Translation: let's pretend that 'supernatural' means something different from what we all know it really means, then we can smuggle God in through the back door by pretending that he's still 'supernatural', even though 'supernatural' doesn't mean what it meant when we said that God was 'supernatural' in the first place.

Nice try, Peter! Might I suggest that to clarify the issue you use a new term to refer to the kind of 'supernatural' that actually applies to your conception of God? I suggest 'super-duper-natural'.

"Now I know how offensive this is to professed atheists and scoffers of God."

Well, no: it's also offensive to unprofessed atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, animists, and probably Muslims as well. Well done! But what's offensive is not your claims, but your apparent belief that we're silly enough to be taken in by this word-shuffling.

PS: What's a 'scoffer of God'? If I point out to my son that Santa Claus doesn't exist, am I a 'scoffer of Santa'?

Thanks for the article. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is of great value, and the first question truly is an amazing guide for our lives.

Then let me expain it to you Jon J, in a way that makes a bit more sense than the word supernatural. It will also explain why there are so many "christian" churches in the world.

God is a God of truth. Meaning: He fits into the fabric of this world. What he does and who he is and how he acts is not at odds with any laws of nature, not in conflict with any scientific "realities" and understands the truth of the world. God knows what those laws are, what truly is the right way to live, etc.

Even a sceptic can accept this, or at the least understand this concept.

In every world environment, culture, society men and women are seeking this God. Scientists seek out the truth to their scientific field, religionists seek out the caring God and environmentalists seek out the God of nature. (I am deliberately being broad).

Where the problem has arisen is that different pockets of society have bound together, decided that they are happy with the God (truth) that they currently understand and then seek to justify that God as truth for the world, In many cases borrowing untrue or uncomplete ideas or concepts to complete this justification and to gain the desired acceptance

You can probably see where I am going with this. Some Christians worship (for example) the "truth" which is Jesus Christ. That is nice, but these same people want to believe that they dont have to live a perfect life or even a good life, so they constructed a concept called salvation by grace alone. (Meaning: because God is good and kind and nice and loving he will "save" me, no matter that i have promoted bad, no matter the evil in my heart, etc. I will be saved simply by saying the words "I believe in Jesus). These people then banded together created a church and lots of people liked the idea of it.

Now we have got to the part where athiests are concerned. Athiests (and myself obviously) will look at the above Jesus God as incompatible with truth. IT cannot fit. You cant believe in part of a truth and ignore the other part. So we rightly say that that is a flawed belief. But where the conversation went wrong is that instead of saying "this one church and their concept of Jesus is wrong" the majority have said "because this one church that believes Jesus is like this, all other churches, since they believe in Jesus must believe in this and since the first, illogical church was wrong, all christian churchs are wrong". Rather then debating what the real Jesus/God/Truth is, both sides end up fighting over the strawman God and noone gets anywhere.

So lets look at the God of truth, and truth WHEREEVER it is found, instead of just saying God = Jesus, Jesus = Illogical church concept therefore God = Illogical church concept.

The god delusion lingers on. Let's move on to a world free of supernatural nonsense, superstition and practise evidence based living. Stopping child abuse in the form of religious indoctrination (read brainwashing) would be a good start.

Persevering with Mr Sellick's offerings seemed important… In that I might eventually comprehend his religious points of view.

Well, it's been worth it. Not because I comprehend them – but I now have a better idea why I don't.

As a youth (callowish) I generally relegated the concept of god to be a term covering 'everything we don't know', and age has merely confirmed this as a useful classification.

However, Mr Sellick presents the exact opposite view as in "…God is rescued from being a superior bit of nature and becomes the truth and wisdom of ages…"

Seems strangely vedic… I wonder if he's blue?

But the sentence, "The soul aim was to glorify God…" did make me genuinely smile and laugh out loud – with you, Peter, not at you.

Hi Peter.... Usually I really enjoy your articles, which often range from being thoughtful and good to being bloody awful. Sorry mate, but this has to be put into the "bloody awful" category... :-)

I want to "knock on the head" the notion that the Roman Catholic university (your words) - and I assume you are referring to ACU - seems to exist in some ethereal plane of spiritual elevation because they begin their lectures with prayer. Wrong! As a past member of its theology faculty for 35 years, I can assure you that no lecturer begins their lecturer with prayer - particularly within the Faculty of Theology :-). Australian Catholic University is a university, and not a seminary!

