Dear George,

A model is an attempt to abstract certain parameters which describe a system or entity and, using those parameters, describe a part of the system. Religions are not models of reality. They add elements that are not present in reality or for which there is no evidence of existence. Mumbo-jumbo is an appropriate term.

However, although religions are not models of reality they offer comfort, community and explanations to their adherents. The explanations in general don't stand up to critical analysis, but comfort and community are still worthwhile. I find great comfort in contact with others, experience, books, the net, food, shelter, love, family, mathematics and reflection. If, in addition, one can find comfort in religion, I do not object as long as others are not compelled to accept the mumbo-jumbo.

RHIAN/Quoted john..<<>39 Jesus said,

“For judgment I came into this world,
..that those who do not see may see, and those
who see may..become blind.”>>

THUS..JUDGMENT..reveals the seeing..for the blind
just as those seeing the judgment..RISK Becoming blind

[i see not my brothers nakedness?

<<.40 Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things,
and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt;[d] but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.>>

WHY/HOW..CAN THIS BE SO
SEPPERATION OF CHURCH/STATE//IS IMPOSABLE..as long as we need beg govt for charity status..[GREATER DOTH NOT BEG LICENCE..nor warrent..OF A FICTION][fictions cannot rule over reality/THE STATE CREATED SATAns paper realm/where law overrulES COMMON SENSE/VIA THE lie of a statuted 'person'..under the act/that entraps anyONE PUTTING THEIR 'MARK'..on their demonic paper/forms[LOL]..SWEARING TRUE DETAILS OF BIRTH/NOT FIRST HAND WITNESS/THUS NOT BY INFORMED CONCENT

you deaf dumb guides you strain for a gnat/swalLOW A CAMMEL
haddock..2;18/19

MATTHEW
7;1
23;2-25
5;14-45

JAMES..2;4-22
3;ALL
4;ALl
5;all

advance token..TO REV 20;..4,8-12

Dear david f,

I think it all depends on what one understands by model. I think your definition is too restrictive even as models of physical reality, which religious models are obviously not.

For instance, there is a difference between a mathematical model’s practical (to solve some problem) and epistemological functions. The latter means that they allow us to mathematically “visualise” some physical concept or situation by relating it to concepts from mathematics that are self-explanatory (albeit to a mathematically literate) even when that model only helps to explain, without necessarily solving problems.

The adequacy, i.e. “truth value”, of the mathematical model (and the physical theory it is part of), is a different matter.

The term model is being used in other than theoretical physics contexts. For instance, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz distinguishes between “models for” and “models of”, a distinction perhaps not unlike the one for mathematical models.

I have taken my understanding of models from Ian G. Barbour’s “Myths, Models and Paradigms, the Nature of Scientific and Religious Language (SCM Press1974). He develops his notion of religious models along that of models used in science.

Models in science:

“A theoretical models is an imagined mechanism or process, postulated by analogy with familiar mechanisms or processes and used to construct a theory to correlate a set of observations” (p. 30). Here “familiar” apparently includes mathematical concepts, but he does not elaborate much on that.

On religious models:

“Models summarise the structural elements of a set of myths. They can represent aspect of the cosmic order, including nature and history, which are dramatised in in myth … Like mythes models offer ways of ordering experience and of interpreting the world. They are neither literal pictures of reality nor useful fictions They lead to conceptually formulated systematic, coherent, religious beliefs … (and their) cognitive functions … in the interpretation of experience present a number of parallels with the function of theoretical models in science (pp. 27-28).

Again, the “truth value” of such models, however understood, is a different thing.

Dear George,

You are correct. The word, model, has more than one meaning. I was using a different one from you. We also were using different definitions of reality. I implicitly restrict meanings to apply to the phenomenological world. I have the opinion there is no other one.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." is Wittgenstein's dictum. I applied it to 'model' and 'reality.'

I can argue with what Sellick presents as fact since he is careless with them. However, I cannot argue with your opinions. You are scrupulous about facts.

Have I got this right?

"The church would be advised to recognize the truth of some of the conclusions of the modern project... These assumptions about God are based on the view from nature and as such are foreign to the original Hebrew and Christian traditions that existed before "nature" became a description of the world. Rejecting them is no loss and will allow a new theology to arise that is more faithful to the ancient traditions of the Church."

So this new theology which is more faithful to the ancient traditions of the Church believes God was not a being who existed, was not the first or any cause at all, whose spirit had no material influence and who lacks a divine plan?

"Nay, nay, thrice nay", to reference Saint Peter, or was it Frankie Howerd?

Maybe I misunderstand to which ancient traditions you refer, after all there were many in the proto-orthodox era. Although trinitarianism tended not be amongst them, not even Justin Martyr's.

Missiology in late modern modernity could prove a missiology impossible.

"The recovery of a fully functional doctrine of the Trinity is the only way Christianity will be able to speak into the void of nihilism..."

You seem to mean 'your' version of a fully functional doctrine and saying 'the only way' smacks of overconfidence. Still, it is impressive how flexible the 'Christianity' tag has proven despite the ever present doctrinal contradictions. I can't even follow whether theophany is part of your Trinity.

wm/quote..<..So this new theology which is more faithful to the ancient traditions of the Church..>>

IE bound to rite ritual/creed GREED RATHEr than meeting of need?

<<..believes God was not a being who existed>>

GOD AS WE KNOW THE COncept..is the sun
the sun clearly exists..all life living on this earth[itself an ejectualtion/from the sun]..is all sustained to living by virtue of the light emmision the UNSEN HEAD RADIATIONS/THE ULTRA SHORT waves as much as the long wabes /released by the sun

god AS WE 'TAlk'..of god..is more aimed at the holysPIRIT
JESUS WAS A SOIN..of the sun..[a son of men..borne of woman..JUST LIKE THE EARTH MOTHER IS AN EJECTUALTE FROM THE FERTILE SUN..[GOD IS The sun]

look up se the sun..[gOD SUSTAINING LIFE BY LOGIC LOVE And his light]

go ahead..be as sons of the LIGHt,..sun
YE SHALT BE AS GODS..[sun-gods]..and YET SHALL THE HOLY SPIRIT..BE ONE

see THE TRINITY
REFLECTED IN THEE/IN HE..IN SHE..in you..in me
SURE GOD..LIES WITHOUT..BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT/DWELLS WITHIN.
everyone..from jesus to budda to god and gods and..every living thing

where life is the holy sp[irit sustains it iTS LIVING
YEP..EVEN 'GOD'

DAMM CAPS..<<..was not the first..or any cause at all,
whose spirit had no material influence..and who lacks a divine plan?>>

please do not taint higher than angels unaware's
JESUS became a suN..[god]..JUST AS OUR FATHEr sun.
[THE 1..TRUE/..OUR 1..GOD]...first begun..UNDER THE GOD..OF ANOTHER sun..[God]

but of truth..only the holy SPIRIT..IS ONE
THE REST OF US MAY..'BE AS ONE'..but not as much as the 1 is at 1 with everyone.[so the new religION RECOGNISES THAT GREATER THAN GOD..THE TRUE GOOd.

[FROM the wholly holy SPIRIT=1]
FROM *ONE/UNDER*THE/HOLY_SPIRIT..[OR..'O-U*T/H_S..]
grandious GREAT GOOD GLORIOUS GOD OATHS..FOR SHORT]