Poor Pete is not backwards in coming forward with his head towering above the tallest poppy!
There’s a morsel for everybody in this long sigh.

Abounding in antidotes will be the responses, but I have a simple one.
Again it’s from the world of fairytales. And a master in the art was Hans Anderson.
For his contribution towards looking forward and not backwards is “The Galoshes of fortune”.

“Rome has its Corso, Naples it’s Toledo but Copenhagen has its Oster Street”.

And so, the Minister of Justice was to be deceived by two fairies in the anteroom following a social gathering of sorts, which descended into debating the comparative worlds of the past and present, donned the magic galoshes by mistake and proceeded into the dark night on a homeward Journey through the once familiar Oster street, now set in the Middle Ages, a time the good Minister had argued vehemently as superior.

Poor man was soon to learn the discomfort of his dream.

And the pillar of salt fits in here somhere I believe too.

Dan

Sells,

<<While Australia has suffered the decline of the Churches with other Western countries, it appears to be more drastic here because of the fragile base of theological education that is not well supported in the newer universities.>>

You are short-sighted in your understanding of Australian theological education. Since when did it have to be through "newer universities"? Evangelical Anglican Ridley College in Melbourne receives its accreditation through the University of Melbourne. A number of theological institutions are accredited with the Australian College of Theology and the Sydney College of Divinity, but you give these the flick.

<<The Roman Catholic church has also seen huge decline in congregations but is supporting theological education through campuses of Notre Dame and the Australian Catholic University. It will soon be very difficult to train clergy in Australia and this means that Christianity is destined to resort to a kind of folk religion which is the worst of all outcomes>>.

There are many overseas universities that train Aussies for ministry vocations. I am one of them. These include Trinity International University, http://www.tiu.edu/; University of Pretoria, http://www.up.ac.za/; and the University of Oxford, http://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/about/people/prof-alister-mcgrath/

There was a gaping hole in your article that ignored the enormous growth of Pentecostalism in Australia. See http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/christianity-on-the-wane-in-australia-but-pentecostal-church-bucks-trend

A miserable outlook to start the day with.

You wrote: The story of how that all went wrong involved deficiencies in Puritan theology mixed with bad Enlightenment philosophy (the pursuit of happiness) and resulted in American civil religion that saw the merging of God and the Stars and Stripes.

All didn’t go wrong. There was another tradition in those early days. Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, lived in the colony. He established a tradition which espoused separation of church and state. That tradition is alive and well.

“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,” from John Barry’s Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul

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.
John Madison and Thomas Jefferson incorporated the ideas of Roger Williams of separation of church and state which counters the idea of the American civil religion.

I am an American living in Australia who respects the separation of church and state.

One of Peter's better essays.

But what is to be done?

So called theological education is essentially useless because it shares the same reductionist and godless presumptions about what we are as human beings, the nature of the natural world, and the nature of God or The Radiant Transcendental Being. This essay describes the situation http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html

Related to the above essay the current thoroughly secularized zeitgeist is the INEVITABLE outcome of institutional religion which has always confined/reduced human beings to the mortal meat-body scale (only), even while (perhaps) prattling on about timeless transcendental truth and destiny.

In the Western world both exoteric "religion" and secular scientism have, for many centuries been actively "instructing or propagandistically coercing humankind to disbelieve - or, without or apart from actual experience and the exercise of true discriminative intelligence, to dissociate from all modes of association with magical, and metaphysical, and even Spiritual, and in general ecstasy producing ideas and activities.

This process of negative indoctrination to which humankind in the Western world has long been subjected by its "sacred" and secular authorities has, actually, been a magic paranoid political, social, economic, and cultural effort to enforce a worldly or gross "realist", or thoroughly materialist - and altogether, anti-ecstatic, anti-magical, anti-metaphysical, and anti-Spiritual - model of human life upon all individuals and collectives.

This benighted enterprise has required the universal suppression of the actual INNATE natural magical, metaphysical, and ultimately Spiritual, and altogether ecstatic potential of the human psycho-physical ego. But also, and profoundly more importantly this enterprise has deprived humankind of its necessary access to Intrinsically egoless Truth Itself.

Three related references references;
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
http://www.daplastique.com/essay/the-maze-of-ecstasy
http://www.beezone.com/narcissus.html

The basis of all policy has to be the national interest only and totally secular! Otherwise, this or that lunitic fringe will want this or that law imposed on folk! This or that, ruled out or in!

[Christianity was wrecked the day Constantine the Great imposed his will, pagan rituals,pagan beliefs and hand-picked henchmen in authoritative roles, on it! At the first council of Nicosia.]

Without secular, national interest only policy, we'd have the looney toon green fringe ruling in renewables, higher costs and rationed usage? And ruling out everything else, including carbon-free, clean, safe and cheaper than coal or gas, nuclear power, i.e., MSR thorium or nuclear waste burning MSR!

The pulpit pounding, religious right deciding the reprodutive role of women, who would in that context, have fewer rights than owned slaves?