Just in case you haven't noticed, our national parliament begins with a public prayer each sitting day. Now empirically, according to your assumptions, one would expect that this daily "lifting of minds and heart to God" should have had some positive influence on the demeanor and respect of the sitting members for each other. Now that is really apparent in their words and actions,isn't it? Need one go on... Pete, just how seriously do you take your words?

Yuri

The christian /bible worldview fits the data best.

What a tedious article! Sells and Singer compete with each other to entrap the gullible, the feeble-minded, the superstitious, and those who need a psychological crutch to help them get away from reality.

Instead of giving us wheelbarrows full of theo-babble, Sells, why don't you provide some evidence to support your childish, irrational beliefs.

Give us something, anything that supports this monstrous fraud that continues to hold the world back, continues to keep many humans locked into a stone-age, 'witches and goblins' mentality.

Put up or shut up, Sells.

Indeed the purpose of life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Dear Yuri,

I agree with you that this article is somewhat below Peter's average. Understandably, no one can be expected to only keep getting better and better all the time without the occasional slide.

Specifically, Peter should have not conceptually reduced God to "truth and wisdom of ages", etc. in order to try and please some of the readers: the later is limited while God is not!

Excellent comment about parliament. A superficial answer would be "just imagine how they would behave without that prayer - we should probably expect physical punches and knives instead". Perhaps also the extraordinary discipline of making them sit quietly for 30 seconds helps!

A better answer is that trying to engage those miscreants in prayer is "Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout" (Proverbs 11:22).

Prayer is wonderful, but forcing prayer on those who have no appreciation for prayer, is not only an improper waste, but will boomerang. The state and its politicians just do not deserve prayer (but nothing obviously stops those politicians who so want from praying in private). Similarly, I'm afraid, though I enjoy Peter's articles immensely, many in this forum do not deserve his beautiful articles, but must rather learn the purpose of life the hard way.

"...though I enjoy Peter's articles immensely, many in this forum do not deserve his beautiful articles, but must rather learn the purpose of life the hard way." Yuyutsu, you are no better than Sells.

Who are you to talk so pontifically about the purpose of life? Each human must work that out for him or herself.

Other than procreation, humans have no other purpose, just like every other living thing.

If all humans disappeared from Earth tomorrow it would make not a jot of difference except that the horrific destruction of the planet would cease.

Truth and reality are the enemies of all religion!

@RandomGuy: I don't have any trouble accepting the 'concept' of God. What I have trouble with is finding any reasons why I should believe this concept is instantiated in a real being. If you think you have reasons, then let's hear them.

Dear David,

<<Other than procreation, humans have no other purpose, just like every other living thing.>>

We were discussing the purpose of life, not the purpose of humans (or any other living-being for that purpose).

<<Truth and reality are the enemies of all religion!>>

The enemy of religion is the illusion of existence. Truth and reality are the enemies of irreligion, and though the battle may last astronomical ages, at the end truth always wins and the reality of God is revealed.

Dear Jon,

<<What I have trouble with is finding any reasons why I should believe this concept is instantiated in a real being. If you think you have reasons, then let's hear them.>>

Yes there are reasons, but these are of a practical and technical nature, not factual as if God is really a being.

Most people find it too abstract, thus difficult, to worship God in His abstract non-form, hence they require something a bit more tangible. Some people in the primitive end of town even need an actual physical idol which they can see, touch and feel, taste and smell, while others require a convenient mental/mythological concept which they can think of God as.

There is nothing wrong with either: both can be used as valid religious techniques for a while, but ultimately, for the last mile, one has to give up such aids.

So while there are good reasons to temporarily believe in God as a real being, you should keep in the back of your mind that this is only a technique, which one day you will need to let go of.

What would happen?
Nothing!

My experience is that the meaning of life for a conservative is to create wealth & for a leftie it means to exploit the conservative's wealth.

@Jon J

@RandomGuy: I don't have any trouble accepting the 'concept' of God. What I have trouble with is finding any reasons why I should believe this concept is instantiated in a real being. If you think you have reasons, then let's hear them.

