We are all part of the force that created the universe.
In fact all of the matter that makes up our body is taken from
the elements of the universe and our lives are directed by that force.
We don't have to tie ourselves up in knots, following blindly one religion or the other.
What force is it that puts a picture of two eyes on the back of a butterfly's wings to discourage predators?
This may sound strange, but I believe that the internet is also part of that force and is evolving according to that principle.
One day in the very very distant future we might type in "God" into the search engine and find Him!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...uh!

Sorry, I went to sleep reading this article. Same old, same old nonsense.

This is 2012, isn't it? We're supposed to be intelligent, aren't we? Yawnnnnnnnn...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..

There's no point trying to change the subject, crabsy.

>>Pericles and Pelican: I agree that it is a very bad thing for one religion to claim triumph over all others. Nevertheless I think you might be seeing in Peter Sellick’s article far more triumphalism than there actually is. He is after all arguing for the minimalising of religion.<<

You introduced the concept of "triumph" yourself, crabsy. Neither pelican nor I suggested it.

We simply agreed that at its simplest level, the belief that one's own religion is the "one and only" has so often been at the heart of many activities that disrupt society.

As for a suggestion that religion be "minimalized", I fail to see Mr Sellick offering one.

Here's his view of "folk religion, that comforting concoction of nice sayings..."

"All of these expressions fall under the axe of radical Christian belief."

A minimalist axe, possibly? With the absolute minimum of radicalism?

"...we do not go to church to feel good, we go to church to be confronted by the truth. That can be a dangerous and disorienting experience"

But minimally dangerous, perhaps? And only mildly disorienting?

>>I would say that it is not a hole in the sense of a vacuum because it is already occupied with living force.<<

We must be talking about different holes.

I see holes in terms of their emptiness, rather than in terms of their containing a "living force" - another concept that is uniquely crabsian.

Mr Sellick's holes are themselves noticeably unoccupied:

"a “God shaped hole” and along with it a yearning for that hole to be filled... all religion was essentially the same and was able to fill the “God shaped hole...etc."

>>Thank you Peter. Your article is worth much further thought.<<

First, crabsy, I suggest you read it again, more carefully. That will help you to stay on-topic.

Crabsy : *The religious institutions are important as the bearers of wisdom, symbols and useful practice from the past. Like institutions of any sort they must be continually re-appraised and renewed to avoid ossification.*

a) they don't continually reappraise and renew
b) they are ossified as a consequence
and
c)the institutions don't bear the wisdom - the writings bear the wisdom, be they Christian or other faiths.

All religious institutions do is interpret the writings according to whatever human prejudice is in ascendency at the time, then call it god's word and will and do their best to inflict it on the entire human race.

Like I said, I've got no problems with Jesus.

As L. Cohen says:

*it was you who built the temple
it was you who covered up my face*

The fact that the brain comes pre wired with certain innate software is as a result of evolution. Any creature that has to learn everything is doomed. However, the learning ability is to ensure that man is infinitely adaptable.

The "god hole" can be explained as the human desire to find explanations for what has for centuries been unexplainable. Even as we find the answers, most do not have the ability to understand them. God is used to fill the gaps.

Pericles: Why is it that so often you attribute to me intentions that are simply not there?

<< There's no point trying to change the subject, crabsy.>>

Does some trait of my language give you the impression of an intention to deceive or at least to “win” the debate by any means? Whatever the reason, I assure you I had no such intention. I was sure as I wrote that I was on the topic, but you obviously believe the topic to be something else. And my aim in participating in these threads is not to “win” but basically to improve my understanding of my own mind and others’ minds, while also helping them to understand me.

Still, let’s proceed.

<<You introduced the concept of "triumph" yourself, crabsy. Neither pelican nor I suggested it.>>

Well, I thought I was reflecting your perspective. If “triumph” was an inadequate word for this I stand corrected.

<<We simply agreed that at its simplest level, the belief that one's own religion is the "one and only" has so often been at the heart of many activities that disrupt society.>>

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

I will indeed take your advice and read the article again. I will then return to the rest of your post.

Rusty: You seem to say that I want to ignore or belittle the notion of the “parent-hole”.

<<The extensive use of parental imagery as a descriptor of "god" (like your father but more so) is so pervasive that it is disingenuous to try and discuss the issue without a genuine exploration of the *most* that a "parent-hole" might explain, rather than conveniently ignoring or belittling it.>>

I certainly don’t and certainly did not say so in my post. The notion does, as I said, apply helpfully to understanding the position of some Christians. And, as I said, Freud would broadly agree with you. The notion of a “parent-hole” does not, however, apply to the position of some other Christians.