For those who believe that Christianity is to be regarded as morally superior to the secular, then it is time to upgrade their understanding of other religions and elevate themselves to the level of the gentle TAOists.
Should they do so, there could well be an avalanche of defections in that direction.

Peter claims "There is no such thing as a rationality that stands on its own, independent of a tradition in which that rationality operates, in other words, rationality is not one thing, there are instead rationalities."

In this he is demonstrably wrong and not for the first time. The entire point of rational debate - and a statement is rational if it can be falsified - is to transcend contextual circumstances in favour of universal application. One can be sensitive to context, but that is quite different to being trapped by them, as Sellick seems to suggest.

I was curious about theology being the queen of science. I had always understood this to be philosophy. I also ponder the rationality of making the "glory of god" as a raison d'etre. My view of god's glory must include all the acts of irrational bastardry recorded against vengeful vain self centred gods in just about any religious text in any faith. I am not sure I want to do that.

Perhaps one may also include the degrading aspect of all prostitution of both sexes not just female.

A truly rational discourse has the capacity to question its own suppositions. It is entirely possible, for example, for football followers to question the "it is good to win" supposition, especially if it leads to actions that offend our sense of morality.

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al are questioning the existence of your God. Dawkins, in particular, claims that the probability that your God exists in vanishingly small. In addition, they are concerned that the "glorification" of god is leading to actions that offend our sense of morality. Suicide bombers for example.

In response, what evidence can you provide that supports the claim that the God you wish to glorify actually exists?

If you cannot provide convincing evidence whilst continuing to demand we take your claims seriously, then you are not engaged in a rational debate. Without evidence, your appeal to the "rationality of faith" may be dismissed as the post-modernist nonsense that many of us suspect it is.

As usual Sells does not really address anything fundamental.

By fundamental I mean what is really at the root of Western so called culture altogether. What is it that really drives our "culture"?

The truth of the matter is that there is a fundamental psychosis (or psychotic split) at the root of the entire Western "cultural" project.

This psychosis manifests as the drive to total power and control and is now being dramatised all over the planet as the war of all against all and everything.

It is also very much about the war against the body. How/why?
We relate to the entire world exactly as we relate to our bodies. The world is thus an extension of our bodies.

The world IS our body.

In one way or another each of these references are about the origins and consequences of this universal psychosis---the war against the body---the war of "spirit" vs "flesh"---a war now being dramatised all over the planet.

The politics of hell deep mortal fear.

1. http://dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
2. http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
3. http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters-newsletter-aprilmay2006.pdf
4. http://www.dabase.org/spacetim.htm

Plus as usual this site describes the state of the world body politic created in the image of this fear based psychosis.

1. http://www.ispeace723.org/youthepeople4.htm

The original form of this psychosis is the notion of god as the entirely other, and thus objectified deity. The mommy-daddy Parental deity who is in charge of everything and who will reward us when we are "good", and hit us with a big stick when we are naughty.

1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

A quote from the same author.

" Therefore, the Great Other--whether It is called Nature or Nature's God---is your OPPONENT, not your Refuge, or help. And the very perception and conception of difference (or Otherness) is the Sign that the ego-"I", rather than the Truth, is the presumed basis of your existence."

All of which is another way of saying that the ego-"I" (including the religious ego) is infinitely godless and ALWAYS at war with the Divine.

"...they classify all religions to be the same and are blind to the many benefits that Christianity has given to the world."

They are not blind to the positive and negative impacts Christianity has had on the world, they just don't believe such impacts have merit in a discussion about the truth behind the faith. The impacts can be used to assess the values professed by a faith, but not the fundamental truth behind it.

"Harm reduction is the minimalist intervention that shows us that we do not have any idea of how to alleviate the problem."

Those who advocate harm minimisation would be more than open to ideas that eliminate the problem. It's about assessing things based on context and outcomes, not simply the isolated action. In a sense following the Christian ideals of helping each other rather than passing judgment.

"We have no idea because under the dispensation of liberalism, derived from the Age of Reason, no shared premises are permitted and therefore no rational argument may occur."

The idea that reason demands no shared premise is false. Reason simply calls for these shared premises to be based on reality, rather that dictated out of a dusty old tome.

"Unless we agree..."

Here you illustrate what many people find so despicable about those who argue with religious fervor; that their very human views and opinions are somehow above everyone else's and beyond reasoned debate. If you believe that all individuals have free will, then you cannot deny that they will all form their own views and opinions on issues including the very fundamentals of faith itself.

The age of reason is about sharing and discussing these differences in an attempt to best define a truth based in reality rather than a truth based in presumption. Reason doesn't dictate that the views of Christianity are wrong or worthless, but rather demands that they are justified and understood rather than just blindly accepted.