Sellick's message is unequivocal. We must believe in mumbojumbo. Secular humanists are condemned because they do not accept the mumbojumbo. They don't think belief in a humanoid god or any other kind of god is necessary. It really isn't necessary. People made sacrifices for each other before Christianity was invented. Christianity is not the foundation for that. Christianity did not invent love, kindness, caring, the Golden Rule. Christianity preserves the humanoid god of the ancients. Virgin birth, the scapegoat which takes on itself the sins of others, pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye are not new ideas. However, they are various forms of superstition. Secular humanism tries to embody the caring which is imbedded in many religions, not just Christianity, but tries to eliminate the superstitions which Sellick calls the foundation.

Freedom is not inherent in Christianity. The early protestant churches was just as dangerous to any non believer as the RC Church's Inquisition.

The religious down the ages have opposed every significant discovery about the universe, flaying the first person to place the sun at the centre of the orbiting planets and burning the second at the stake.
The next prominent one was lucky that he was already famous so that he was simply sentenced to permanent home detention.

Even to this day the religions and their followers oppose much medical research even though they willing avail themselves of the benefits of any successes.

I laughed out loud while I watched the creationist Ken Ham use a laptop and a large electronic screen to present his nonsense.

Secular humanists have sought enlightenment from the writings of those clearer thinkers who have gone before them and tend to use religious writings as guides as to what isn't likely to make sense, such as listening to the voice in a burning bush.

Why do Christianity think their religion was the creator of these ideas. The golden rule was old before Christianity was dreamed up. More importantly you can talk all you like about what you think Christians believe, I'll judge them on how they behave every time.

Science will eventually give us everything that religions promise but can't deliver, even the possibility of surviving a moral bodies. Where will religion be once we can effective cheat death.

Indeed, goodness cannot make sense without a spiritual foundation.

However, spirituality does not necessarily need to express itself in intellectual concepts and/or cosmological or historical accounts (though they often help).

Many people are religious without even recognising it or giving it a name.
(OTOH, others who call themselves "religious", are not)

Christians need to consider what the purpose of their labour is besides paying a mortgage or buying nice things. The pilgrims at Plymouth, while enjoying the wonders of private property rights, understood that work and church are inseparable; if modern Christians follow this approach it would likely increase the relevance of scripture in a Christians everyday life, and fill the void that humanism increasingly fills.

It ain't necessarily so, the things you are liable to read in the bible, just ain't necessarily so?

A man fed a crowd of thousands with a basket of food, then proceeded to prove he was the literal personification of a living God by stilling a storm and walking on water, followed by healing the unhealable and raising the dead!

Why even today we have folks who believe there are fairies at the bottom of the Garden , others hear God taking to them?

It must be very disconcerting to hear voices coming out of thin air; but I dare say, even more disconcerting when you understand what they are saying?

History abounds with examples of the evil perpetuated in the name of God or religious belief; by the most evil men the world has ever known!

And the same mob are busy busy telling folk that what they really feel and know isn't what they really feel or know, just an evil abomination; adding immeasurably to the internal conflict of the brainwashed devotees.

How do I know this?

Because I was one of those brainwashed devotees, and only escaped by applying critical thinking to some of these myths.

Incidentally being able to think rationally and for myself, just doesn't turn me into a troll; and disagreeing with almost everything you hold to be true or rather unquestioned, doesn't make my post a rant!

The unquestioned life is just not worth living?

And just doing the right thing because it is the right thing is superior to compulsion!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,
You are a Soviet sponsored troll. Admit it! I have heard about people like you who make up propaganda to support the political line and jump on anyone who does not. What other explanation can there be for someone purposely misinterpreting what I am saying and coming up with the same old tired stuff that you should know that I do not support.
Do they pay you in roubles?

Religions are about control, confidence trick, selling words based on some future prediction and or assurances of an afterlife. below attempts to compare religious trickery with democracy and market forces capitalism:

Religion, especially catholic religion, are into ceremonies. Congregational followers are witnessing religious procedure as some evidence that god, for whom the ceremonies are for, exists. As religions can't prove religions can actually speak to god as priests pray, democracy governments and market forces governing economies, put on performances similar to religion's “in your face” ceremonies and priestly praying.

