.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for your explanation of the prolixity of our dear friend, Peter Sells. I see he is an Anglican deacon and, no doubt, as you suggest, is simply exercising his profession on this not-for-profit e-journal.

The legal terms of use of this web site indicate as follows:

"No promotional materials:

You must not, without our prior written consent, up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which contains promotional material, advertising or any solicitation (whether commercial or otherwise) for products or services."

Peter's activity here could be considered as "promotional" if, as you suggest, he is seeking to "guide his flock" and given that:

"There are souls among the OLO readers (not necessarily the active commentators) who wish to follow and worship God, but are confused and hindered by the fact that the natural, physical world does not conform to religious teachings."

Peter's "services" are free of charge but that does not alter their distinctive "promotional" nature. Also, the sustained rhythm of almost an article a month for the last ten years is a clear indication of the author's invasive intent. He is obviously pursuing an objective.

His objective seems to be what you describe as "shepherdly work" which you esteem "excellent".

This is a good case for considering Peter to be exercising his profession on this non-for-profit e-journal and indulging in "promotional" activity. However, I doubt there are many "lost sheep" here who require "guidance".

So, if, by chance, our esteemed editor and publisher, Graham Young, happens to read this post, I should add that while I recognize in Peter's prolixity a distinctive "promotional" character, I consider it is largely ineffective, assimilating it to John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judaea (Matthew 3:1) or El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qouijte de la Mancha making valorous onslaughts on inoffensive Spanish windmills.

No harm done, I say and, who knows, Peter may not be the only predator (shepherd) roaming these rich hunting grounds in an endeavour to track down the odd jumbuck to stuff into his tuckerbag.

So what?

.

Yuyutsu,

“…but alas, some people still think that God is a concept.”

It’s more the case and correct evidentially that, alas and alack, some people still think that gods aren't just a concept.

David

'No harm done, I say and, who knows, Peter may not be the only predator (shepherd) roaming these rich hunting grounds in an endeavour to track down the odd jumbuck to stuff into his tuckerbag.'

So opines Banjo. I disagree. Religion does a great deal of harm.

For a start it addles the thinking processes, confuses and frightens immature folk and children, leads to conflict between competing religions, leads people to accept what are fantasies as realities, seeks to control the behavior of members of the flock and encourages them to give generously to religious institutions, encourages weak-minded people to believe they need a crutch to lean on, makes promises it can't keep (living forever), and has always been in the forefront of militarism (see the U.S. Army)!

Religion is the world's greatest fraud and it's time it was put on the scrapheap along with goblins, witches, and vampires!

Like all threads which include something about the deity this one has quickly filled with people who hasten to demonstrate their intellectual superiority by mocking believers.

These people are too clever to be "still desperately clinging to superstition and nonsensical primitive beliefs".They are way to smart to accept a "delusion". Not for them beliefs that addle thought or confuse these poor immature folk.

The underlying theme is that the believer is unsophisticated and unthinking, unlike the thoughtful and prescient unbeliever.

So let's look at a few examples of these thoughtless believers who probably also believe in vampires and goblins....Obama, Tony Blair, K Rudd. Poor deluded fools...if only they had given the whole thing some thought, they could join the ranks of the truly intelligent who just know there is no deity.

.

Dear GlenC,

.

I do not see which comment or post of mine you are referring to.

All the quotations you indicate appear to be from Peter Sellick's article. They certainly do not correspond to anything I wrote.

It seems you are confusing me with our dear friend, Peter Sells - which I find quite amusing.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” [Matthew 22:21 (21st Century King James Version)]

.

Dear mhaze,

Whether those intelligent politicians have any belief in the supernatural we cannot know. I think all of them are intelligent enough to know they are unelectable unless they claim such a belief.