Thanks for your question. As for why you should believe it I have no idea, I think the only answer I can give is that if the reason motivates any desire in you then you should believe it, at least until proved wrong. Of course I accept this as a 2-way proposition so I'm talking principle rather than specific God case.

As far as the reason that I desire, I think the best way to explain it is to say that I want it to be true, and that if it is true it would be a wonderful thing. I understand that not everyone shares this desire but its what works for me. I believe that since humans can improve and change and learn, there must be a more complete knowledge out there than what I have, or have time to learn in mortality. One of my desires is to have the time to learn all that there is to learn, and the only thing outside of my control is my own mortality and physical health. But if a being had power over death, and could share that power with others (me in particular), then I would want to benefit from the extra time that gives me and continue trying to learn and perfect myself throughout the centuries I exist. I hope that makes sense. As I said, I'm not asking you to have the same desires as me, but that is one of the reasons that motivates me.

If there is a purpose in human life, then surely it has to be the realisation of dreams.
Moreover, our dreams and that which truly fulfils, rarely has anything to do with money or its acquisition, but rather, passing that final exam, passing that physical, climbing that mountain, overcoming and succeeding in spite of the odds or that disability, finding and sharing our life with our soul mate etc/etc.
If one can't find or believe in God, then surely one can believe in the mighty irrefutable truth.
One can look at and marvel at the universe and its vast and incomprehensible scope!
Or the fact, in essence, everything in it is composed of energy, much of it vibrating at speeds just below the speed of light!
Or the immense comparative distances between atoms, in the subatomic world!
Or the very many steps and changes in the universe, that were necessary since the so-called big bang, to make this tenuous thing we call life, actually possible.
Can the universe think?
You and I can, and we are an integral part of it!
That said, I've never seen a man walking on water, never seen any religious leader lay his/her hands on and genuinely heal the sick, or be suddenly be taken over by a holy spirit and suddenly automatically become bilingual; and nobody but nobody has ever turned my water into wine, with just a wave of a magic hand!
I have heard of sudden mysterious and powerful medical remission!
The bible story greatest story ever told?
Probably?
And probably a work of serially plaguerised fiction at that?
Rhrosty.

Steady on, folks. Peter was taking the p_ss. It's his little joke... isn't it?

" My experience is that the meaning for a conservative is to create wealth and for a leftie it means to exploit the conservative wealth"
Individual, surely you mean "My experience is that the meaning for a conservative is to create wealth, at the expense of those less fortunate"
Don't think Jesus would be happy with your evaluation of life, though Maggie Thatcher would have been in agreement with you.

No Sells, God isn't truth - truth is truth, and it is often a stranger to religion. Its just as well prayers aren't foisted on university students - universities are meant for rational thought not mindless indoctrination.

The trouble with Sells is that he obviously does not have any first hand experience of what he is talking or writing about. In this case the very fact that he used something from the "Old" Testament to attempt to argue his case is indicative of this.

Furthermore, because Sells is obviously an advocate of an entirely exoteric form of Christian-ism, which by its very nature reduces everything to the fear-saturated mortal meat-body scale of existence only, and therefore has no experiential sense that we are psycho-physical beings living in a psycho-physical world he is also fundamentally incapable of knowing first-hand how to engage in the Process that is prayer.
Prayer works because this is a psycho-physical world which can to some degree be influenced by both individual and collective prayer.

One interesting proven example of how thought/mind/prayer can affect the natural world can be found if you Google Hado Water Emoto. Also Google Larry Dossey Prayer Is Good Medicine.

One of my favorite books on prayer is Prayer by Swami Abhishiktananda - it is modern classic.

"My experience is that the meaning for a conservative is to create wealth, at the expense of those less fortunate"
kipp,
Yep ! There are many conservatives who do that but they're outnumbered by the lefties who hang off the rich & poor's apron. The rich conservatives provide jobs to exploit but what do the lefties provide ?

Prayer is just wishful thinking. There is no scientific evidence to show prayer affects world or any natural events any more than random chance. It is a form of either self hypnosis or group delusion.

"God, heaven and the angel of the annunciation" are, logically and truthfully, propositions.

propositions? what do you mean by that? they are pure fiction to me

Surely this author can't be serious?
Is he really saying that if we have a 'prayer' before every university lecture, regardless of the subject, the student's education will be more complete ?

