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.