If God is all powerful, and everywhere present, as is alleged in virtually all religious teaching?
How can any one preach in his absence?
That said, many do preach as if they had the power to speak for God, and indeed, judge all others as if they were God? Usually a self conferred power, into the bargain?
That said, the new testament, with its message of unconditional love for our fellow man, is completely at odds with the old testament, and a jealous God. who seems to want to inculcate fear, just to get obedience to his iron will.
Another odd contradiction, and at complete odds with the message of unconditional love in the new testament!
And at complete odds, with the preaching of some, with various hate-filled messages, like only normal heterosexuals, are free to worship, get married, or raise a family, or just express normal physical affection!
Were a gentle kind and loving Jesus to walk among us today, with his patent preference for almost exclusive male company, and male bonding?
Many of today's most vociferous, so called religious preachers, would not only label him a homosexual, but completely ostracize him as well?
All while still claiming him as the literal embodiment of God?
The real Godless preachers, are those who use the faith of others, to inculcate and impose, their own messages of unrequited hate, or indeed, blind obedience to it's inherent message?
Rhrosty.

How boring. Not a smidgen of inspiration to be found here.

Christians are of course by self-definition sinners, which is to say that contrary to all of the self-serving babble/babel about their "creator-"God", the Bible, and Jesus they are 100 percent godless.
As godless sinners everything they say and do is inevitably an extension of their sinfulness.
But is "sin" our always already prior condition? Or have we been sold propagandized a toxic message for countless centuries?
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/dreadedgomboo/chapter1.html

Where does the Teaching of Truth really come from? This essay describes the situation.
http://www.dabase.org/up-4-1.htm
This essay describes the dismal reductionism that mis-informs ALL Christian preaching. Reductionism because there is not even a smidgen of an iota of any kind of ESOTERIC understanding to be found in any of the usual Christian babble/babel. This essay describes the situation.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm

Furthermore, all of their self-serving "God" ideas are just an extension of mommy and daddy and/or the santa claus good-luck-god.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/god-exists

What did Saint Jesus of Galilee really demonstrate and teach while he was alive?
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity/beyond_hidden.html

It seems that it is a prerequisite for modern Christians to misunderstand, and hence misrepresent, atheism. One can only wonder why they feel that this is necessary.

Here's Mr Sellick on the topic.

"It is the tragedy of our times that this impossible God still holds a place in the hearts and minds of Christians both lay and ordained and, of course, in the minds of atheists"

The assumption here is typically arrogant of a particular category of Christian - the "thinking" type - that because atheists deny the existence of God, we must perforce have some sort of image, or idea, or concept of such a thing. Otherwise, how would the Christian God, according to Mr Sellick, "hold a place... in the mind of atheists"?

This is of course utter nonsense. We also hold in our minds an image of the Easter Bunny, without believing such an animal exists. And because the concept "Easter Bunny" is not a static, knowable thing, each of us safely holds an entirely unrelated view. Presumably, this should not hold for the Christian God, as described by Mr Sellick.

The quote from the Reverend Bruce Barber is no more informed.

"we…join with the atheists in claiming that God does not 'exist', in that sense in which philosophical theists and atheists are forever locked in futile dispute."

Christians and atheists disagree in fundamental terms on the existence/non-existence of God. While Christians may wrestle with the philosophy of God's particular nature, atheists are untroubled by such hair-splitting. Only Christians concern themselves with the shape, form, existence, manifestation, temper, even the number of their God. There is, in short, no dispute at all, futile or otherwise, between atheists and Christians.

Except, of course, on its potentially pernicious influence (along with all the other religions) on the minds of young people.

yep the atheist has to shut his eyes everytime he looks at creation in order to block out the obvious. No wonder he/she comes up with such unscientific nonsense endorsed by phd's to explain existance. The fruit of their godless dogma is easily seen by the suicide rates among the young, the drug addiction, the sexual perversion and the total lack of purpose outside of rotton pride. What a great unscientific belief system they espouse.

Glad someone mentioned the Easter bunny, It's more believable then rest of the nonsense people sprout

What a great unscientific belief system , then names the corrupt Atheist like myself with all of our debauchery etc, please Runner you must include that great bible bashing country the USA whose only thought is to kill, kill & keep killing no matter where, of course this doesn't lead to suicide & drug taking by the public, soldiers, etc. your so called Christians are far worse than any Atheist for all you mention
Gay people are being stoned to death in countries with their Koran beliefs, not only them but many of your christian friends do not believe in same sex marriage and Gay people, this leading to mental problems and suicide, you are to blame Runner not the Atheist.