Market forces capitalism is a replacement for god, when things go wrong “blame it on god”. Priests were trying to persuade congregations that priests had some influence with god. Politicians try to persuade citizens politicians have some limited control over market forces. When markets crash, governments come to the rescue. What can be seen are The Three Stooges announcement performances played out over a period, giving ideas that without government to rescue the economy, things could have been worse.

Religions were in control of the magic: media reports of scientific breakthroughs in medical research; space travel; Catalyst programs, aid support for profit making capitalist systems.
As religions promises of an afterlife magic is impossible to prove, as people have to die to find out if the afterlife promises were real, congregations in fear of death, emotionally decide to believe the magic is real. Religions armed with congregations devotion, religions can abuse congregations with fearful threats of heresy; wars defending religions; slave labour building projects. Allowing limited number of god given wrights, leaders to live luxurious lives, controlling land for their own profits. Those one sided wealth creation days are gone, yet the tricks of manipulation are maintained.

The real problem is human children allow themselves to be programmed... parents being programmed can't help themselves, knowing no better.

Dear Sells,

False gods (There are no true ones.) are worshiped by many. The Soviet Union and Jesus are two examples. Both no longer exist. We know that the Soviet Union existed, and Jesus might have existed.

However, it is called redbaiting when people who don't like other people's opinions accuse them of being in the pay of the communists.

Have you no shame, Sells?

if Jesus is the issue, Christ is a vague concept of sacrifice. The Jesus Christ should be Jesus "THE" Christ.
Jesus is a story of a whistle Blower, "money tables tipped over on the temple steps", temple priests deciding to get rid of Jesus. The following story is all about threating whistle blowers.

Public executions were often done to warn populations what would happen if people continue to complain about priests and ruling classes, guessing money grabbing behaviours. Jesus story is a public execution trumped up charges of heresy in a book called the bible.

Once intelligent people have been made aware of the Jesus story as parable threats, constant reminders are in social media, remind people in that know the meaning of the story.

Google "pentagrams 5 wounds of Jesus" to read more. Than notice that pentagrams have replaced crosses imagery.

The issue that secularist hate the most is the fact that we are all born with a corrupt nature. The only Man who never sinned was Christ. Despite clear evidence on this forum and everywhere else, the corruption of man is on display. Often it is masked by politeness or pseudo science. This generation is as perverse if not more so than any other in history. The mass slaughter of unborn babies is clear evidence of this. The stinking self righteous pride of god deniers can't and won't stop the collapse of such a perverse generation. The surprising thing is that people are dumb enough to ask why we have so much suicide, so much drug addiction and so much violence. Just look inside and the answer is obvious.

Deluded much runner? It is not secularism that is dying it is religion.

No one goes to church any more.
Football has more adherents and more participants than any of your churches.
Rock stars are worshiped more than your imaginary friend in the sky.
People donate more money to Greenpeace than they do to you godbotherers.

It is 2015. Anyone who still believes in superstition and magic is just sad, pathetic and dangerous.

What is the Truth of our situation, and does the conventional exoteric religiosity advocated by Sells have anything to do with Truth or Reality?
These references describe the situation:
http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself
http://global.adidam.org/books/religion-reality
These two references provide a very sobering assessment of what Western civilization in both its secular and so called religious forms is really all about - a universal scape goat machine
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/there_is_a_way_EDIT.html

'Anyone who still believes in superstition and magic is just sad, pathetic and dangerous.'

last time I checked Mikk the secularist were still teaching the total fantasy that this ordered earth came from chaos and that reason came from non reason and that man evolved from monkeys. We also see daily the gw religion pushing its idiotic doctrines and conclusions. Yes superstition is very alive. Funny though the hatred towards directed at Christ whom many claim is non existant. Never could understand why many secularist hated Someone they claimed never existed. Oh well! the age of 'reason'. Thanks for confirming it.

I tend to see people as good but fallible until proven otherwise by their actions. but I can certainly believe you're corrupt at your core Runner given the hate you spew here.

Yuyutsu if they only thing holding you back from raping and killing is a belief in god. You need to take deep hard look at yourself.
I would suggest you don't do those things because you're a good person who does want to those things done to you or your loved ones ie It's the golden rule that drives our moral compass/behavior and other animals for that matter.

