Jesus Christ. Another religious person trying to find a reason why their religion is decaying and hopefully, disappearing. The history of every religion was written in blood.

The reason why all religions are dying, Peter Sellick, is because of education and science. Religions can no longer claim that their particular God created the universe, when anyone with any basic knowledge of evolution and astronomy knows it is just crap. Nor can priests, prelates, mullahs, or imams claim that the earth is only 5000 years old. Anyone who went to high school and studied geography knows that is crap too.

Every time science advances, religions that are based upon superstitious nonsense just get pushed backwards. One youtube site even claim that in a secret poll in Saudi Arabia, 60% of the Saudi respondents claimed that they did not believe in any God.

As for consumer goods, people everywhere like consumer goods. Always have and always will. Trying to blame "consumerism" on people's disinterest in religion is as useful as shouting down a well. In the western world, you would be better off blaming higher intelligence levels through universal education. Although with the current fashion of importing ever more low intelligence and superstitious people from third world societies into the west, that will probably reverse.

Which is why all the religions of the world, including if I remember correctly, your own good self, support third world immigration into the west.

I'm not sure that religious faith has been replaced by anything. You can't replace something that was not there in the first place, certainly not with "consumer capitalism", which is indulged in by religious and non-religious alike. We are in a post-Christian era. End of story.

It is interesting to see the certainty with which LEGO approaches his demolition of the article. My own view is that any conventional religion is likely to be far from reality. However that may be, all humans are limited in their ability to understand their surroundings. Accordingly, a little humility seems in order.

The following paragraph written by Tolstoy more than 150 years ago is just as true now as it was then:

If a bee, settling upon a flower, stings a child, the child becomes afraid of all bees, and declares that their purpose is to sting people. The poet, however, loves to see the bee drinking from the chalices of the flowers, and says that the purpose of bees is to gather nectar for themselves. The bee-keeper, on the other hand, remarking how the bee not only gathers pollen, but also carries it away to its hive, declares that the purpose of bees is to make honey, while one of his craft who had studied the life of the swarm more closely says that bees collect pollen in order to feed their young and produce queens, i.e., to continue their species. Finally, the botanist, noticing that the fact of a pollen-laden bee settling upon the pistil of a flower fertilises the plant, concludes that that is the ultimate purpose of the insect. Nevertheless the ultimate purpose of bees is not exhausted by any such purposes as the human mind may conceive of it. The higher the human intellect soars in its con¬ception of possible purposes, the more does it realise that such purposes lie beyond its comprehension.

'The history of every religion was written in blood.' Only to be surpassed by god deniers who have an atrocious record. Mind you with no moral base to draw from its not surprising even though it does not fit Lego's irrational narrative. No one would dare do the figures by the murderous group planned parenthood let alone Mao, the current dictator in China, Stalin, socialist Hitler. Yep those 'peace loving' god deniers!

The God of Christianity was erased with the influence of Emporer Constantine, along with the imposition of his selected stooges as the Bishops of Rome/Constantinople. The almost complete, post 350 AD, rewrite of Christian theology by the aforementioned lackeys, their servants.

As for Mannon replacing God in Christian worship? I believe one need look no further than our Hillsong for evidence of that outcome?

When Jesus took to the money changers in the Temple, alive today/similarly armed?

Wall street may cop a whipping as would a few pussy groping billionaires, who clearly have made money/its acquisition? Much more important than people.

Money is just a tool to acomplish outcomes for everyone, not just priviliged horders!

Where used as a tool to acommplish social equity outcomes! Will create sustainable universial prosperity for all.

We can hardly get into a worse finacial pickle than the one already created by the pandemic! Money has never ever been cheaper!

So, its debt that should be used now to create several seriously massive nation-building projects/infrastructure we should invest in NOW TODAY, are (VLT) rapid rail, allow the new rezoned real estate along the resumed corridor to pay the bill.

