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.