What a load of rubbish!
In our thankfully increasingly secular world, the need for mindless chanting to try to provide 'meaning' to our lives is thankfully almost gone.

If the author wants prayers said before university lectures, he best attend church run universities...

church run universities..
Suseonline,
I suppose church is the the lesser of the two evils ! Leftie indoctrination still has the highest impact of nonsense although the church is hot on their heels.

Sells must be a happy little fraudster. He writes some anachronistic theo-babble that should have been left in the Dark Ages and immediately it attracts responses, 28 thus far. It happens every-time!

He believes that the graves of believers will open one day and disgorge their contents which will fly up in air. Hallelujah! What a sight that will be! Skulls and tibias everywhere. I wonder if my insurance will cover any injuries I may receive?

Will the Holy Ghost be in attendance? Will God descend the marble staircase from Heaven or arrive on a magic carpet? Will He say sorry to the kids he created that have terminal diseases or physical handicaps?

So many questions. So few answers!

And no evidence. None!

Perhaps the onus of the discussion should be on Sells to demonstrate that the saying of prayers before beginning events such as lectures achieves the suggested outcomes.

The issue is confused by a couple of factors, the concept of god part of the argument and the likelyhood that in the modern era most of those in an environment where the saying of prayers is a regular thing could be assumed to have a strong sense of a belief in a "higher calling". Not sure how to deal with either except to suggest that the latter should give those exposed to the saying of prayers a head start in the values issue not related to the saying of prayers.

Catholic universities were nominated as a place where prayers are said. The catholic hierarcy seem to be fond of gold, palaces and pomp. Perhaps an exception in the current boss, time will tell. Plenty of evidence of other less than desirable behaviours amongst the those of lower rank in that organisation.

There may be small groups where the record is largely unblemished but I suspect that its going to be a hard case to make to claim that the saying of prayers to people will measurable improve the values of that group.

R0bert

@individual......why do you appear to equate atheism with "lefties"....US christian neocons are the greatest hypocrits on earth...either that or the eyes of needles are much bigger there....humanism=empathy......without imaginary sky friends.....

Jesus said it was not a good idea to throw pearls at swine.

'(Mat 7:6) Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and tear you. '

There seems to be something of a disconnect here, Mr Sellick.

First you assert that:

"When we say that Christian faith is supernatural we mean that it may not be found in nature but may be found in the historical, in culture and art and literature and worship."

Ok, so we can discard the traditional meaning of supernatural. But then you go on to say:

"the truth and wisdom of ages, the accumulated experience of peoples, the Holy One of Israel who is hidden in deep darkness, and lastly personified in the man Jesus"

Having subtracted the supernatural from the existence of Jesus, where do you place the "miracles" that he was reportedly involved in? Surely they form the supernatural core of what he is supposed to separate him from the rest of us guys.

Or have I somehow misunderstood you?

It wouldn't be the first time.

I envy other blogs that attract reasonable and informed comments. What is it with mine that I attract the usual knee jerk interlocutors who have obviously not read my stuff?

Saying prayers before lectures at secular universities is of course a joke. But it is a joke with a background to it. My theological lecturer beginning with prayer changed what we thought our role was as students. Our role was to glorify god not ourselves. We sat under an authority higher than the intellectual achievements of either the lecturer or our own. We were part of a bigger think that our own ambitions.

Is that not a good thing to aim at in secular universities that are increasingly reduced to degree factories with students not interested in the life of the intellect but only in what will be in the exam?

There is no way that the secular university can promote these goals that are essential to the intellectual life. This is because there is no transcendent goal or authority.

Transcendent is, by the way, that which we do not produce but receive. A good poem is properly described as transcendent because it is not available to our ordinary rationality.

Why do we not produce interesting atheists? All we have is the same old prejudice masquerading as thought. "Friends in the sky", "the flying spaghetti monster" "superstitious rot"

You need to do better. Read some proper atheists, there were plenty in the 19th C. Give me something to argue against.

Peter Sellick

'I envy other blogs that attract reasonable and informed comments.'

Perhaps they have better content. The comments I think reflect the quality of the argument presented.

Look at some of the Hate Mail and other religious discussion on the FSM site and it is far superior to this schtick you've go going on here.

http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/

http://www.venganza.org/category/sightings/

He's also protecting our children.
http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DSCF1285.jpg

Ramen.