ALL/DIRECT QUOTES..[to give aid..and comfort..to the godless]

<<..preaching has become largely .unintelligible and alienated from general discourse.>>.

<<>>reaching does not find a place..in our time>>

<<..the material world is very much at the centre
of our attention and usefulness...the overall criterion.>>

<<the preaching of the charismatic success churches [EDITED]..seems abstract and as useless as a corpse nailed to two pieces of wood.>>

<<>.Listening to preaching requires
an aptitude for assimilating paradox, irony,>>

<<>.drama, poetry and a sense of history,[..all of which are being displaced by our increasingly technological society.]>>>

<<>>
THE ENDLESS LINE AFTER LINE OF INSANITY/of course..introduces a nutter
<<>.Parable of the Madman indicates, the modern age is one in which God dies at our own hands.>>

words fail me/this same green thinking as the delusion of manmade global warming..>>..[now you can kill frEAken god/are you insane>

<<..God became just an extended part of the world
and existed as an explanation.>>

<<..God was used as the ultimate prop>>

<<>. a god who existed..>>
<<..god produced scepticism and finally unbelief.>>

<<..>>>this impossible God>>

<<..the Church of our time exists largely under the predicates of the Modern in which God has become impossible.>>

<<..It is not then surprising that our society at large have turned away from the Church and the very idea of preaching.>>

<<..When this god, named theologically as Monarchical Monotheism,>>

<<..>>preaching as the entry into the world of the Word of God as an extension of the incarnation.>>

<<this god, who is an idol of our own making>>

<<..Having affirmed the death of god..>>
<<>.how may preaching go about its business in the absence of this god? >>

<<>.the gospel is its own illustration. To include illustrations drawn from the world is exactly the wrong way around.>>

<<..The gospel speaks in parables, in metaphors, it is not concerned about whether something happened or not.>>

<<A sermon is a distillation of Kerygma,?[WtF?]....not a bible study. Its aim is to produce an encounter..with the creative Word>>

SO..A NEW THING...COMES into being
SOME CALL..THAT [thing]..THEY SING UP..into being..THE ANTI-CHRIST

ahhhhh...men
forgive/them...lord..they know not/what they say\nor..do

Dear Rhrosty,

What excellent questions:

<<If God is all powerful, and everywhere present, as is alleged in virtually all religious teaching?>>

Well, the ideas as if God is omnipotent and/or omnipresent are NOT alleged in all religious teachings, although they are rather common in the Abrahamic traditions. I think they were not even included in the original Jewish doctrine, but rather came as a result of the encounter with Greek philosophy.

In this series of articles, Peter Sellick attempts to demonstrate that ideas of this kind are not necessary, neither for religion in general nor for Christianity in particular: not only that, but that such ideas are in fact counter-productive.

<<How can any one preach in his absence?>>

'Absence' and its opposite, 'Presence', are physical attributes.

Considering physical attributes important and meaningful, is called "materialism" and is an obstacle to religion (i.e. an obstacle on the path to God).

Thus, a good religious preacher should base their sermons on religion rather than on material facts (proven or otherwise), which ought to be ignored (the latter should best be left for science instead).

... And as you rightly mention, there are too many bad/poor/incompetent preachers around, who fail to base their sermons on religion alone.

---

Dear Pericles,

<<It seems that it is a prerequisite for modern Christians to misunderstand, and hence misrepresent, atheism. One can only wonder why they feel that this is necessary.>>

Because they are confused!

A "modern Christian" is a dichotomy: Modernity values the objective, the material world, information and science - whereas the values of religion (including Christianity) are subjective. These values are in conflict, so how can one possibly be BOTH?

Only confused Christians disagree with atheists on the existence/non-existence of God - otherwise they wouldn't bother with such silly questions to begin with!

Yes, "we…join with the atheists in claiming that God does not 'exist'", yet unlike the atheists who are addicted to existence, this doesn't stop us, religious people, from loving God, worshipping Him and dedicating our whole lives to Him alone.

Yuyitsu , just wondering why you refer to your god as a he?
Is it because of what is written by humans in ancient books?
Many of the first invisible beings who were worshipped were females after all.

.
 
Peter’s monthly message in 4 easy steps …
 
.
 
1. " … god, who is an idol of our own making … how may preaching go about its business in the absence of this god ? "
2. " The gospel speaks in parables, in metaphors, it is not concerned about whether something happened or not. " 
3. " Baptism is … a willingness to be contaminated by the forces of chaos … "
4. " … we…join with the atheists in claiming that God does not 'exist' "

But it is no secret to Peter that " fewer and fewer people are listening. "

He sympathizes with all " those long suffering listeners to sermons " and asks " So why, in our time, is preaching (his message in 4 easy steps) almost universally ignored ? "

For want of a better reply, Peter suggests that it might be because he is " preaching in the 'absence' of God ".
 