Peter, you seem to be railing against individualism rather then secularism. The hyper individualism you see these days in some is actual grounded in US style evangelical Christianity.

As an agnostic who believes in the existence of Jesus Christ only - still not sure about a God - I found this article very interesting, although I think Sells got his Russian troll chip at Rhrosty from a recent ABC programme.

I think that the critics of the article are confusing humans purporting to represent Christianity with the actual Christian faith as handed down. The are bad buggers in everything; they certainly don't represent the real deal.

Runner no book on evolution says we evolved from monkey's.

Dear Cobber,

I did not claim that the only thing holding me from raping and killing is my belief in God - what I wrote is that it is my spiritual foundation. Belief in God can indeed help and support one's spirituality, but is not a requisite.

Many people are religious without even knowing that they are (thus obviously without believing in God). Your suggestion that I (whom you don't even know) am a good person, hints that you reflect your own goodness on me, hence it is likely that you are among them, having a firm spiritual foundation yourself.

Without such a foundation, you would not be seriously considering the golden rule applicable to yourself (had you been able to get away without it).

The reason (conscious or otherwise) that we apply the golden rule is that deep within we recognise our commonality with others, that since in true essence both I and others are God, we are in fact one and the same, so treating another badly is in fact treating myself badly.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I also think you are a good person, but, in addition, I think that God is nothing more than a creation of the human imagination like unicorns and the tooth fairy.

Sells,

As you can see, some people’s reaction to (the title of) your sermon (which I understand means that secular humanism evolved from Christianity in a direction you do not appreciate - neither do I) is similar to some others’ reaction to the darwinian “humans and chimpanzees have common ancestors”: in both cases some people understand this as offending their a priori held worldview beliefs (or unbeliefs).

The question remains whether this is an appropriate pulpit for giving such an explicitly Christian sermon.

By the way, I think emotional outbreaks - whether expressed by references to Soviet sponsored trolls or mumbojumbo - never contribute to a constructive exchange of views and ideas.

Not much to add here -- except to point out perhaps, that China, which has never had a tradition of Christianity, is progressing towards enlightened secular prosperity much faster than the West did at a similar stage in its development, and much, much faster than those nations still dominated by theocratic institutions like those in the Middle East. The facts are against you, Peter -- but you already knew that, I think.

George,
I am not sure what you are saying. Are we to keep the gospel within the church? One of the consequences of secularisation is that preaching never reaches the pubic square. Should I desist from writing here altogether?

Sells,

All I was trying to say was that one should adjust to the anticipated audience the way one presents one’s arguments in defence of one’s (Christian) position. I indeed think that in our age - it was different a few decades ago - preaching belongs to the church i.e. where the audience can be assumed to have some Christian worldview “prerequisites” (otherwise they would not have come to your church).

George,
As I have said before, I have a long list of people who subscribe to my articles and who mostly appreciate them. Therefore I feel no compunction to aim at the commenters who seem beyond reason.

Dear George,

Mumbo Jumbo has the following definitions on the net:

1. Unintelligible or incomprehensible language; gibberish.

2. Language or ritualistic activity intended to confuse.

3. A complicated or obscure ritual.

4. An object believed to have supernatural powers; a fetish.

The various items brought forth during a religious service fit definition 4 perfectly. Speaking in tongues which is done in some Protestant churches fit 1. When Sells speaks about his appeal to reason that fits 2. You have probably observed 3.

If Sellick chooses to put his sermons on olo he has every right to do so. He is willing to subject his words to the scathing comments of myself and others. He probably has hopes of reaching some who do not go to church. I support his right to continue to do so.

Dear Peter,

I appreciate your enthusiasm in calling those who are weary and walking in the desert to come to the water and discover the joy of worship.

Unfortunately for many here, as you can see by the comments, the gospel, understood literally, is in the way and instead of enticing people to worship, it drives them away and denies them the opportunity to quench their thirst.

Do you aim to have people accept the gospel - or to accept Jesus's gift of showing us by his personal example the road to freedom from worldly attachments and the eternal life that can be gained by serving God rather than one's body and the features surrounding it? Which is more important?

