0bert

RObert...<<I've heard athiesm described in terms of certainty that there is not and cannot be a god>> Yes. Christians are keen to promote such silliness because they can't understand the scientific method that takes a position based on available facts -- but is willing to change that position when further facts become available. Religion is based on faith, not facts and reality, and will not change, no matter what facts may arrise to contradict that faith.
<<Not phrased that way but the gist of it is in a definition posted earlier "the classic definition of atheism is a belief that there is no god">>
As always in English, words have several meanings. It is possible to say quite rationally "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow," because it has done so for millions of years and there's no reason to think it won't do so one more time. On the other hand it is totally irrational to say "I believe in a god," when there has never been one shred of real, provable evidence for the existence of such creatures. If an atheist inadvertently says he 'believes there is no god, that is not the same as believing in a god... his/her 'belief' is based on reason and observation, while the other is based on faith. All atheists I know -- and that's quite a lot, are careful not to fall into that 'trap' and usually say they 'think' rather than they believe, to avoid the chants of glee from brain damaged religionists who equate faith with fact.

Yes, Australians are getting fat in their complacency Amber (they are not watching the signs of the times of Luke chapter 21) yet all the while dark powers make their plans for our wonderful country. China has many agents here, so does Indonesia, and now even Iranian students are having to be watched for spy activity. I really thought Chen Yonglins "1,000 Chinese spies" knowledge might have wakened the nation up but we rolled over and went back to sleep.
I read Foxes Book of Martyrs and what the Romans did to the early church. Really exciting stuff for christian faith. Interesting story on the tsunamis christians.

Amber describes how most of these teddy infected unfortunates become so well immunized in the process that they just do not play outside their playpen. They have been repeatedly warned, are well armed with entrenched avoidance behaviours like pulling down the shutters, disconnecting and walking away from highly plausible arguments. This kind of belief doesn't require evidence because it is issued as pure rote "learning" and certainly has all bases covered. e.g. The great disconnect where belief in something without evidence is elevated as a particular virtue because there is this notion that any fool can believe something based on evidence. BUT, belief without any evidence takes "real character". lol

Well atheism can be said to be grounded in absolute truth because atheism is for those who transcend the facile whims of fashion trends and is forever the same concept. There are no fashionable teddies real or imagined, and there is no extortion of your psyche here .... just reason, humility, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy and much more.

Probably harder to understand for the teddy infected types is that their delusional attachment that supposedly takes "real character" is one of the major causes of crime in every shape and form.

Well said/written, Kieran! But of course quite beyond those infected with the faith virus.

The shifting definitions….The ‘Sticks and stones etc.…’ we’ll leave for the keeper.

R0bert, I asked what sort of evidence you were looking for. Thanks for responding. I am not sure I understood all you said but would like to pick up on some of it.

‘No duplication in other faiths’ – If I understand what you’re saying, this criticism is unfair. If there is only one God, creator of one human race, then one might expect certain conceptions and information about him would be shared amongst differing peoples of differing faiths.

Something which “was verifiable and which did not have a reasonable scientific explanation.” - Try this, the law of biogenesis. I think (believe) this word was invented by Louis Pasteur. It describes the scientific observation, verifiable countless millions of times per day, that life only ever proceeds from other living things. Living things don’t suddenly spring into existence from non-living matter. The implication being that the first living things on earth must also have come from a living being. Try as they may, scientists are yet to even come close to approaching any reasonable materialist explanation for this.

“No claims thousands of years old.” This is also unfair. Christianity is based on an historical event (like the day an astronaut walked on the moon), the death and resurrection of Christ. If that happened two thousand years ago, nobody can change it.

“Cleaning up their houses.” To find perfection (this side of heaven) amongst all those who claim piety would indeed be amazing, and even contradict the words of Jesus. He warned that weeds would grow among the crop, to be sorted out on the Last Day.

As for ‘preaching hate’ and ‘horizontal dancing’, I didn’t hear or see those when I last went to church. Maybe our church is one amazing exception.

So if you're looking for perfection from everyone who lives under the Christian banner, you will always have reason to disbelieve. If you are seeking some honest people trying to live an honest faith, you will find some and maybe sit up and pay some serious attention.

Mick, "If you are seeking some honest people trying to live an honest faith, you will find some and maybe sit up and pay some serious attention." What I've found is somthing that all to often the churches refuse to acknowledge, those type of people can be found across a swathe of thiestic and non-thiestic belief and value systems.

I spent years in the church and in hindsight I saw nothing that suggests honest people trying to live an honest life/faith are any more prevelant there than amongst any other group of people who try to live to a value system. Our resident mossie Fellow Human strikes me as one such from what I've seen of his behaviour online. Years ago I was astounded by the sacrificial giving of some new age people I came across and their determination to live their lives with integrity. I was told that people outside of faith in christ were lost in some kind of moral mess without a solid foundation but thats just spin. It's not the reality of people outside the christain faith who think that the way they live is important.

Cheers
R0bert

Robert
You said
"I was told that people outside of faith in christ were lost in some kind of moral mess without a solid foundation but thats just spin. It's not the reality of people outside the christain faith who think that the way they live is important."

You are right... to a point.

The reason Australian Churches have no martyrs is that the Church is not persecuted by the state. For all its flaws our government does go about the business of governing in a way that seeks to be democratic and deliver justice. To the extent that is possible, individual freedom is respected, differences of opinion in politics and religion are allowed.
In fact, secular society has largely overtaken the Church in the delivery of justice and the Church, to a great degree, has lost its reason for existence and become fragemented in the sense that its organising narrative and central symbols do not tell the story of our place in our society. Being unable to relate its story to our community and our society it has become indiviudalised and focused on personal salvation. Hence we find ourselves arguing about 'beliefs' and the existence, or otherwise, of God as a speculative concept.. all of which is pretty pointless.
And yet... there are still people around us that are not finding the fulfillment and satisfaction of full participation in community and society. Perhaps the story of the archetypal man who 'gets it right' is just what we need to imbue our lives with meaning.
God-talk, as figurative language, has the power to stir the imagination to find realities and a way of being that is beyond what can be found through conceptual speculation.
Maybe, even in our society, the sacred still works to lift us out of our hum-drum everday working lives and view the cosmos as a full participant in its awesome magnitude, as a partner in its creation and end.