For once, I find it difficult to disagree with him.
 
.
 
 

Pericles,

>>We also hold in our minds an image of the Easter Bunny, without believing such an animal exists<<

According to what you yourself quoted from the article, Peter was referring to “this impossible God”, not the Christian idea of God, so he, and many of us, non-atheists, surely also “hold in our minds an image of such an impossible God (or impossible bunny), without believing such a God (animal) exists”.

Besides, you can easily scan the internet to infer whether there are more people who hold in their mind an image of God (however understood) and reason for or against his/her existence, or more of those who hold an image of the Eater Bunny and reason for or against his/her existence.

The same when comparing what has been written - from professional philosophers to ordinary believers and unbelievers - about the two problems of existence. How many books you know have been written by philosophers or scientists about “the Easter Bunny delusion”, one way or the other?

It's possibly because it is past my bedtime, George.

But I have read and re-read this a dozen times, and still cannot make any sense of it:

>>According to what you yourself quoted from the article, Peter was referring to “this impossible God”, not the Christian idea of God, so he, and many of us, non-atheists, surely also “hold in our minds an image of such an impossible God (or impossible bunny), without believing such a God (animal) exists”.<<

You seem to be drawing a distinction between Mr Sellick's "impossible God", and "the Christian idea of God". Is the former related to the latter, or are they different concepts?

Which leaves this interesting hole to fill: what is the image of God that, according to you, Christians do not believe exists? Surely it cannot be the same image of God that I don't believe exists? That would lead to the equation Christian = atheist, which cannot be.

Incidentally, this is not about the Easter Bunny. You may substitute any irrational belief, such as "ghosts" or "fairies", and the point is the same.

>>The same when comparing what has been written - from professional philosophers to ordinary believers and unbelievers - about the two problems of existence.<<

And I may be missing something here as well - what exactly (or even approximately) are "the two problems of existence"?

Pericles,

>>You seem to be drawing a distinction between Mr Sellick's "impossible God", and "the Christian idea of God". Is the former related to the latter, or are they different concepts?<<

I don’t know except that I assumed that if Mr Sellick calls something “impossible God” it is different from what he believes in. I assume neither you will believe in a thing you refer to as “impossible”.

>>what is the image of God that, according to you, Christians do not believe exists?<<

Well, you have to reread the article to see what Sellick describes as “impossible God”. I am not going to reinterpret Peter Sellick, but as for me (I thought you knew) any concept of God whose existence can be investigated by scientific methods (like e.g. the existence of a remote galaxy, or a bunny, a fairy, a teapot, a Boeing 747) thus looking for “evidence” that will convince everybody - educated or not, living in our or previous or future centuries - or a magician-god who performs tricks on demand, is not a God I could believe in. I presume most 21st century educated Christians will agree with my rejection of such a God amenable to scientific investigation.

>>what exactly (or even approximately) are "the two problems of existence”?<<

I thought it was obvious from the context: the existence of God and the existence of Easter Bunny you introduced.

>>You may substitute any irrational belief, such as "ghosts" or "fairies", and the point is the same. <<

Of course, you are right, you may substitute these things and compare the number of books and articles written by philosophers and scientists about them with those written about the concept of God and you will get the same result.

It is impossible for anyone to discuss this sensibly, George, if you can pick and choose your definition of God, as you see fit.

>>I assumed that if Mr Sellick calls something “impossible God” it is different from what he believes in.<<

That tells us nothing about the God that he believes in, only what he doesn't believe in. Hence my reference to Easter Bunny, fairies, ghosts etc., which also describe things that many people do not believe in.

You take exactly the same line.

>>...any concept of God whose existence can be investigated by scientific methods (like e.g. the existence of a remote galaxy, or a bunny, a fairy, a teapot, a Boeing 747) thus looking for “evidence” that will convince everybody - educated or not, living in our or previous or future centuries - or a magician-god who performs tricks on demand, is not a God I could believe in<<

And who could possibly have a quarrel with that? But the context of my original query was that somehow, atheists were dragged into your ponderings, courtesy of the Reverend Bruce Barber...

"we…join with the atheists in claiming that God does not 'exist', in that sense in which philosophical theists and atheists are forever locked in futile dispute.".

As I said at the time, only Christians concern themselves with the shape, form, existence, manifestation, temper, even the number of their God. There is, in short, no dispute at all, futile or otherwise, between atheists and Christians.