They were my thoughts too, david f. As someone who was once an evangelical (protestant) Christian myself, I am not offended or annoyed by Sells’ OLO sermons or any other Christian’s proselytising. Indeed, if Christian theology were right, then they would have a moral obligation to spread the word. This is why you never see me tell Christians to keep their beliefs to themselves.

I worry more about the moral compasses of those Christians who do not feel compelled to save the souls of unbelievers. Catholics are probably exempt from this since they believe that people go to heaven through good deeds alone. As much as this is more rational though, I’m not sure how they reconcile such a belief with John 14:6, which clearly portrays a god that rewards gullibility over good deeds.

Well said Peter Sellick. Some parallel thoughts are in 'Eroding the Moral Foundations of Australia's Liberal Institutions'
- http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/governance_crisis.htm#Moral

And something to think about for those who suggest that Sellick is espousing 'mumbojumbo' is in 'What Should Anyone Actually Try to Prove About God?
- http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/InternalDeterminism.htm#29_6_15

' Should I desist from writing here altogether?'

Please yourself, though I do marvel at your tireless efforts to sell your religion and defend every perceived slight and twist yourselves in knots to make out whenever people have their own moral code

a) It doesn't really belong to them.
b) They might as well believe in god.

Sells, You're getting very desperate given you are unable to intellectually refute my arguments but like most religious fanatics; resort to name calling or flight of fancy, such as accusing me of being a Soviet sponsored troll. How dare you resort to such slander, or sh!t slinging exercise!? Is that all you've got?

Like most of the religious right, You really are rather simple Sells; given, the Soviet Union was rent asunder a couple of decades ago!

My checkable email Addy will prove I am not only here in Oz; but unlike you; Master of my thought processes or critical thinking!

Suck it up!
Rhrosty.

Moral relativist sprouting meaningless nonsense as they have no moral base for their lack of arguments.

Dear david f,

>>Sellick's message is unequivocal. We must believe in mumbojumbo.<<

My Mac OS (New Oxford American) dictionary has a fifth definition of mumbo jumbo as “language or ritual causing or intended to cause confusion or bewilderment”. I still think that whichever definition you take, its use in a debate involving worldview positions reveals emotional reactions and does not contribute to a constructive exchange of ideas, perspectives etc.

I certainly agree that Sellick has the right to publish (preach) here anything that the administrator lets through. My point concerned appropriateness for a given audience. If I ever wanted to write here something about topology it would certainly have to be very different from what I used to lecture to my fourth year pure maths students who had the necessary prerequisites. Afetr all, both mathematics and theology deal with a symbolic description of reality, albeit differently perceived.

Dear George,

You are correct. The use of the word, mumbojumbo, indicates an emotional rather than a well-thought out, logical exposition of my position. It would be inappropriate to use such a word to you. However, I feel it is a most appropriate response to Sellick. I'm sure you would never accuse one who differed with you as being in the service of the Soviet. I'm sure you would never claim that most abortions were done for convenience unless you had some evidence to support your position. I'm sure you would never show a lack of respect and caring for women and those who disagree with you.

When Sellick chooses to put forth his positions in the respectful, logical way that you put yours, I will use appropriate language in my comments.

I respect Sellick's right to give his sermons and make his comments. I believe I respond in an appropriate manner.

Dear david f,

I appreciate that you admit your reaction was emotional (I checked, there is no mention of abortions or anything lacking respect for women in this article by Sellick).

There are many contributions on this OLO that could, and often do, evoke negative emotionsl in me but I try to either react in a calm constructive way or not react at all.

I am not going to give here a list of contributors whose posts I have learned is better not to react to. Sellick is certainly not one of them although I disagree with his “materialist view” of Christianity (or, rather do not understand it) as well as the rather robust way he presents his views that can call for emotional reactions.

Christianity without Christ? That statement is about as logical as 'football without a foot'.
Religions all hold some fantasy being as the boss of life. None proclaim that each person is totally responsible to and for himself, not some imagined deity.
Thank god I'm an atheist.