We also need reliable, dispatchable energy, manufacturing can afford, given we also build that, fund that build, NOW, TODAY, with the annual bilions we'd earn as the premier repository for the world's stockpile of nuclear waste, which in reality is mostly unspent fuel. Unspent fuel we could spend in MSR technology! Creating virtually free power in complete, walk away, safety as we do so!

Add in real reformed taxation as a single unavoidable, 15% flat tax, everyone above a very generous threshold, pays. And our manufacuring sector could build anything and beat the pants of the emerging economies without really trying.

Incorporate cooperative capitalism as the template! And that's how you do a maximised rapid ( knock your socks off) recovery!

But only if we have a return to sanity and sound judgement at the helm as opposed to endless blame shifting and serial incompetence/fiscal timidity?
Alan B.

The only form of capitalism that incorporates the philosophy of Chrisianty as advanced by it's founders, is cooperative capitalism.

Cooperative capitalism does not need slavery, pockets of poverty and disadvantaged in order to survive and or posper!

Does not need a pool of homeless and or unaffordable housing to prosper the entire nation, or as now, privileged sectors who are the drones, leaners, predatory parasites who predate on the enterprise and endeavour of others in order to earn a quid/amass personal fortunes!

Cooperative capitalism does not need to leave behind those who are disabled or too old to work!

Does not abandon or disadvantage unwanted children, but cares for and educates them, so they as adults contribute/become the pillars of society others can depend on for universial goodwill!

The Pandemic has given us a God-given opportunity to remake our society and business models, so they reflect our best, the template of early esoteric Cristianity and standing united behind the golden code/do unto others philosophy!

And needs to start at the top, which needs to lead with selfless example!

When Menzies left politics, he didn't own his own home! Parliament passed the hat around and both sides dipped in and bought him a house!

Would any of our carreer politicians/marketing professioals dip as deeply into much slimer pocket books, today?

I think not! Nor do I think that there is a genuine concern for the welfare of others or a desire to make a difference, save one to their own bank balances, commecial holdings? And if the cap fits?

If it doesn't? Take it off and stand up for things that matter, for once in your life! Even if that means you have to cross the floor daily!?

If you can't? Well, why are you there? If you can't take a principled stand and champion our issues, all of them, pack it in and go home!
Alan B.

The underlying in-group assumption in these types of articles is that religion is inherently good stuff. and the lack of it is a "problem" to be resolved.

Though Perth born, when I was first immersed with Christians, at age 13, I might just as well have come in from the Sudan, so foreign was their culture to me.

I learned to watch my back with them. The walk opposed the talk. Then rarely you'd find really genuine ones, that even an out-grouper could trust.

Wish I could say that all changed, in the broader world of work and career.

For compassion we don’t need religion. All we need to know is that humans and other beings suffer, and we may be able to relieve their sufferings while feeling good about it. To counter mindless consumerism we can realise that we feel better and last longer by adopting a policy of moderation and limiting our wants to our needs. For an explanation of the action of animate and non-animate matter by itself and with each other we have science. We don’t need religion. For discriminating between things that we can do something about, things we can do nothing about and realising we can deal with things we can do something about by dealing with them and things we can nothing about by our attitude toward those things we need knowledge and reason. In short we don’t need Christianity or superstition by any other name.

Buying INDULGENCES from Bishops/Popes, as early as 517 AD, was a form of Clerical Capitalism

15 hundred years ago - already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence#Early_and_medieval_beliefs

I wonder what would be found if there were a study on which group has caused the greater mayhem, Academic experts or religious zealots ?

Sells,

<<The earliest theologians did not conceive of God as an existent being alongside other beings, rather, the word "God" could only be understood as the triune being in which the Son was the image of the Father coming to us in the Spirit.>>

You gave not one example from these 'earliest theologians' and their views of the Trinity.