It is educational for me, to watch Christians dispute amongst themselves the minutiae of their beliefs. But it is simply not polite to drag atheists into the ongoing confusion, it has nothing to do with us.

As always interesting food for thought, George and Pericles...

" I assume neither [will you] believe in a thing you refer to as “impossible”."

Lots of reflection to be found in abstract ideas, as there is in this 'modern' concept of God. A bit like with numbers. You know, in the way numbers can be transcendental which though irrational is rational according to the rules.

Rules (which can be likened to tenets of belief) which result in something impossible: 'Using the digits 1,2,3 & 4 and any of the basic rules of mathematics – add, subtract, divide, multiply and parentheses, what is the first natural, positive integer that cannot be obtained?'

Though such belief in an impossible something can be cause for contemplation and reflection it does not require worship.

Maybe this is where 'thoughtful' Christians and atheists part company?

Do others think one is not the loneliest number if you are a trinity?

I am disappointed that "the two problems of existence" seem to be "of God and the existence of Easter Bunny..." and not that of the philosophical question of whether your legs are joined at the top or the bottom.

per-ridicules/quote>>,,<<>.As I said at the time, only Christians concern themselves with the shape,>>

god looks like an engorged nipple..raining out life..that then takes<<.. form, existence, manifestation, temper, even the number>>

in short every thing we see hear smell taste sense create destroy..everything/in its totality..is within gods form

its sad that Pericles comes closer to seeing the real god..<<..of their god>> because you plainly got confused..[CONFOUNDED]..by what god really is..AND SHE IS THE TRINITY.

THERE IS REALITY[PHYSICAL]/
reality]..SPIRITUAL/reality..METAPHYSICAL[
THAT YOU CALL GOD=THE SUN..that you *think of as* god=the holy spirit

everything you experience/do..is because god created it/or set it in train..and sustains its being..to learn more of thyself...to fix it firmly into our neurons/thus her neurons/numberless times.

all organic life if you like..works just like your own minds neurons
just as all the suns..in the nipple shaped universe..are neurons of the wholly spirit...her holy nippleness

you can delude anything..into god..but god = the sun
however you decide..thus will he..[god]..be felt by you...in your minds neuron/patternation..in that itself resembles a nipple..regardless..of how your neurons tell you..they percieve

<<>.There is,..in short,..no dispute at all,
futile..or otherwise,..>>..ENTER ABSURDiUM..THATS INSANE..yes im aware of the irony.

if we could read minds..its clear we all envision..in our minds..'god'
[or else we could not find it in our neurons to know of which we speak.

my visioning..of god..is far divergent/than your neuron 'god'..linkages..some see a hollywood image..of god..YET OTHERS the son..as god..[son/not sun..]

just because they sound the same/are specifically designed to be confused by the same..[there are no co-incidences]

continues..on
[tirelessly like our old nipples
you all bare theie/his/her.. mark..upon thyne chest

[oh come on..give it a rest..
see negative voices abound..just DO THYNE BEST]
LOVE ONE AND OTHER/AND STOP THIS NIPPLE OBSESSION..OR AT LEAST..GET WHY..

[NOW YA KNOW]

now you know..try and envision de-vision
draw thyne own nipple..AS YOU WOuld if you could but see
every nipple looks as different..as your face looks different from me.

everyone's neuron pattern/
programed OR found..wiull by/envisioning..of god
in our minds eye..by our neurons activated..will all be /is\..different
eveN UNIQUE..[ie the personal good/god]..of which our jesus did speak

lest we forget/satan\offered jesus these realms
thus..our mind image OF SATAN..[neural/activation/mind image..will vary..far less..if we mind visualize him..as a her].

[and visualization of the ezta' bunny'..will vary even less..[my point being]..when you say jesus is the SON..i know he isnt the sun
but in the past it wasnt that clear cut.

<<It is educational for me,>>
and visa versa/

here you are next to george and david..as equals [in my mind] to watch Christians dispute amongst themselves the minutiae of their beliefs.>>

IN FULL AGREEMENT
but for me its like their mind images..of god being fixed by reality
or..washed out of it.

<<..But it is simply not polite to drag atheists..into the ongoing confusion,..it has nothing to do with us.>>

OH BULL..AND RUBBISH..the demons show great joy
at the christs divided house..

he came to repair/the fathers [sun]s divided house..and saul/paul..built the house of the sun...posturing the time of the roman sun god..

come-on..it has everything to do with the godless wanting their 'secular'/gOD FREE AGENDA..divide and con..and going by pert/peter sell/us out..your mates are doing just fine..thanks be to him who betrays three times before the trumpets crow.

