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"?