St Augustine (AD 354-430) wrote 15 books on the Trinity. He gave this analogy to help his listeners comprehend the oneness of the Trinity but the distinct works of each Person (though it’s important to remember that all Trinitarian analogies fall short). 'So there is a kind of image of the Trinity in the mind itself, and the knowledge of it, which is its offspring and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, and these three are one, and one substance. Neither is the offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to the measure of its own being; nor is the love less, since it loves itself according to the measure both of its own knowledge and of its own being' (On the Trinity 9.18), http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130109.htm.

St Augustine's view was not your view that <<the triune being in which the Son was the image of the Father coming to us in the Spirit>>

Instead, his is the orthodox, biblical view that 'God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God’ (theologian Wayne Grudem 1999:104).

ttbn,

<<We are in a post-Christian era. End of story.>>

This is either a statement of ignorance or of one who hasn't travelled the world. Yes, in the western world there seems to be evidence of a demise of Christianity. Even the atheist, Richard Dawkins, tweeted: 'Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme: ‘Always keep a-hold of nurse – For fear of finding something worse', http://www.foxnews.com/us/atheist-richard-dawkins-warns-against-celebrating-the-alleged-demise-of-christianity-in-europe. He linked to a Guardian article, '"Christianity as default is gone': the rise of a non-Christian Europe", http://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-non-christian-europe-young-people-survey-religion

ttbn, you've been reading the wrong stats. These are the facts concerning global Christianity in 2019:

+ Christians in 1900: 557,755,000

+ Christians in 1970: 1,229,448,000

+ Christians in 2000: 1,987,471,000 (upward trend of 1.27% pa)

+ Christians mid-2019: 2,528,295,000

+ Christians in 2025 expected to be: 2,718,782,000

+ Christians in 2050 predicted to be: 3,466,927,000

Source: Gordon Conwell Seminary, Status of Global Christianity, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050, http://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf

The triune god in 3 parts - a Swiss army knife kind of god. The difference is that the Swiss army knife exists, is useful and has more parts.

david f,

<<The triune god in 3 parts - a Swiss army knife kind of god. The difference is that the Swiss army knife exists, is useful and has more parts.>>

Instead of dumping your presuppositions on us, why don't you engage in a useful discussion of the topic - including the nature of God? 'Without faith it is impossible to please God. Those who come to God must believe that he exists. And they must believe that he rewards those who look to him' (Hebrews 11:6), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A6&version=NIRV

Dear OzSpen,

Aren't you dumping your presuppositions on us? The silliness of a virgin having a baby, the silliness of a god in three parts, the silliness of life after death along with a host of other silliness exist in Christianity. Other religion have their own nonsense. With the rise of the secular state you are free to believe and express all that nonsense. However, you are no longer free to torture or burn at the stake people who label that nonsense for what it is.

Dear OzSpen,

You wrote "...why don't you engage in a useful discussion of the topic - including the nature of God? 'Without faith it is impossible to please God. Those who come to God must believe that he exists. And they must believe that he rewards those who look to him' (Hebrews 11:6), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A6&version=NIRV"

Why should I engage in a discussion that involves accepting your beliefs? I don't expect you to accept my worldview. How can I discuss the nature of God when I don't think God exists? Why accept your religion when there are so many other religions? Why accept any religion? The Muslims have the Koran. The Jews have an approximation to the Christian Bible without the New Testament. The Buddhists have the Tripitaka. The Hindus have the Upanishads. You quote the Bible you believe. Why believe in your Bible rather than the Koran, the Jewish Bible, the Tripitaka or the Upanishads? You probably have your religious beliefs because those were the beliefs of your parents. If your parents had other religious beliefs you probably would have those religious beliefs. I really don't think we can have a useful discussion.

The topic is "Has consumer capitalism displaced faith?" In a previous post I wrote "To counter mindless consumerism we can realise that we feel better and last longer by adopting a policy of moderation and limiting our wants to our needs." That is a useful discussion of the topic, but not of the nonsense you want to discuss. The topic was not the Nature of God.