6 may 2014=judgment day

<<if only one of you would come-up..with new methods>>
ahh-men..but for freewill being sacred/and not wasting pearl on swine..perhaps..but as solo-man..says..there is nothing new..no new truth..under the sun..same again..nice predictable sameness...please dont startle the sleeper's sheep.

Maybe god looks like E.T. at-least its more conceivable then relying on the some crap from an old book that has countless rewrites to suit whoever was in power at the time, I might go tell my granddaughter that Peppa Pig is the daughter of god, Then when she is older she can start her own religion and milk the masses for every cent,so then they can continue on brain washing their children.

Pericles,

>>if you can pick and choose your definition of God<<

I do not remember having provided a definition of God. You asked me what was the image of God that Christians do not believe exists, and I tried to comply.

You can define a concept by means of other, more basic concepts, so the “definition” would depend on what basic self-explanatory concepts you choose to define the new concept with. I know what is the definition of a topological space, but I do not know how to “define” mathematics, time, culture, religion, God etc to everybody’s satisfaction.

Nevertheless, here is one example of such “definition” as found in the recent “The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss” by David H. Hart (Yale UP 2013). As all such “definitions” it must assume something that some can understand and agree with and others don’t:

“God is not only the ultimate reality that the intellect and the will seek but it is also the primordial reality with which all of us are always engaged in every moment of existence and consciousness, apart from which we have no experience of anything whatsoever. Or, to borrow the language of Augustine, God is not only superior summo meo - beyond my utmost heights - but also interior intimo meo - more inward to me than my inmost depths.”

And he adds,

“Only when one understands what such a claim means does one know what the word “God” really means, and whether it is reasonable to think that there is a reality to which that word refers, and in which we should believe”.
(ctd)

(ctd)

>>That tells us nothing about the God that he believes in, only what he doesn't believe in. <<

Probably so, a single quote does not tell you what Peter Sellick is trying to say. You have to read the whole article if you want to understand him. I don’t think I could extract more from what he wrote than you can.

>>atheists were dragged into your ponderings, courtesy of the Reverend Bruce Barber<<

I never mentioned Rev. Barber in my posts, I do not know who he is or what he wrote.

>>only Christians concern themselves with <<

Well, there are also things that only mathematicians, physicists, philosophers etc concern themselves with that outsiders don’t understand or are not interested in.

Ausieboy how wonderful to read a post that makes you smile, it was a breath of fresh air for a change. I must away and talk to the nearest tree who I am sure will understand my non beliefs in Gods, Fairies, Gnomes, Humpty Dumpty and the rest.
Oh my goodness I forgot that inventor of brimstone & fire, the Devil

peters patter/quote..<<..we…join with the atheists in claiming that God does not "exist",>>

THAT JUST BURNS ME UP
IMAGINE is it/from A GOD OF GOOD..
or a dark demon...his words sending me demons..[his words fruits]

<<in that sense..[non sense]..in which philosophical theists and atheists are forever locked in futile dispute.>>

thats just so funny/even in hell..demons are in no dispute/re god existance..none in heaven..nor in hell/what has changed between you freaking materialists..living here..THEN GOING THERE>?

DO TELL/WHAT HAS CHANGED
that all in the after life only dispute re the number
not that god exists..how do you not grasp omnipresent..includes every existance.

science says..the vast majority of the big bang was done [in point ooooooo/something..of one second]..and they cant see..the Forrest for the tree..

<<..For "existence" is far too content-less and sterile a term. That is the "easy debate."..>>

please clarify peter
i must judge the words fruits

<<Rather, today we want to say that God is the conclusion of "what happens" between Jesus and his Father in their Spirit>>

JESUS IS NEVER COMING Back
saul/paul..and so many others
have muddied..the waters..between man that jesus is
between our god who 'created'/ejaculated' the planetoids..AMONG THE DEEP/..of our father suns solar system..[waters] with stuff then made viSable...in HIS OWN logus/holy/love holy/de-LIGHT

AND THE COLLECTIVE
WHOLLY OMNIPRESENT SPIRIT..[THE UNIVERSE]=holy3..includes thee unto me

<<>>Surely, it is the doctrine of the Trinity, almost abandoned by Protestantism and mystified by Catholicism that brings to a halt the "easy" argument about the existence of God.>>

I THOUGH SO

<<>. authentic understandings that will revive that most difficult task of the ordained. It is also a good book for the laity, those long suffering listeners to sermons. The complexity of thought and the sermons that illustrate that thought would be fodder for a group study.>>

i hope so