Or white supremists deciding that folk with different coloured skin were somehow inferior, needed to be kept out or in their place?

And conspiracy thorists the world over would be having a picnic almost daily? As would the self-appointed control freaks, who pervade all religious practice? Who, almost to a generic man, cherry-pick what science reinforces their homophobic/sexist view of the world? And like the flat earthers, discard the rest?

Need I go on?
Alan B.

Indeed:

"There is only one answer to the question of personal and national purpose, and it sounds impossible to the majority in our country, it is to glorify God. What else can be said?"

That while it is unrealistic to expect the "nation" as such to glorify God, not for the next 426,878 years anyway, Australia still serves an important purpose:

To provide the environment of religious freedom for the minority of us who choose to glorify God. We must be thankful to God for without Australia being how it is, dictatorships like China would have taken over and our freedom to glorify God would be quashed. Let others do it for the football or the beer, let them sing in ignorance "we share a dream", let them even preserve us for the sake of hedonism and mammon if that makes them temporarily happy, but for this great privilege of living here, let us give thanks to the Lord for He is Good, His grace endures forever.

Possibly we humans with our insecure egos need to be glorified. However, if a God existed why would he, she or it need to be glorified? God is a creation of the human imagination. As such God has human needs such as to be glorified. A god with a need to be glorified would be an imperfect God. To glorify God satisfies humans who believe that a God exists who needs to be glorified.

I appreciate living in Australia but think it is wrong that God is mentioned in the Australia Constitution. As one who does not believe in God is my disbelief in God a violation of the Constitution which is the basic law of the land? I am not breaking any other law that I know of.

Dear David,

The purpose of glorifying God is to purify one's mind and heart,
this has nothing to do with God's existence and/or expectations
and neither the article nor any comment here suggested that.

I personally do not hold that God exists, nor that God has any need to be glorified,
yet I find glorifying God the most satisfying and meaningful pursuit.

It is not a crime in Australia to disagree with the Australian constitution or any part thereof. But even if it were, given you disagree with the constitution, why would you have a problem about "violating" other people's laws which you never agreed to abide by in the first place?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You asked. "why would you have a problem about "violating" other people's laws which you never agreed to abide by in the first place?"

I agreed to abide by Australian law when I became a citizen of Australia.

You also wrote: "I personally do not hold that God exists, nor that God has any need to be glorified, yet I find glorifying God the most satisfying and meaningful pursuit."

I don't understand the statement above. How do you glorify God?

Dear David,

«I agreed to abide by Australian law when I became a citizen of Australia.»

Then you are determined to keep your word.
This has everything to do with your own honour, dignity and self-respect, but little to do with the Australian law.

I would go a step further, to claim that your effort to keep your word despite any arising difficulties, is not only an honourable quality, but a divine quality. In time, your determination is purifying your mind and your heart.

If you received your Australian citizenship over 7 years ago, then every cell in your body would have been replaced by now, so no part of your body is now obliged to abide by Australian law. By insisting to still keep your word, you acknowledge that you are more than just a body, recognising that which the bible figuratively described as "God's image" within you.

Glorifying God literally means to thank God by singing His praises.
But this does not equal going to church/synagogue to sing: there are zillions of ways to sing God's praises, in thought, word and deed. Every single positive action, big or small, can be offered to God by having the right intention, thus converted into glorifying God.

What's even better is that you do not need to use the word 'God' or any other particular word: God is not some silly old man sitting on the clouds, nor some praise-seeking limited, imperfect, egotistic deity. You can find God everywhere, especially including in your own heart, you need not even name Him. When you make effort to become the best version of yourself, including to keep your word, including to be good to and not harm others, including to be strong, free, knowledgeable and benevolent, you are then glorifying God within you!

May you be sealed in the book of good, peaceful and healthy life this coming Yom Kippur.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your mind is active, and you argue well.

Yuyutsu,

<<I personally do not hold that God exists, nor that God has any need to be glorified, yet I find glorifying God the most satisfying and meaningful pursuit.>>

You've left me confused. In another comment on another topic you stated: 'The ultimate truth is God, that there is nothing but God, that YOU ARE GOD and the world is your playground and you can do with it as you please, but OTHERS ARE ALSO GOD…' (Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 6 November 2018 11:21:59 PM, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20021&page=0)

So is the ultimate truth God or are you an atheist in regard to God's existence? Based on your statements, it seems you have violated the law of non-contradiction.

Yuyutsu apparently is large enough to embrace contradictions.

Dear Spencer,

«So is the ultimate truth God or are you an atheist in regard to God's existence?»

Both!

The ultimate Truth is God.

and

I technically fall into the modern definition of "atheist" because my faith is in God, not in His existence.

In fact, I consider the belief in God's existence a form of heresy as that belief seems to shamefully lower God to the status of a thing, a mere object. Only things/objects can exist and all objects are limited too, but God is neither a thing nor limited in any way. Existence itself cannot be spoken of outside of God and being God's creation, how could one so foolishly include God within His own creation?!