Now under atheism we are living under delusion and totally irrational thinkers. From the global warming fraud to the idiotic lock down the healthy response dictated by corrupt organisations like the who. We are seeing the idiotic fruit of denying our Creator which has led to denying biology. Not even a baby born with a penis is now considered male. We murder the unborn like never before and virtue signal as if the new breed of corrupt professors, pollies and lying liberal media had any morals at all. Yep the fruit of the absolute stupidity of denying the obvious ( our Creator) is clear to see and yet all god deniers can do is dig in on their foolishness.

david f,

<<Aren't you dumping your presuppositions on us? The silliness of a virgin having a baby, the silliness of a god in three parts, the silliness of life after death along with a host of other silliness exist in Christianity. Other religion have their own nonsense.>>

Not once did I say anything about a virgin birth, the Trinity, life after death, etc. But how have you responded?

By labelling them as 'silliness', you have committed the Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association) logical fallacy by which you attacked the company I keep - calling it silliness- in 'an attempt to discredit them or render them "guilty", making assumptions about a person's character based on outside influences', http://quizlet.com/2235710/common-fallacies-flash-cards/

You have engaged in erroneous reasoning. Why must you do this, instead of dealing with the issues at hand?

Dear OzSpen,

The topic is "Has consumer capitalism displaced faith?" Would you care to comment on the topic?

You wrote "...why don't you engage in a useful discussion of the topic - including the nature of God? 'Without faith it is impossible to please God. Those who come to God must believe that he exists. And they must believe that he rewards those who look to him' (Hebrews 11:6), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A6&version=NIRV"

I prefer doubt to faith. Faith is a belief in things one cannot prove.

I prefer to doubt and ask questions. Consumer capitalism has not replaced my faith since I have no faith. In a previous post I wrote "To counter mindless consumerism we can realise that we feel better and last longer by adopting a policy of moderation and limiting our wants to our needs." That discusses the topic at hand. Would you care to discuss the topic at hand rather than bring extraneous material like the nature of God? It is not ad hominem to associate you with silliness when the silliness is inherent in what you claim to believe.

"It is a truism that the human heart needs somewhere to rest and that hope is an essential ingredient of that rest. The place of that rest becomes God for us."

Hope is one of the worst spoilers of rest, it makes for a never-ending quest.
When our heart finally rests in God, we are at peace, our heart is full and overflowing with joy, so no space is left for hope.

People might hope in Mammon, but will never find peace that way.

So while in modern times consumerism displaced other kinds of hope, including the hope (which some might confuse with religion) that praying to God, the ATM in heaven, will provide material safety and wealth, it has no power to displace any true religion or faith.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree with you that hope is a spoiler of rest.

https://www.lionsroar.com/ask-the-teachers-what-is-the-buddhist-view-of-hope/?goal=0_1988ee44b2-682694f26e-24042663&mc_cid=682694f26e&mc_eid=a22723076b
points to a Buddhist view of hope.

Faith is the enemy of reason. Faith is the acceptance of truth in matters we cannot prove true. As far as I am concerned both hope and faith are inconsistent with a life of peace.

I am reading Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”. He explores the limits of reason.

At 94 I am at peace with myself, have neither hope nor faith and am considering the limits of reason. In the not too distant future I will enter oblivion. When I was younger I was not at peace with myself. I have found that it was best for me to discard both faith and hope.

That may not be true for others. We may have different ways to peace, and some of us will never find it. Oblivion is not peace.

'Faith is the enemy of reason'

obviously you discount the idiotic faith driven big bang theory and evolution theories david f. They are the most irrational explanations one can have.

david f,

<<I prefer doubt to faith. Faith is a belief in things one cannot prove. I prefer to doubt and ask questions.>>

That's a statement about your faith in whatever.

The faith I practise has its foundation in the God who exists (I can provide evidence for his existence), the God who acts in human history, and the God of the historical Jesus who lived, died and rose again.

Contrary to your opinion, this is not the 'silliness' of faith but the certainty of truth. I can assure you that I wouldn't be interacting on this forum with you if my faith was based on 'silliness'.

Why don't you write an article for OLO with a title such as: 'Faith is something we cannot prove'? Then give your evidence for such a proposal.

