BOAZ, I do hope you’re not presuming to judge me when you say, “Parents "Sucked in" wow, I can read a lot into that mainly about your own condition.”

Peter Sellick’s question, “Should we change for the church or should the church change for us?” is actually a disingenuous one. Of course churches have changed – among the Anglicans witness the rise of the low church, the shift from liturgy-based to bible-based worship. I suspect he’s really arguing for the right of churches to determine which changes they accept, and I certainly don’t have any problem with that. If the people who still attend churches want them to change, I say let them go for it.

There’s a mismatch between Sellick’s rhetorical question, and the sermon about baptism, which argues that baptism creates a bond which over-rides the will of the person baptised. The language of the sermon is wonderful, but that doesn’t make me willing to accept its sentiments.

BOAZ, you claim that I am “imposing [my] very wayward understanding of what it means to be Christian,” when actually I am doing precisely the opposite – rejecting the claim of any religious organisation to impose its understanding on me.

I would like to address the subject of change in Christianity raised by several contributors. Christianity is an historical religion, its major event has occurred in the past and it therefore looks backwards before looking into the future. The question of change is a question of drawing closer to the historical bedrock of belief. If there is progress in the church it is a progress towards a greater understanding and practice of what has been given. In Trinitarian theology this is the work of the Spirit who constantly reveals the Son. Because the Son is the eternal true of the Father it can never change, that is the meaning of the prologue of John’s gospel. Because the Son is the truth of the Father He shines on all historical and social situations exposing them for what they are. Rather than a Law of God (“for the law made nothing perfect”) we have in the gospel a light that shines in the world revealing the truth. As the world changes so what is lit changes, but the light itself does not change. A criticism of the Roman church is that it has set moral imperatives in concrete and finds it impossible to change its mind because it fears it will loose credence. But morality does change, as someone wrote about slavery and usury. But God, the truth of the Judeo/Christian story, does not change.

In the famous words from the film Cool Hand Luke "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate".
It is no use throwing your God theology at me to justify aguments as I am atheist and have problems with the God concept.

It also seems that some of you believe that Christianity is basically a development of Judasim with some other cultural influences.
My main contention is that Christianity is really a development of Pagan beliefs set (somewhat) in a Jewish context.
Can some body please explain what Chistianity has that did not already exist in the Pagan world?
Sorry if I am being "boring" again but was Jesus even a Jew?

Boaz, your understanding of my post is much worse than your typing ability. I will always stand by my stance that the Bible is one of the most sexist and racist books (and we won't touch on Harold Robbins or Enid Blyton here!) ever written, and the fact that what has been written in the bible, interpreted and exercised in the name of Christianity has resulted in where we are today. (Black hats vs white hats). God and being christian have nothing to do with that book. It's a curate's egg, it has its good bits, but... as it wasn't written by god, it still has a lot of human crapola in it. Go interpret. One man's meat is another man's poison. And by the way, don't even try to blog my own understanding about my God. Disrespectful, misunderstanding and totally out of your league. The bible is another story altogether. Still waiting for the movie

re Russell Crowe – maybe the author has simply discovered a sin – “Envy” of course it just happens to be a deadly one.

Maybe part of the success of the early “Christian Church” and the decline of paganism can be found in the Roman Catholic (one of the oldest branches of Christianity) concept of “monopoly” power and the use of the inquisition to vilify and kill off the competition.

Let us all understand, that how someone pursues their relationship with God in their own way is fine by me. Just as I expect my view of a rejection of organised religions, focused around a corrupt and corrupting priest-class to be equally accepted by them.

Personally I see faith as the internalisation of a belief system and if you have faith then what need is their of some form of middle man, agent, religious wholesaler,
Alternatively, if you do not have faith – being ranted at by some bible bashing individual with a manic personality who insists the version of the Bible he has adopted and interpreted as the irrefutable “ Word” is not going to help you discover it either.

Christianity is a lifestyle – unfortunately most of us can “talk the talk” – looking up or down from a pulpit – but few “walk the walk” – and least among them the priest class who are the ones who seem most impressed with the majesty and grandeur of mere religious ritual and elitism.

Peter Sellick has removed any doubt I have about the church's ability to recognise and understand human nature. One of the aspects that distinguishes human beings is our adaptability to changing circumstances.

This is something the church cannot or according to Peter, will not do. In order to protect itself it denies the reality of human behaviour and this inflexible, anachronistic attitude will be its downfall.

It can't keep pace with science and it cannot keep pace with the increasing standard of education of people throughout the world. It chases its own ideological tail.

In spite of the current (apparent) resurgence of the christian (not so)right (which is more a reflection of our uncertain times and a reaction to Islam since 9/11) eventually the pendulum will swing back.

There are too many people who find the church's teachings inadequate and unrealistic. This is not to say that less people will believe in God, a belief in a higher deity is helpful to some people - I am talking about the narrow definition that formal religion has bound around itself.