On the contrary, Jon J

>>Now explain how you can experience something that doesn't exist. On second thoughts, don't bother. This is just all too silly.<<

It is not at all silly. It is fascinating.

We are witnessing the final headlong, lemming-like rush of educated Christians who have finally intellectualized their God out of existence. They have, in this (for a change, mercifully short) thread, completely obliterated any trace of their former "God", and replaced him or her with something completely ethereal, utterly evanescent. Henceforth, the only way you will "experience" religion will be to close your eyes, and wish very hard.

Kids do this at performances of Peter Pan, when they are asked to make Tinkerbell better. They do it very effectively, I'm told. She recovers, every time.

The odd thing is - and I have remarked this to Mr Sellick on more than one occasion in the past - that they have collectively arrived at the identical destination that atheists have already found, and without the assistance of a theological degree. Or two.

So long as they don't get fanatical about it, it is totally harmless. Quite sweet, in its way.

Dear Crabsy,

Thank you for pointing me to your beautiful article.

The experience of God cannot be transmitted, but as we nevertheless insist on expressing our feelings about it, we use a multitude of different expressions, taken from our life-context.

The "ewe-boy" is a valid expression of God, when coming from you personally, but if that later turns into an organized religion and people start claiming that "God is an ewe-boy", then they've missed Him by miles - and once they do, I hate to think of the ensuing wars:

Your vision of a boy with a sheep playing the flute, is close to that of Krishna, only that Krishna had cows, not sheep, so are we going to see fighting between the sect of the cows and the sect of the sheep? I hope not.

Dear Pericles,

It seems that the Christians are finally ready for a spring-clean, to continue with the job that Jesus started, of obliterating the false notions of the Jewish God, just as the Jews before them obliterated the prevailing notions of gods made of wood/stone/metal.

It is no wonder that materialists are jealous, for they would like to see all this new vigor directed towards serving THEIR gods, the god of existence, the god of science, the gods of the human-race and its society.

(I will be unable to respond again until tomorrow night)

The apophatic tradition actually has a very long pedigree in Christianity and a number of other religions. This holds that God is beyond human comprehension and that we can therefore best describe God in terms of what God is not. Whatever the merits or otherwise of this position, it is not a recent invention of modern intellectualizing Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Like many, I watched the recent Royal Wedding, after the vows were spoken the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a (too long) droning lecture. Admonishing the newly weds to bring up future children to fear god, so that they may do the right thing.
Holy Moses!, I always thought (as a child) that my God was an all loving all forgiving God. Now in the 21st century, we have been told to fear God. (I am glad that I am now an atheist).
NSB

What in the world is this article all about?
This is incoherence writ large.

Jon J,
>>Now explain how you can experience something that doesn't exist.<<
For instance, your toothache that only you can experience.

More seriously: As I keep on saying, in oder to have a meaningful debate the parties have to agree on the meaning of terms used: either by defining them explicitly or by somehow mutually agreeing that the term is fundamental, cannot be defined, only intuitively grasped, and share this “grasp”. The verb “exists” is of this second, fundamental kind. I presume that you and I agree on its meaning (though we disagree on some statements using that verb), whereas Yuyutsu (if I understand him properly) - and maybe also Tillich and Crabsy - attach a different intuitive meaning to it.

If we were asked in a survey whether we believed that God existed, that He did not exist or were undecided, no other option, I would tick the first option, you probably the second, so in this we would disagree. However, if we were to enter a serious discussion about the statement “God exists” we would have to agree not only on the meaning of “exists” (which I assume we do) but also on the meaning of the noun “God”, which is a much more complicated matter and discussing it opens a Pandora’s box of oversimplifications, ridicule etc.

For instance, I feel - though I might be very much wrong - that I attach the same intuitive meaning to the word “God” as Yuyutsu, but apparently we two disagree with him on the intuitive meaning of the verb “exists”.