LEGO,

<<Jesus Christ. Another religious person trying to find a reason why their religion is decaying and hopefully, disappearing. The history of every religion was written in blood.>>

Would you please quit this blasphemy against my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ? Blasphemy is 'the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk' (Oxford English Dictionary, lexico.com 2020. s.v. blasphemy).

<<The reason why all religions are dying, Peter Sellick, is because of education and science.>>

This is an utterly false statement, as per the statistics: Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 18 August 2020 11:53:18 AM

OzSpen wrote: Why don't you write an article for OLO with a title such as: 'Faith is something we cannot prove'? Then give your evidence for such a proposal.

Dear OzSpen,

One does not have to give evidence for faith being something one cannot prove. It is implicit in the definition of faith. If one can prove an assertion then another person does not need faith to accept it. I have written on various subjects. The titles of some of them follow:

There is no god in which we all trust

Secularism and religious tolerance

God is a human invention

Adam's rib

Another perspective on evil

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 is where you can connect to those articles and others I have written.

Dear OzSpen,

We are not a theocracy. Lego has a right to blaspheme Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Buddha, Moses or any other revered figure in any religion. We are not free to attack you as a person, but we don't have to respect anybody's religious beliefs. We are not free to force a person to violate their beliefs. The Chinese are wrong in imprisoning Muslims and forcing them to eat pork. However, they are not obligated to refrain from eating pork because it may offend Muslims.

Sacrilege toward what you revere may offend you, but it is not a crime. You have the right to ask LEGO to stop, but LEGO has no obligation to do so. I glory in the fact that blasphemy is not a crime in Australia. In some countries people can be and have been tortured, imprisoned or executed for blasphemy. Australia is a country with free speech. Free speech includes the right of blasphemy.

Dear OzSpen,

You wrote: The faith I practise has its foundation in the God who exists (I can provide evidence for his existence), the God who acts in human history, and the God of the historical Jesus who lived, died and rose again.

Contrary to your opinion, this is not the 'silliness' of faith but the certainty of truth. I can assure you that I wouldn't be interacting on this forum with you if my faith was based on 'silliness'.”

Dear OxSpen,

Of course, it is silliness. Believers in various religions believe their beliefs are true. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians all believe their beliefs are true. If any of these beliefs were actually true it could be proven to the satisfaction of a non-believer. Sincerity of belief, and I have no reason to think you are not sincere in that belief, is no indication that the belief is valid. There have been several proofs of the existence of God. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant showed that none of them were valid. However, he did not deny that belief. He granted that people could make a leap of faith and believe even though there was no evidence to support that belief. You are not the only person who confuses an opinion with certainty and truth. However, your religious beliefs are only your opinions shared with those who have similar opinions.

Believers may label their belief certainty as you did. They may label their belief truth as you did. Consider that believers in other religions which contradict yours have the same feeling that they have the truth.

Buddhists believe in a world in which some people are enlightened, but no God exists in that world. They label their beliefs the four noble truths.

1. The truth of suffering (dukkha)
2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
3. The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)

Their certainty and truths are like your certainty and truths. Silliness.

Dear David,

«Faith is the enemy of reason.»

Only by way of competing over one's time and mental resources: nothing other than having only 24 hours/day stops anyone from employing both.

Both faith and reason can be used in the pursuit of God. Some people are inclined to use one more than the other, which is OK, but some mix of faith, reason and good actions tends to produce the best results.

Then of course, both and their combinations can also be used for material gain.

«Faith is the acceptance of truth in matters we cannot prove true.»

Faith is an attitude, not an intellectual acceptance of anything (true or otherwise, provable or otherwise, important or otherwise).

(perhaps you confuse faith with belief?)

«As far as I am concerned both hope and faith are inconsistent with a life of peace.»

[Unlike belief, ] So long as one has faith, one has peace!

But you a right: that peace might not be everlasting. The problem is that, when one loses their faith (including through the use of reason) they also tend to lose their peace.