Dear Peter,

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (chapter 1, verse 33) prescribe:

By cultivating feelings of friendship toward the happy, compassion toward the unhappy, joy toward the virtuous, and indifference toward the wicked, the mind becomes purified and calm.

So please don't allow the undeserving to make you unhappy - in friendship and joy, please keep up your good work.

Hell's bells, Sells! You want to argue with us!

On what basis would you argue? Presenting some theological mumbo-jumbo from some ancient manuscripts proves nothing.

I mean, we could argue the validity of the existence of Ra, the Sun God or any of a number of gods that man has dreamed up.

"Ra was the God of the Sun. He sailed across the heavens in a boat called the 'Barque of Millions of Years'. At the end of each day Ra was thought to die and sailed on his night voyage through the Underworld, leaving the Moon to light the world above. The boat would sail through the twelve doors, representing the twelve hours of night-time. The next dawn, he was born again."

People in Egypt believed this nonsense just like billions of people still get sucked in by religious fraudsters, ones like you.

Sells, why don't you just believe in whatever turns you on and stop trying to convince intelligent, educated people that what you believe is fair dinkum and rigdy-didge!

You're wasting your time and ours.

.

Dear Peter Sells,

.

I am surprised by your question "The meaning of life?" as I understand from your brief biography that you have "a background in the biological sciences". The following explanation from Wikipedia should therefore be familiar to you:

"Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life."

I am also surprised you should say: " as I have often insisted, we must avoid the god the atheists love to hate".

An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. How could he or she hate something which does not exist?

Only someone who believes in a god or gods could "hate" him/her/it.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<Only someone who believes in a god or gods could "hate" him/her/it.>>

You were making an incorrect assumption as if people are totally rational.

"Hate" describes a state of mind, an intransitive verb pertaining only to the person who hates and describing nothing about the presumed object of hate which may as well be imaginary and/or one which the hater does not even believe in.

Many children hate the tooth-fairy, including older children who no longer believe in her (but have bad memories about her from earlier childhood). Surely you could also find book/movie-characters whom you hate with vengeance despite knowing rationally that they don't really exist. Similarly, many atheists hate God.

Hating something because (among other factors) it exists, is as irrational as hating something because (among other factors) it doesn't. The only reason these two may seem different to you is due to your irrational love of existence.

The fact that God does not exist doesn't bother me in the least: I love Him and aspire to love Him even more, with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my means, forever and ever.

Kipp,
how about pointing out to us revenue making schemes brought on & managed by academics which provide employment rather than rely on public funding?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I think you are referring to "the idea of god", whereas Peter Sells is specifically referring to "the god the atheists ...", i.e., not just "the idea of god", but "god himself/herself/itself".

Obviously, it is possible for anybody to hate, love or be indifferent to "the idea of god".

However, it is not possible for anybody to hate, love or be indifferent to "god himself/herself/itself" unless there is such an entity.

Peter Sells may believe he loves god but if there is no such entity he is mistaken. It is the idea of god that he loves - in this case, the illusion.

Your position is very similar as you indicate: " The fact that God does not exist doesn't bother me in the least: I love Him ... ". What you really mean is: "I love the idea of Him" - again, the illusion.

It is possible that some atheists may hate the idea of god, but for Peter Sells to affirm, as he does, that "... we must avoid the god the atheists love to hate ... ", is simply an oxymoron, void of sense.

Nobody in their right mind would hate an entity they believe does not exist.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<I think you are referring to "the idea of god">>

'Hate' needs no reference, it's an objectless, intransitive verb and can also be used as an abstract noun, thus 'God' would be used as an adverb or an adjective, qualifying 'hate'. Think of it as saying "Adolf God-hates" or "Adolf has of-God hate in his heart".

Otherwise, it is meaningless to say that one hates (or loves) an actual object. If one kisses or punches an object, that would be transitive, or even if one only 'sends thoughts of love (or hateful vibrations)' to another, but merely hating (or loving) only speaks about the person doing so, not requiring even an idea as an object.

<<What you really mean is: "I love the idea of Him" - again, the illusion.>>

That besides - I may love the idea of God as well... or I may not, or more likely, I could love some ideas of God but not others.
Also, if one had a glimpse of God, then one may love that memory as well (though God is not a memory either).

