Dear Suse,

<<I believe that back in ancient times, humans believed in gods like 'Mother Earth', who had a female form. I think I like the sound of that one better....>>

What one believes is unimportant, but rather one's actual relationship with God in one's inner heart of hearts. God has no form, yet most of us find it difficult to worship God without a form, so we invent a form to inspire us and direct us towards God. So long as we remember that imagining God in a form is not the absolute truth, but only a religious technique, then whatever form helps us to concentrate on God is good. If Mother Earth does it for you, then by all means, do worship Her with full devotion.

Dear Daffy,

Do not belittle Christianity - it is a valid path to God: http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/gospel/introduction/christianity.htm

Believe in God but for Christ's sake leave religion out of it. Religion opposes just about everything God is supposedly desiring in people. He must be cursing himself for letting people become so bad.

Speaking of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda these references provide a unique understanding of their role/function as fore-runners for the appearance of Adi Da.
http://www.adidam.in/vivekananda.asp
http://global.adidam.org/books/avatar-3.html

And no, it is now impossible to find the Living Divine Reality via the ideology of Christian-ism which is now an entirely reductionist exoteric religion, even essentially anti-Spiritual in its form, and via its influence in the world altogether.
The necessary prerequisite for engaging in any form of Spiritual religion is the stable awakening to the 4th stage of life, as described in this reference. Such an awakening requires an uncommon human maturity and profundity.And indeed the guidance/assistance of a Spiritual Master and more importantly His accomplishing Grace.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html

<<I find myself completely disinterested in the current round of arguments about the existence of non-existence of God.>>

Peter, I'm sure you meant "uninterested".

"" "An argument was introduced by Duns Scotus (1266-1308), derived from Aristotle, that all things "are" in the same way and as such they may be described by a common language; there is a univocity of being." ""

That seems to be an attempt by Duns Scotus to co-opt & convert the Law of Identity, the most fundamental of Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought.

The Law of Identity states "that every thing is the same with itself and different from another": A is A, and not ~A.

Peter,

>>I find myself completely disinterested in the current round of arguments about the existence or non-existence of God.<<

I am “completely disinterested/uninterested” in many things, so I don’t write about them.

Seriously, do you think this is the proper venue for defending Barth’s theology against possible other schools of Christian theology? Could you not have envisaged the reactions you got? If I defended here e.g.my approach to differential geometry in a way comprehensible only to other mathematicians, what reactions do you think I would get? And differential geometry is certainly not associated with so much emotion - positive or negative - as the question of God.

>>This means that when talking about the goodness of God then "goodness" means the same as when a person is described as good.<<

When talking about the roundness of Earth then “roundness” means the same as when a ball is described as round. What else could it mean?

>> It is this objectification of God both by theists and atheists that make the argument about the existence of God entirely irrelevant to Christian faith.<<

The conclusion seems to be OK, but what do you mean by “objectification of God”? Do you prefer its “subjectification”, i.e. reduction to what Dawkins calls delusion? Can you quote Karl Barth, where he would have said something the like?

>> The tiresome and never-ending debate between atheists and theists comes about because of the failure of each side to speak theologically.<<

I would rather say “because they usually talk past each other". How can you expect an atheist to understand, or even use, theological language (whatever that means)? One would not expect a non-specialist to understand, or even use, a language comprehensible only to specialists.

>>The real arguments are theological and use theological language. This is the debate we have to have.<<

Again, if you wish to have such a debate using theological language you have to restrict yourself to those who can understand it. Otherwise you will have readers on this OLO who have difficulties understanding you (like e.g. myself) or react emotionally, even offensively.