Dear George,

I was reacting to some of Selleck's statements in the past with my mention of mumbojumbo. Otherwise I would have characterised my feelings to his article in a more thoughtful manner. I believe Christianity would be improved without Christ. Rather than the foundation he is a mythological justification for an ethical system. One improvement would be to take responsibility for one’s own actions rather than have the belief that by assenting to certain unprovable propositions one’s sins or wrongs could be placed on someone else. Another improvement is eliminating the idea of a perfect individual who one is supposed to emulate. When humans try to emulate perfection they inevitably fall short. This promotes a neurotic guilt. It is healthier to try to be as good as one can be within one’s limitations.

In the United States we had a period called McCarthyism named after the late Senator McCarthy. He destroyed people’s lives with his accusations, mostly baseless, of their attachment to communism. A New England lawyer named Welch in the army-McCarthy hearings resulting from the baseless attacks by McCarthy on members of the US military quietly asked McCarthy, “Have you no shame, Senator?” That was the beginning of the end of McCarthyism. Arthur Miller wrote “The Crucible” which was based on the witch hunts in New England during the colonial period. The analogy with McCarthy’s reckless charges was obvious, and that also helped put an end to that period.

I think it is possible to be a committed adherent to any religion and also to be a thoughtful, compassionate individual. However, Sells accusing Rhrosty of being in the pay of the defunct Soviet brought back memories of the ugly McCarthy period. His accusation was neither thoughtful nor compassionate

Dear Ponder,

<<Religions all hold some fantasy being as the boss of life. None proclaim that each person is totally responsible to and for himself, not some imagined deity.>>

Both Hinduism and Buddhism proclaim that each person is totally responsible to and for himself. The concept of God being a deity, is specifically a Western one.

Dear david f,

I gathered that you were not reacting to what was in the article but to what upset you in Sellick’s other articles.

I am aware of statements like “Christianity would be improved without Christ” or e.g. that “secular humanism is castrated Christianity”, but I think the relation of secular humanism to Christianity is more complicated than either of these cliches, although it might not be easy to describe it in a short article, as reactions to this one show. I think more insightful is Charles Taylor in his book “A Secular Age” or the atheist philosopher Juergen Habermas in http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html .

So you shall not be surprised that I do not share your understanding of what Christianity is all about, and that there have been, and are, many thinkers - philosophers, historians, psychologists, sociologists etc - that do neither. I could describe your view of Christianity as an outsider’s view, maybe “dawkinsian oversimplification” but I would never call it mumbo jumbo.

We have been through this already a number of times.

Another simplifying view (that is becoming very relevant here in Europe in view of the recent tsunami of refugees and migrants, mostly muslims) says that secular humanists (or rather their extreme branch, secularists) who cannot co-exist with a post-Enlightenment Christianity on the public square will have to learn to live with a “pre-Enlightenment” islam.

While you were experiencing McCarthyism I was experiencing Stalinism, and whatever we knew of the former we saw it only as a reaction - maybe overreaction - to the latter. I do not think either should be compared with whatever Christian rulers did a number of centuries ago.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Another simplifying view (that is becoming very relevant here in Europe in view of the recent tsunami of refugees and migrants, mostly muslims) says that secular humanists (or rather their extreme branch, secularists) who cannot co-exist with a post-Enlightenment Christianity on the public square will have to learn to live with a “pre-Enlightenment” islam.

While you were experiencing McCarthyism I was experiencing Stalinism, and whatever we knew of the former we saw it only as a reaction - maybe overreaction - to the latter. I do not think either should be compared with whatever Christian rulers did a number of centuries ago."

We will all have to learn to live together or be in continual conflict. At no time have I compared either Stalinism or McCarthyism to what Christian rulers did in the past. My remarks were directed at Sells - not Christian rulers. He evoked echoes of McCarthyism in his post accusing Rhrosty of being in the pay of the Soviet. I do not assume Sells is a representative Christian. I assume the average Christian is better than that.

Dear david f,

I think Sellick has understood in the meantime that his use of the phrase “Soviet sponsored trolls” in response to an emotional (and little relevant) reaction to his article was not only uncalled for but simply silly.

Come on you guys can't you take a joke! I have to have all this abuse on this thread and when I try a bit of levity I am condemned. I thought it was quite funny