Most people, especially those who had no glimpse of God themselves, find it difficult to come to love God without loving some idea of God first, so most religions teach to love either a physical or a mental representation of God (the former we call 'idol', the later we call an 'idea'). Unfortunately, some religious institutions tend to forget that their ideas were only representations, only an exercise, which must eventually be transcended.

<<Nobody in their right mind would hate an entity they believe does not exist.>>

Then the norm is to never be in one's right mind, because who doesn't have one or more non-existing book/film villains to hate?

That is not surprising because most, if not all, things we do are irrational. Why for example would one want to survive and procreate (both bodily and mentally) while we rationally know very well that everything that exists will come to an end anyway and all knowledge eventually forgotten?

..why do you appear to equate atheism with "lefties"..
DrPhil,
I didn't think I did. I stated that one group i.e. the religious are just slightly less indoctrinated then the Lefties but not by much.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"Hate' needs no reference, it's an objectless, intransitive verb ... "

According to my Oxford English Dictionary, both "hate" and "love" are transitive verbs.

In the French language, modern young hoodlums and hooligans employ an expression they seem to have invented: "J'ai la haine" (I have hate). This is an intransitive innovation which, to my knowledge, has no equivalent in the English language. It has spread by word-of-mouth but has not yet received official recognition as a colloquial expression by any of the French dictionaries.

Apart from this ethnolinguistic innovation, the definition of "hate" does not pose any particular problem: "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury".

Sigmund Freud defined hate as "an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness".

Whereas, there does not appear to be any universally accepted definition of the word "love".

I, personally, like the definition of that well-known Australian biologist, Jeremy Griffith: "unconditional selflessness", of which I am sure Peter Sells is aware.

This, to me, is the essence of the word - to which all sorts of lace and frills and other fioritura may be added.

I also like Aristotle's definition, which was later adopted by Thomas Aquinas: "to will the good of another", though it lacks the notion of "selflessness" which, to me is an indispensable feature of "love".

Perhaps it is a vestige of my Christian education, but I cannot conceive of "love" without some form of personal engagement, the "giving of oneself", an element of self-sacrifice.

I should add that either love is or is not and if it is not, then it has never been. In my mind, there is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not.

The biological anthropologist, Helen Fisher, suggested that " Love may be understood as part of the survival instinct, a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species".

.

"...there is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not."

What pluckin' nonsense, Banjo! In our disposable world, there is little or no love that is total, eternal and indestructible. Love is a state of mind which, like the weather, is always in a state of flux. Time erodes it as it does with everything else.

.

Dear David G

.

"In our disposable world, there is little or no love that is total, eternal and indestructible."

I agree but I suspect it has always been like that. I think it is quite remarkable that we human beings are capable of love at all. We seem to be fairly unique as a living species in that respect.

I am not aware of any ethological studies having revealed that other animal species are capable of love defined as "unconditional selflessness" (Jeremy Griffith) or "to will the good of another" (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas).

My brother and I adopted a stray puppy that wandered through the front gate one day and we grew up with him. He was like a third brother. We went through all sorts of battles and adventures together. He defended us against our cousins and saved the chickens from drowning during a flood by swimming around and picking them up in his mouth and putting them on the roof of the fowl house.

Nobody asked him to do that and he got no reward for it. Does that qualify for love, "unconditional selflessness"? My uncle took him to the vet when he was fifteen, half blind and could hardly walk and had him put out of his misery.

That was about half a century ago now. I don't think time will change that much.

I met my wife in Paris and we have been through many years of stormy weather but we somehow both managed to cling to the mast and survive. Now the fire in me is no more than a gentle simmer and it's all smooth sailing. Nothing and nobody could come between us now. We are on our way to oblivion, hand in hand, headed for eternity.

In my humble opinion, most of those who think they love somebody do not. They mistake love for feelings, affection, sentiments, sex, liking, sympathy, admiration or some other basic impulse or self-serving urge.

Some seem to fall in love with their own image. They even look alike.

.

Dear Banjo,

As I have just happened to read today in a commentary on the Narada Bhakti Sutras (http://www.sankaracharya.org/narada_bhakti_sutras.php, a condensed treatise on how to achieve devotion, or pure love to God), there is love - and there is supreme love, which is unconditional selflessness.

