In the spirit of silliness, the men can call God 'he' and the women can call God 'she'

Indeed, what`s in a name, especially for a myth.

Thank you, Peter, for a thought-provoking piece – there’s a lot to digest.

I would offer a couple of observations.

God is not male or female, but the preponderance of masculine imagery for God and for the typical believer in our scriptures, hymns and liturgy does rather give the opposite impression. I think feminist theologians have a point when they say that, intentionally or not, cumulatively this use of masculine language and imagery makes women feel excluded, or at least secondary. I’m not arguing that we should pray to “our mother in heaven”, but I’m happy that we’ve changed “brother, let me be your servant” to “brother, sister let me serve you” in our hymn lyrics, and now sing we/us for men/sons at Christmas in Hark the Herald Angels Sing (Born that men no more may die; Born to raise the sons of earth).

I also think that the inclusive Gospel that you describe, and which I’d heartily endorse, is not reflected in the way the church has often actually treated people over the centuries and the way many parts of the church still treat people today. Women still cannot be priests in the Roman Catholic church or minsters in some protestant denominations. We are still a long way from a comfortable and welcoming acceptance of LGBQTI+ folk, especially priests.

I like your idea that “the Church is the only institution that is equipped to resist this fragmentation of human identity because it has a view of God and humanity as fundamentally a whole, despite individual differences.” But I suspect it took the political movements that you describe in first and second wave anti-racism (I’d add first and second wave feminism) to help us better understand what that means. And of course Christians were active members of these political movements, motivated precisely by the types of theology you describe.

This was sort of OK (but not really) until he starting talking about the "church".
Not really because it just rehashes the now common right-wing trope about the dreaded "wokeness".

Never mind of course that sinners who are by self-definition and always dramatized action intrinsically God-less always sooner or later create hell on Earth.

Furthermore both the Christian and secular world-views share the same three separative (God-less) characteristics as described in this essay
http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/three_great_myths_questioned.html

This essay describes the deadly politics created by the dreadfully sane separate ego-"I" in both its secular and so called "religious" forms. http://www.dabase.org/p5egoicsociety.htm

Every ego-"I" or self-possessed body-mind is always active as the opponent of all opponents, but there is no final victory - and every opposition is an irrational search for equanimity, peace, and love.

Therefore the Great Other whether in the form of the "creator"-God or Nature's God - is your Opponent, not your refuge or "savior".
The presumed other and the separate ego-"I" are mad relations, always together in the growling pit, bound by nature to do Nature's deeds to one another.

Thanks Peter Sellick for your article. Kudos

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« The problem with this concern was that it attributed gender to God who has no gender because He does not "exist" as human beings exist »
.

So the “person” represented in the New Testament as Jesus (God the son), never “existed” as human beings exist – he/she/it was just a simulacrum, a make-believe human being, some sort of mythopoeic or (in modern-day terms) science-fictional character.

As Mariella Scerri indicates in her article “Mythology in Science Fiction” :

« Both myth and science attempt to provide an overview of existence by bridging inner with outer reality. Myth attempts to project inner reality (conscious desires, archetypal patterns) in a metaphor for outer reality, while science aims to illuminate inner reality through the study of outer, empirical forms. Sutton and Sutton contend that a body of myth forms an autonomous universe which stands in metaphoric relation to the actual world. Scientific hypotheses also form a universe, a universe which is not identical to objective reality but representative of man’s understanding of it. Thus, the question of validation or disproof is irrelevant to myth since the relation of myth to reality is analogical, but it is paramount for science because the worth of a scientific hypothesis is entirely dependent on the accuracy of its relationship to objective reality (Sutton and Sutton 232).

Gilkey claims that before the advent of the scientific mode the only means by which man could relate to the universe was through the mythopoeic mode. His acceptance of the narratives of gods and heroes as the meaning of the world served as an affirmation of space, of time, of natural occurrence and of a historical event (Gilkey 286)…

Space-time lends science fiction an infinite, unknown extension which lends grandeur to whatever actions are undertaken in it. Unlike a scientific hypothesis, a science fiction story is not formulated primarily to advance technological knowledge, but rather operates on a visionary mythopoeic level. Thus, science fiction is a self-conscious form of myth in which man intentionally mythologizes scientific narrative »

.

Some highly valid points in Sellick's essay !

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

1. « The Church, therefore, has no reason to enter the minefield of competing resentments and sectional interests based on gender, race and sexual orientation because the final, unifying and healing word has been spoken in the man Jesus »
.

Your vision of “the Church” on these matters, Peter, seems to be at odds with that of Spencer Gear here on OLO :

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=21843
.

How do you explain that ?
.

2. « The Church has a mandate to seek justice because it stands with the downtrodden, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked and brings good news to the poor. It does so in the power of the Holy Spirit that is quite different from the spirit of secular politics that so often relies on coercion …

The culture wars have emerged in a secular society whose centre does not hold. It does not hold because it lacks an ontology of the human that insists on the whole, of human being existing in community. It also lacks the wisdom of the Church that recognises idolatry and self-righteousness and the evil that men have in their hearts. When we turn our backs on thousands of years of the science of the soul we become as children arguing in the playground throwing sand in each other's eyes. We become unwise in the nature of God and of humanity and the world is turned into a battleground of ideology »
.