So if one's faith happens to be in something that is either untrue (like the existence of the tooth-fairy), or is fleeting (like Mammon, youth, health or humanity), then the danger is that upon finding out the truth, one's faith will falter and they will experience a painful crash.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«In the not too distant future I will enter oblivion.»

You will not enter anything: all that will happen at that time, is that you will become oblivious to the world, which is normally what happens anyway every night. YOU are presently awake, aware of the world, then at night, for some of the time YOU are only aware of your own mind through your dreams while for the rest of the time, in deep sleep, YOU are oblivious not only to the world but also to your own mind.

Big deal... Same YOU throughout! All that may change is what you are aware of. Once your body fails and your senses no longer provide you with input, your situation will be no different than in your sleep, only last longer.

«When I was younger I was not at peace with myself.»

Good on you for finding peace!

«I have found that it was best for me to discard both faith and hope.»

No argument there. It could indeed been the best for you at the time, considering your particular circumstances, strengths and weaknesses and what your hope and faith were in.

But this is not a basis for drawing a general conclusion.

--- referring to your last post ---

«If any of these beliefs were actually true it could be proven to the satisfaction of a non-believer.»

Not necessarily - refer to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

It has been long since my university studies so my mathematics are quite rusty, but I recall that we proved at some point that not only some, but actually MOST theorems cannot be proven or refuted.

This being the case even within the confined realm of mathematical theorems, how more so in the fullness of reality: some truths can never be proven by reason.

david f.,

<<Of course, it is silliness. Believers in various religions believe their beliefs are true. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians all believe their beliefs are true. If any of these beliefs were actually true it could be proven to the satisfaction of a non-believer.>>

What is truth? http://biblehub.com/john/18-38.htm

Dear Yuyutsu,

Discussion with you is like walking through warm, chest high treacle.

Dear OzSpen,

We assume a hypothesis is true if we use the available evidence along with logic and reason and find no contradictions. With new evidence showing what we thought was true is not because the new evidence contradicts the hypothesis we must abandon what we thought was true and develop an explanation which accounts for all the facts. That is the scientific method. We should not take the word of an authority whether the authority is a person or a sacred book. Political figures such as Pontius Pilate, prime ministers or presidents may confuse truth with what is politically expedient.

You read the Bible in English, but it was not written in English. The virgin birth prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 is a mistranslation. It came about because the Vulgate translation of Hebrew into Greek translated the Hebrew, almah which means young woman, into parthenos which means virgin. This was possibly done to make Jesus like the many pagan gods which were born of virgins.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1561/pg1561.txt

“The old Teutonic goddess Hertha (the Earth) was a Virgin, but was impregnated by the heavenly Spirit (the Sky); and her image with a child in her arms was to be seen in the sacred groves of Germany. (1) The Scandinavian Frigga, in much the same way, being caught in the embraces of Odin, the All-father, conceived and bore a son, the blessed Balder, healer and saviour of mankind. Quetzalcoatl, the (crucified) saviour of the Aztecs, was the son of Chimalman, the Virgin Queen of Heaven. (2) Even the Chinese had a mother-goddess and virgin with child in her arms (3); and the ancient Etruscans the same.”

Carpenter gives many other examples.

There is no prophesy of a virgin birth in the original Hebrew

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/7-14.htm

King James Bible

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

continued

continued

Jewish Publication Society (JPS)

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (English translation from the original Hebrew)

Almah is a Hebrew word for a maiden or woman of childbearing age who may be unmarried or married. It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether she is a virgin, for which a different Hebrew word betulah is used.

There are 26 versions of the Bible in English in biblehub. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) and 2 Christian versions translate the Hebrew properly as young woman.