Ordinary love still includes a measure of selfishness. Ordinary love also is directed towards transient objects, thus depends on them to continue (just as David wrote: "In our disposable world, there is little or no love that is total, eternal and indestructible."). Supreme love is directed towards God with no selfish expectations, thus is eternal and indestructible.

Since there is nothing but God, there is no need to look far into the heavens.
I wish you and your wife, building on the love you already have, to find God in each other, so that your love will last forever, even beyond oblivion. Peace.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I read the 84 Narada Bhakti Sutras which you indicated but found no reference to "unconditional selflessness".

Also, in the same manner that I consider there is no such thing as temporary or partial love, I do not consider there are different degrees or qualities of love allowing it to be classified like slices of ham in different categories such as "ordinary" and "superior".

Love defined as "unconditional selflessness" does not come in different categories or different slices.

The Hindu world is, of course, mired in a complex pyramidal system of classification by casts. The Christian world also has never really succeeded in freeing itself completely from the shackles of monarchial hierarchy despite the advent of democracy.

In both religions, deity is always placed at the top of the hierarchy, never at the bottom, despite all the moralising propaganda about the so-called modesty and simplicity of the deity however it may be conceived and by whoever.

Love is either total, eternal and indestructible or it is not. It is available to everybody, irrespective of their "cast" or place in society.

You write:

" I wish you and your wife, building on the love you already have, to find God in each other, so that your love will last forever, even beyond oblivion ...".

I am sure you mean well, Yuyutsu, and I thank you for your kind wishes but if either my dear wife or I had, at any point in our lives, counted on anything from some hypothetical god, we would not be the individuals we are today, with our personalities, concepts and values. We would be different persons with different life styles and trajectories.

We made it this far together and will be happy to continue on alone. Come what may.

You obviously have a very different outlook on life and I respect your difference.

I trust that you will respect mine.

.

That is definitely something you should ponder, Mr Sellick.

>>I envy other blogs that attract reasonable and informed comments. What is it with mine that I attract the usual knee jerk interlocutors who have obviously not read my stuff?<<

I would humbly suggest that your thoughts on religion are far too esoteric for the punters here.

(Having said that, I find it very difficult to imagine what kind of audience would, in fact, react in a constructive manner to your thought processes. Whatever.)

But you should face the fact that you are trying to communicate with the general public, and - by your own admission - failing badly. You present unconventional semi-religious concepts, expecting the listeners to have read theology as widely - if not more widely - than yourself. And when the reaction is predominantly a sequence of observations on the wackiness of your ideas, you go into a sulk.

This is, after all, not the first time you have had a hissy fit with us, is it.

Your nineteenth-century atheists, for example, were basically philosophers addressing what was then the status quo of religious belief. The level of belief, incidentally, that you abhor - mindless churchgoing, meaningless rituals, inactive disengagement. To introduce these philosophers as your intellectual adversaries is nothing more than vanity on your part. You undoubtedly cut your theological teeth on them during your vocational training, and simply want to show off your rebuttals all over again.

A suggestion. Try addressing the actual audience that you have on this forum, rather than the one you would like to have. It might mean that you have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone has had the benefit of your in-depth theological education. But in doing so you might actually learn something that explains the apparent "knee-jerk" reactions of which you complain.

.

At midnight in the museum hall
The fossils gathered for a ball
There were no drums or saxophones,
But just the clatter of their bones,
A rolling, rattling, carefree circus
Of mammoth polkas and mazurkas.
Pterodactyls and brontosauruses
Sang ghostly prehistoric choruses.
Amid the mastodontic wassail
I caught the eye of one small fossil.
"Cheer up, sad world," he said, and winked—
"It's kind of fun to be extinct."

("The Fossils", Ogden Nash)

And for those, less stressed, with a little more time and patience and a natural disposition for peaceful meditation on ... "The Carnival of the Animals?... or, should I say ... the meaning of life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJXP1_tX44w

Or the "untainted" version, according to Camille Saint-Saëns ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGEf4urGNo

.

.

When it comes to religion every one think of his mind about the white clothes and some philosophical phrases etc etc but the fact is religion is not that bore at all. Supernatural is the word that relates to God and that is the only thing that is true. If it does not the why you finger cross when you think that you deserve more then other as you have done a lot.