Don't be so churlish, David G.

>>These two gentlemen, should they disappear from OLO, would not be missed. Surely!<<

Personally, I'd miss Mr Sellick's contributions. Just because I share none of his religious fervour does not mean I don't find his outlook on the world interesting and informative. The mind of the dedicated religionist is a complex thing, after all, and is one that throughout history has led our world into so many pointless conflicts. It is therefore folly, in my view, to ignore it.

It takes a particularly aggressive thought pattern, if we take this current example, to baldly state that art can only exist if it somehow acknowledges "Christ as the figure of truth and beauty". It is such a pugnacious stance, exactly the kind of attitude that guarantees friction between, say, Christian and Muslim.

Maybe that it the intention. To challenge the (in his eyes) godless heathen with the most profound cultural insult that he can possibly dream up.

This is why I find it important to keep abreast of the thought processes that Mr Sellick characterizes. If these were hidden from us, who knows how dangerous they might become - at least while they are out in the open, as they are here, they can be exposed for what they are.

Pericles, you need some radical shock treatment. Perhaps being locked in a room with Sells for a month while he reads the Bible to you with explanations might sort you out! Such punishment would be far worse than water-boarding.

The only thing more shocking would be to share a desert island with the Singer for a week and have to listen to his anti-Palestinian diatribes.

Join the real world. Sells and Singer are regulars on OLO because of their guaranteed clickability. The more extreme their views the more comments they will attract, giving OLO an apparently bigger audience. Except that the posters are invariably the same old usual suspects arguing amongst themselves.

The well argued articles usually attract few comments because they are not contentious.

I'd like to see the actual figures for individual readers of articles compared to individual (not repeat) posters.

Pericles,

I too reject Peter's views, of religion snd the personification of 'truth and beauty' through depictions of Christ, just as you do.I do understand why Peter has the view he has. I'm also pleased he is able to express it.
However, I unlike you, have an alternative, which I express. It as not religion but as Christ's essential message, which I find as 'truth and beauty'.

I don't see you do the same, so would you mind very much telling me what you think could represent 'truth and beauty' and how you would express it?

I understand you as a thoughtful contributor so to see you align yourself with the likes of the empty and destructive, censorous socialists, such as David, surprises me.

This can hardly qualify as elucidation, imajulianutter.

>>It as not religion but as Christ's essential message, which I find as 'truth and beauty'<<

I quite understand why you might find 'truth and beauty' in the message itself, as various religions do, but how on earth can it inform your assessment of art? Mr Sellick is able to do so by confining his judgment to Christian-religiously-themed works, which is an extremely narrow view, since it excludes so much that happens not to have a religious orientation. You profess to have a broader perspective; but surely there needs to be some form of bridge between the message and the artistry?

And frankly, this sort of question will take us no further forward.

>>...would you mind very much telling me what you think could represent 'truth and beauty' and how you would express it?<<

I would of course find myself in a similar dilemma to your own, in that truth is a slippery concept at the best of times, and beauty - as we all know - is in the eye of the beholder.

By the way, I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion:

>>...to see you align yourself with the likes of the empty and destructive, censorous socialists, such as David, surprises me.<<

I was under the strong impression that we were in disagreement with each other...

As in my admonition "Don't be so churlish, David G.", which elicited the response "Pericles, you need some radical shock treatment".

Not much alignment there, I would have thought.

Pericles,

'Reason cannot accept that religion has any factual basis ...'

'... he reverts to type and the myths and fabrications of theology...'

now is there a common belief contained and expressed in these two statements?

Reason would dictate there is in fact quite a common belief contained in these two statements and it is: that christianity is only illogical and contains no truth.

This is why I think you are in alignment with David G.

Let's be clear here Pericles, you only ever disagreed with David G's censorous attitude.
As an aside, socialism also rejects the message of the Epistles of Matthew, Mark, luke and John.

I myself am much more nuanced when it comes to the religion of Christainity.
I do not accept all of the basis of Christainity, which is in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But, I unlike both you and David, do in fact accept parts of it. Some I put great faith in, parts little faith in and some no faith in.

Pericles on your other point, I think you might be a little confused.

'...but how on earth can it inform your assessment of art?'

I don't think I said anything like that. If you like to check you will find I was addressing the issue of literature and actually said

'It(Christ's Truth and Beauty)doesn't need man made structures or physical images to convey it's timelessness and encompassing universality.'

and your statement

'in that truth is a slippery concept at the best of times, and beauty - as we all know - is in the eye of the beholder.'

is hardly any sort of reasonable answer to my querry of how you would represent 'truth and beauty'.

It does however re-inforce Peter's original point.