Judaism is a monotheistic religion worshiping one God, not a Trinity, and the virgin birth has no place in Judaism. Christians do not worship the God of Israel. There is no need for them to do so since they may worship what they want to. However, Christians claim to worship the God of Israel, and they don’t. The phrase Judeo-Christian is odd because they worship different Gods. The Jewish statement of faith is, “Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One”. The Islamic statement of faith is, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohamed is his prophet. It would be more reasonable to use the phrase, Judeo-Islamic, than Judeo-Christian. Jews and Christians worship different gods with the same name while Jews and Muslims worship the same god with different names.

Dear David,

Though not a Christian myself, I like Peter Sellick's articles and his fresh approach to Christianity.

However, I do not always completely agree with him, so I comment here about some points of contention between us, in this case, about the issue of "hope".

I had no reason to expect your response to my comment, which out of the blue attacked faith.

Yes, some Christians have faith, but so do many others, including myself and including even Mammonites (for otherwise no stock-market would be viable).

You may well be aware that I am not here to defend Christianity, but your broad-brush attack of faith required my response.

If you feel that discussing with me is "like walking through warm, chest high treacle", then you only have yourself to answer, why you needed your attacks, presumably on Christianity, to be so broad and generalised. Being more specific could improve the accuracy of your arguments as well as prevent you from unintentionally insulting unrelated others by attacking what is very dear to them.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have commented on hope which you apparently do not feel is a virtue although many people do. I feel one should question, one should not accept authority. To me faith is a vice. I feel the Nazi murder machine which resulted in sending 11,000,000 people to their death, 6,000,000 of them Jews, is an example of faith. I am sure many Germans and others who participated in the slaughter had faith that they were doing a good and righteous thing.

Although I have criticised Christianity I feel some Christians have been most admirable. One thing that bothers me in Australia is the lack of the separation of religion and state, for example, in government subsidies to religious schools. The first person to speak of separation of church and state was the Baptist minister, Roger Williams.

From Barry’s biography of Williams:

“Williams believed that preventing error in religion was impossible, for it required people to interpret God’s law, and people would inevitably err. He therefore concluded that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God. A society built on the principles Massachusetts espoused would lead at best to hypocrisy, because forced worship, he wrote, ‘stincks [sic] in God’s nostrils.’ At worst, such a society would lead to a foul corruption—not of the state, which was already corrupt, but of the church.”

As a result of his opinions, Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony within a few years. He chose to found a more tolerant, religiously free colony at Providence in what is now the state of Rhode Island. Williams was thus a pioneer for the idea of church-state separation and a Founding Father more than 100 years before the generation of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. He was possibly also the first Abolitionist. He went as a missionary to the Indians but quit when he felt he had nothing to teach them.
I consider John Brown, Martin Luther King jr, Wm Penn, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Franz Jägerstätter, A J Muste, Leo Tolstoy, the Berrigans and Conrad Grebel also admirable Christians.

Dear David,

I share with you the desire to separate state and church, albeit for different reasons. I understand that your motivation is to protect the state from the church, while my motivation is to protect the church from corruption and religious practices from the clutches of the state.

I also agree that forced worship (figuratively) stincks in God's nostrils.

Now I think that you are confusing between belief and faith.
Belief is cheap, anyone can believe, but faith is extremely rare, including among Christians.

For example, suppose you see a snake on the road in the evening twilight, then you refuse to cross the road and climb a tree instead.
Suppose someone then tells you, "this is not really a snake, it is only a rope", you ask: "can you prove it?" and they answer: "Yes, if I shine a torch on it, you will be able to see for yourself that it is a rope".

If you only believe, then you will say "OK", but nevertheless as a precaution you will stay up the tree, perhaps you will also call a shop to deliver you a torch, which would only arrive in the morning at the earliest. But if you have faith, you just climb down without hesitation and cross the road!

In the example you gave, killing unarmed Jews did not require faith, only belief. If a Nazi killed a Jew with his sword even while surrounded by 100 Jews with guns, then I will be prepared to agree that he had faith. We know that in the Warsaw Ghetto, when the Jews shot back, the Nazis scurried away like mice.

