Peter Sellick wrote: "To have an image of God, even a mental image, was forbidden. This is how the identity of God was protected from human projection." In the Jewish tradition which supposedly Christianity follows God is unknowable. The pagan gods such as Mithra and Apollo were surrounded by myth - virgin birth, resurrection and other myths which were incorporated in the Jesus narrative. Christianity has the contradiction of an unknowable God in humanoid form incorporating pagan myth. The Christian nonsense has had a long run, but eventually it will disappear as the pagan myths did which it incorporates. However, humans are immensely gullible, and the myths will probably be recycled.

I presume you have a recommendation for this position, Mr Sellick?

>>We have plenty of real theologians who could have been on the panel, why not ask them?<<

My question to you is - would they agree with you?

This piece leaves even more questions on the table than usual.

"We should proclaim to the world that our God is not a divine being 'out there' nor the mind behind the creation, nor the providential ruler of the universe."

OK. I think I understand that. God is not divine. God did not create the universe. Nor is God the caretaker of that universe.

I guess that takes most of the Bible out of the picture, then, as well as the entire Roman Catholic faith. Sorry, not faith - religion.

"It is only when we give up on creation as the ground of faith, that is so easily confused with nature, and place the cross of Christ at the centre, that we will come to realise that before this One we must give way."

There, that understanding didn't last long. According to my Sunday School teacher, Christ and God should be completely interchangeable (she never did quite explain the Holy Ghost very well). But if God isn't a divine being, doesn't that make the cross business - not to mention the resurrection - nothing more than a moral tale?

Or is that the intention here?

"'God raised Jesus from the dead.' It is not meant literally, it is figurative but points to a real event."

I see what you mean about Christians becoming atheists, Mr Sellick. Most atheists I know have said the same thing - the whole resurrection malarkey is just a sophisticated bedtime story, providing a high-level benchmark for being nice to each other.

But I hope that not too many Christians heed your call. They might start to give atheism a bad name.

Peter,
Probably one of you better articles. Pity it was so short.
I thought I was reading Crossan for a moment because you are becoming a little post-modern of late. I worry when Christians start finding it necessary to start convincing the rest of us that they and only they have the correct concept of their god/faith.

I too agree that the show was shallow and frustrating.
I suggest that all your admirers here on OO send an email to the ABC insisting that you be on the next panel that discusses religion.

Peter, it seems you have based an entire piece on the 13.4 seconds of air time Q&A allowed John Lennox. Not really an adequate amount of time to learn much about the man...

As someone who has heard him speak numerous times, and read his books, I can assure you that you are completely off beam with your article.

I insist you read "God's Undertaker" by John Lennox before commenting further.

Interesting article, thanks Peter, for letting me know that I was not alone in my disappointment at the particular shallowness of that episode of Q&A.
About a week later I went to the John Lennox versus Peter Singer debate at the Melbourne town hall and Prof Lennox was again hopeless. He had more time though, to dig a deep hole for himself and his particular circular argument with its false appeals to evidence. He would have been much better just invoking faith.
PS I’m an atheist.

Jennifer, the PS wasn't necessary. Only an atheist would say that Lennox was hopeless in that debate.

My response to reading Sellick is always similar...NO, no....yes, ok, yes,no,no,no, no and NO!

A frustrating experience.

The man has turned Christianity into something else, I'm not sure exactly what. What irks me though, is his insistence that all the real "theologians" agree with his liberal ideas, when that is clearly and undoubtedly NOT the case.