Yuyutsu,

<<I technically fall into the modern definition of "atheist" because my faith is in God, not in His existence.>>

So, the 'God' you have faith in does not exist? Am I reading you correctly? Does your 'God' have any more essence than the tooth fairy?

<<The ultimate Truth is God.>>

This is the 'God' who has no existence but in your worldview that person provides 'ultimate Truth'.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you when you have faith in the non-existent God but still call it 'faith'.

Dear OzSpen,

Belief or disbelief in God is irrational since there is no evidence that God either does or does not exist. It seems an unreasonable requirement to ask that an irrational matter be rationally discussed. If something is true either there is evidence for its truth or its truth can be proved. I make the assumption that God does not exist. You make the assumption that God exists. Yuyutsu makes neither assumption. All three positions are not based on evidence. However, it is reasonable that a person assuming an entity exists provide evidence for such an assumption. Without evidence Yuyutsu’s position is the most reasonable one, and your assumption is the least reasonable.

I cannot believe in the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible seems improbable. Some believe Jesus is the Son of God. That may be so, but so is Satan and others if one accepts the following:
JOB 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

So Satan and Jesus are half brothers or whole brothers if there are no genes from Mary or some other woman. As with my sons there is sibling rivalry.

I see no reason why there shouldn’t be many virgins to produce other sons of God. However, an omnipotent God shouldn’t need a woman to produce sons. He could clone them. However, daughters are great also. Why not clone them?

(to the tune of Home on the Range)

Oh, give me a clone,
A clone of my own
With the Y chromosome turned to X
And then this clone, this clone of my own
Will be of the opposite sex.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 is an article you might enjoy. “God is a Human Invention” is its title, and I wrote it.

That invention appeals to the tribal nature of humanity. Ants have wars where they fight, die and kill for their ant hill. Humans do the same for their god.

david f,

<<Belief or disbelief in God is irrational since there is no evidence that God either does or does not exist. It seems an unreasonable requirement to ask that an irrational matter be rationally discussed.>>

That's your thunderous a priori presupposition. It's nothing more than your personal opinion. Assertions like this prove nothing.

Why don't we have a rational discussion (in another thread) for evidence of God's existence?

Dear OzSpen,

The fact that there is no proof for the existence of God is fact - not my personal opinion. Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" discusses the arguments of speculative reason, the ontological proof, the cosmological proof and the physico-theological proof at length in chapter 3. Nobody has successfully challenged him. Your belief in God's existence as well as my disbelief are our personal opinions. Kant, as do you, chose to believe in God, but it is a matter of belief. I see no need for a further discussion of the matter. You believe. I don't.

david f,

<<The fact that there is no proof for the existence of God is fact - not my personal opinion.>>

There you go with another one of your opinions.

Philosopher and Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, dares to disagree with you in his defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/. See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ58aloF7Bc

Dear OzSpen,

You are secure in your belief in Christianity. I am secure in my lack of belief of any kind of supernatural agency – gods, devils, angels, spirits, ifrits djinns, demons etc. I don’t know how old you are, but I will be 95 if I live until the end of October. I would rather spend the time I have left thinking about other matters. As I am inconsistent I may get involved in this sort of discussion again.

To the best of knowledge eight of my nine descendants are atheists. My daughter lights candles on the Jewish Sabbath, sings in the Unitarian choir Sunday morning and attends a Buddhist sangha on Sunday afternoon. I am not sure what she believes, but I know she likes religious ceremonies.

I accept Kant. William Lane Craig doesn’t. That’s ok.

In life it’s important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.

There may be a god. If there is a god I can’t imagine that any sort of a god would be connected with the Christian religion with its virgin birth, an entity dying for other people’s sins, life after death and other nonsense. I am thankful that I live in a country where I would not be burned at the stake, put in an iron maiden, pressed to death or subject to the treatment Christians have given to dissenters, Jews and Christians of a different sect. If there were a god and he was all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent why would he allow Christianity? Christianity to me is a denial of God and a proof that he doesn't exist.

Dear Spencer,

«So, the 'God' you have faith in does not exist?»

Yes. I sufficiently love and respect God to not insult Him by considering Him to be a part of His own creation!

«Am I reading you correctly? Does your 'God' have any more essence than the tooth fairy?»

The essence of everything is God, not the tooth fairy.

«It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you when you have faith in the non-existent God but still call it 'faith'.»

Everyone has faith in something or the other.
Some in Mammon, others in science or humanity, and so on and so forth, relatively a few have faith in God.
Dare I claim that your faith is in the idol of Existence?

First is God - then existence emanates from God, along with the rest of creation,
but in your view, so it seems, first is Existence, then if God happens to fit in with Existence then you can accommodate Him, otherwise He is not your God.

One cannot serve two masters at the same time.

---

Dear David,

«Without evidence Yuyutsu’s position is the most reasonable one»

Sorry, but I need to decline your compliment: my position is that God's presumed existence is both a heresy that insults God and a logical fallacy that easily leads into many contradictions. I ought, on technical grounds, to be considered a "strong atheist".