Dear Yuyutsu,

That is why I feel that I am walking in chest high treacle when I interact with you. Your distinction between faith and belief is arbitrary and designed to justify your worldview. You apparently wish to define faith as good and belief as something not necessarily so good. Chest high treacle.

The Nazis did not scurry away like frightened mice in the Warsaw Ghetto. They fought back and won. Chest high treacle.

Dear David,

The Nazis only won after getting reinforcements and tanks, and sending Ukrainian troops ahead to absorb most casualties. Someone with true faith is not bothered by oncoming bullets.

"belief" is a shallow, intellectual-only conviction that such-and-such is true. It may withstand endless forum-arguments, but not a single bucket of cold water.
"faith" is a state of being which involves feelings and a level of trust "in your bones" that produces readiness to act and put everything you've got on the line as necessary.

This does not mean that belief is useless or that faith is always good, only that they are two different things which need to be treated separately.

My point is that we need to be accurate in our discussion and be clear what exactly we speak about, just like we do in science and mathematics. Broad slogans like "faith is the enemy of reason" that draw, without proof, general conclusions from one particular example, indicate some personal traumatic aversion, which will only be met by others' opposing personal aversions.

The Hindu tradition combines faith with reason. The faith portion is the trust that one can eventually understand and even attain the knowledge that is being taught, so in the meantime, one ought to do their best to behave accordingly and follow moral codes. Hinduism discourages shallow belief, the Upanishads are full of logic and generations upon generations of Brahmins were encouraged to discuss and reason for and against their contents. Discarding all this just because you are disappointed with Christianity and the bible, does not befit a mathematician's mind.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Chest high treacle.

Goodbye.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm sorry for offending you. I really don't enjoy interaction with you. I want these discussions on the net to be a pleasant diversion. If it is not pleasant for me I would rather not bother. In order to have a pleasant discussion we should have an area of agreement and then move into the area where we disagree. I don't understand you. Your worldview is alien to me. From the arguments you make to me it seems to me that I am alien to you. I wish you neither bad nor good. I do not want to make the effort to understand you since I think I can get more pleasure doing other things. I would appreciate you not to try to communicate with me although I cannot stop you. If you do I will try not to answer.

Dear David,

I accept your apology.

Sometimes I enjoy discussing on this forum while at other times I find a discussion unpleasant, but unlike yourself I am not here just for pleasant diversions. Once I commented on an article, I consider it my duty to respond to the responses to my comment (if any). It is not always a pleasant duty as I might perhaps only find the time late at night when I am dead-tired and rather be in bed, but I don't avoid it just because it is unpleasant.

This is especially true when things that I hold dear are being attacked, then I feel the duty to defend them. At times it feels like a burden, but I still find the time to respond.

In this thread you responded to my initial comment (in agreement, which I thank you for), but then introduced a new idea out of the blue: "Faith is the enemy of reason". It was not directly connected to my comment, in fact this was the first time the word "faith" appeared in this thread. Now something that is dear to me was attacked and your response was addressed to me (why?), so liking it or not, I was forced to respond.

To avoid unpleasant interaction in future, if you wish to interject and introduce related ideas to this forum without having to face my opposition and then defend your ideas, then I suggest that you do not address your ideas to me, as if replying to my comment, but rather to the forum in general.

I understand the need to save on the number of posts: it is common to want to reply in short to several participants as well as to introduce a new thought for everyone on the thread. When I want to do this, I place a separator, so it is clear that my response to one participant ended and an unrelated new response to another participant (or to the whole forum) begins. I use a "---" line as separator, but of course you may prefer your own marker.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Sometimes in discussion it is useful to define terms. However, in order to continue the discussion all parties must agree to the definition. You defined faith and belief. I did not agree to your definitions and did not get want to get into a discussion of how I define them. I should have just stopped the discussion then and there. I didn't. Then you wrote of combining faith and reason. To me that is like combining science and superstition. I agree with your point that I should have addressed my comment not to you but to the forum in general and did not. We have very different worldviews, and I don't feel good exploring those differences. I hope this is the end of any interaction between us.