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.