There are officially 51 non-secular States in the world today, Peter, many of whose politics “often rely on coercion” – in some cases, to a much greater extent than in secular States.

You seem to overlook the fact that religious ideology has been a major source of conflict and division of humanity throughout history, just as it is today and, no doubt, just as it will continue to be a major source of conflict and division throughout the foreseeable future.

There is no end in sight.

Religion is a drug, an entheogen : a little stimulates; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises.

.

Dear Banjo,

So long as you comment about the Church, that is not my place to intervene and I should leave any replies for Christians, but once you blindly broaden your comment to religion in general, I am forced to protest.

«Religion is a drug, an entheogen : a little stimulates; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises.»

Yes, religion heals lifetimes of suffering, it broadens our limited perception of being a mere physical entity, a little stimulates spiritual growth, kindness and fortitude while an overdose reveals to us that we are infinite, completely clearing away our illusion of ever being just a limited human.

Posted by Banjo Paterson- "You seem to overlook the fact that religious ideology has been a major source of conflict and division of humanity throughout history, just as it is today and, no doubt, just as it will continue to be a major source of conflict and division throughout the foreseeable future. Religion is a drug, an entheogen : a little stimulates; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises."

Answer- All ideology is a source of conflict and division throughout history. Banjo Paterson says that Religion is a drug- similar to what Marx said- "religion is the opiate of the masses"- as if communism isn't a drug.

Churchill said "democracy is the worst system ... " emphasizes the paradoxes of the human condition and human society. Desmond Morris- said in the Human Zoo that the problem of society is that it has gone from a tribe to a super-tribe

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Yes, religion heals … it broadens our limited perception of being a mere physical entity, a little stimulates spiritual growth … »
.

I understand we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago, Yuyutsu.

Life in those early days must have been quite terrifying, not only before we developed intellectual faculties superior to other biological species, but even long after we were able to employ them.

Nature, for no apparent reason, often became terribly aggressive. We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanos, droughts, snowstorms, bush fires, as well as the occasional devastating meteorite. We had no warning and no explanation for any of it.

It’s not surprising that little by little, due to the development of our intellectual capacity to conceptualise, we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations. Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature. The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality, and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.

Having invented the supernatural, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept. The strategy consisted in contacting whichever god we had attributed to a particular natural phenomenon and begging him to spare us from his wrath and protect us from harm. If prayers, worship, and acts of submission failed to produce the desired result, we offered animal and human sacrifice.

That strategy for survival is what we call religion today.

Research by neurotheology scientists tends to confirm this development. Scientists conclude from their research that the human brain managed to develop sensitivity to any form of belief that improved the chances of survival. They suggest that this could explain why a belief in the supernatural and various forms of transcendental beings became so widespread in human evolutionary history.

That’s my understanding, Yuyutsu.

.

Dear Banjo,

«I understand we human beings branched off from our common ancestor...»

If you testify that this is your understanding then I cannot argue otherwise. However, that understanding is flawed: Human beings indeed branched off, etc. as you wrote, but not "we human beings".

«Life in those early days must have been quite terrifying...»

That has nothing to do with religion.

"...We found ourselves subjected to violent hurricanes, floods,...»

Because we foolishly thought that we were the affected humans.

«we gradually replaced our instinctive reaction of terror to these natural phenomena with logical, supernatural explanations.»

Fine, but it still has nothing to do with religion.

«Animist religions, which continue to be largely present today, attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature.»

Indeed there was such a phenomenon, but calling these "religions" only displays your own superstitions.

«The concept of anthropomorphic gods soon followed. Human characteristics such as reason, motivation, personality, and the possibility to communicate were attributed to the animist gods.»

Still, nothing to do with religion.

«Having invented the supernatural, we elaborated a strategy for survival based on this concept...»

Still, nothing to do with religion.

«That strategy for survival is what we call religion today.»

Only indiscriminating people do that.

«Research by neurotheology scientists tends to confirm this development...»

That's unrelated science, not religion and not about religion.

«That’s my understanding, Yuyutsu.»

Indeed, if you say so then this must be a true fact, but it is a very flawed understanding.

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

You wrote :

« All ideology is a source of conflict and division throughout history … Religion is a drug- similar to what Marx said- "religion is the opiate of the masses"- as if communism isn't a drug »
.

Agreed, Canem Malum.

All ideology is a source of conflict and division. Religion just happens to have been with us much longer than Marxism, communism, Nazism, capitalism, and every other “ism” we have conceived throughout history.

Religious ideology has been a major source of conflict and division ever since primeval man emerged from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago. All the other “isms” were conceived much later.

An “ism” is a distinctive practice, system, philosophy, or ideology (OED). All “isms” are sources of conflict and division. All are potential drugs, “opiates of the masses”, including, as you suggest, communism – as well as capitalism, of course.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« If you testify that this is your understanding then I cannot argue otherwise. However, that understanding is flawed: Human beings indeed branched off, etc. as you wrote, but not "we human beings" »
.

As I have often indicated here on OLO, I have great respect for the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, Yuyutsu, including my own culture which is steeped in liberal Christianism ( that of the Church of England, now known as the Anglican Church of Australia). But, as you also know from our previous exchanges, a lifetime of study of the origin of religion and its tenets has led me to the understanding that I depicted in my previous post.

Naturally, as per the fundamental rule of every rational – dare I say scientific – study, I conducted it as freely, as independently, and as honestly as humanly possible, being especially careful to avoid any “a priori” assumptions, beliefs or precepts. I based my study solely on the facts as revealed to us to date by reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific research (historical, social, anthropological, and neurological, in particular).

Consequently, I should be very surprised if anybody willing to undertake a similar study under such rigorous conditions of rationality, honesty, neutrality, thoroughness, and completeness, based solely on the facts as we know them today, would arrive at a different conclusion.

Any detailed indication by you or by anybody else, for that matter, to the contrary, would be more than welcome.

That said, Yuyutsu, I should be delighted if you would be so kind as to provide me with a more detailed description of your own Hindu spiritualistic understanding of the origin of religion and its tenets – in addition to the few cursory remarks you made in your comments on my understanding of the origin of religion and its tenets.

My curiosity knows no bounds.

How do you think religion and its tenets originated, Yuyutsu ?

.

Dear Banjo,

«I have great respect for the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, Yuyutsu, including my own culture which is steeped in liberal Christianism ( that of the Church of England, now known as the Anglican Church of Australia).»

So you were interested in and studied about Christianity and its origins.

«But, as you also know from our previous exchanges, a lifetime of study of the origin of religion and its tenets has led me to the understanding that I depicted in my previous post.»

Having spent a lifetime in study of Christianity is fine, but does not amount to studying religion or about religion.

Up to your concluding remark ("Religion is a drug"), your comment was all about Christianity, so our Christian friends in this forum are welcome to relate to your words as they wish. I was only referring to your concluding remark.

«I based my study solely on the facts as revealed to us to date by reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific research»

No problem with that, that's called anthropology, the study of human development and behaviour: just as no astronomer should take issue with your studies so long as you did not refer to them as astronomy, no religious person should take issue with your anthropological studies so long as you did not refer to them as the study of religion.

«How do you think religion and its tenets originated, Yuyutsu ?»

The very moment anything or anyone seemed separate from God, having felt the pain of limitation, it started longing to re-unite with God, thus started on its journey back to God, which is religion in the broader sense.

While all that exists, without exception, is on that journey, having a human body and brain allows one do proceed on that journey consciously and deliberately: which can be referred to as religion in the practical narrow sense.

As for religious tenets, over time, people discovered that certain methods and general principles work better than others to advance us more quickly and steadily on our journey back to God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

In response to my statement : “I have great respect for the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, Yuyutsu, including my own culture which is steeped in liberal Christianism ( that of the Church of England, now known as the Anglican Church of Australia)”

You replied : “So you were interested in and studied about Christianity and its origins”.
.

No, Yuyutsu, as indicated, I was referring to the kaleidoscope of human culture around the world, including my own Christian culture. I already knew how Christianity began and developed. That has been well documented by historians. I wanted to go beyond that and discover the circumstances that led to the development of religion in general, including the god concept.
.

You then wrote :

« Up to your concluding remark ("Religion is a drug"), your comment was all about Christianity, … »
.

No, it wasn’t "all about Christianity", Yuyutsu, you are referring to what I wrote in my last post to Peter, the author :

« There are officially 51 non-secular States in the world today, Peter, many of whose politics “often rely on coercion” – in some cases, to a much greater extent than in secular States.

You seem to overlook the fact that religious ideology has been a major source of conflict and division of humanity throughout history, just as it is today and, no doubt, just as it will continue to be a major source of conflict and division throughout the foreseeable future.

There is no end in sight.

Religion is a drug, an entheogen : a little stimulates; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises »

As you can see, Yuyutsu, my concluding remark was not “all about Christianity”. It was all about “religious ideology” (in general).

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

And, finally, I’m sorry to have to say that your response to my question : « How do you think religion and its tenets originated, Yuyutsu ? » makes no sense at all.

You replied :

« The very moment anything or anyone seemed separate from God, having felt the pain of limitation, it started longing to re-unite with God, thus started on its journey back to God, which is religion in the broader sense … »

You do not explain how or why primitive man thought there was “a God” in the first place. According to the anthropologists, primitive societies were animist and attributed a god or spirit to each of earth’s physical features as well as to each of the terrifying manifestations of nature, as I indicated in one of my previous posts.

Never mind. I think we had better leave it at that, Yuyutsu, and call it a day.

With best wishes,

.

Dear Banjo,

I could easily respond to the issues you raised, but since you prefer to call it a day then so be it.