Great article Peter - a clear explanation of modern Christian thought on aethism in general. However I have a number of follow-up questions I would like your thoughts on;

1. How do you deal with the problem of evil? Whilst no philosopher, this question is the one thing that turns me away from any religion. How can the all-knowing, all-powerfull, all-loving Christian god permit such gross suffering and injustice in the world?

2. Do you really think any human being is capable of knowing or even possibly comprehending what a god would think about, or care about? Why should scholars living thousands of years ago be capable of understanding these things, but not today?

3. Why does the bible make no mention of anything beyond its' own planet and time? If god is all knowing, why did he not warn humanity of any future catastrophes? Why does he not mention alien civilisations? Why did he not make it clear the earth is round (or circles the sun?).

4. I thought your recognition of troubles in the church did not go far enough. Why does god permit his church to commit or be complicit in so many different crimes (including child abuse, the holocaust etc)? If Christianity is the true religion, why would he not put a bit more effort into making sure his priests acted like they are supposed to?

5. Finally, Christianity consists of many different schools of thought. Then there are many different religions. What is the truth? They can't all be right. There has to be a 'truth', i.e a state of affairs that is. If you are a Catholic that all of Islam is wrong. Or most of it is? Or What? If a god truly existed, I would expect him to let everyone know the truth, without question. What god would possibly want the situation we have today? Is it not just possible that religion is the product of people's basic need to have answers?

I'm not expert at all, and I look forward to some view on these...

cheers,

gw

Peter,
Great article but let me put a different spin.
The rise of anti-Christianity is part of an anti-religion wave that started few decades ago.The last few decades have seen rising extremism and fundamentalism. We have been so consumed with inter-religions debates forgetting the ‘invisible extremism’ and that is, in my view: ‘Extreme Militant Secularism’. (EMS : I just invented this term, all rights reserved).

I guess the question one could ask is ‘extreme secularism’ more dangerous than fundamentalism in any other religion? And answer is yes because:
a) it is invisible
b) It uses ‘proprietary’ metrics (ie needs, wants, interests)
c) it is unmeasurable: in any given religion, you can somehow draw a line between main stream and fundamentalism. This line becomes very blurred with extreme secularism.
It is an issue, but not sure if there is answer to it.

I can only speak for myself on this issue, but the only antipathy I feel towards Christians is when they seek to impose their values on me. I wouldn't call it 'rage' - rather, annoyance, of a very similar order to that which I experience when my phone rings and it's another telesales drone on the line.

As a frequent contributor to these forums, Sells should be aware that a small number of evangelical Christian zealots persistently utilise them as platforms to preach their invariably extreme fundamentalist beliefs.

That is bound to annoy those of us who wish to engage in rational and reasonable debate and discussion.

The very erudite Peter Sellick has once again WOWed us with his slick prose and unfathomable logic.
If we cut through the endless string of questions being begged we come down to a few kernels of argument. Peter condemns atheists in failing to show that his god does not exist. Don't blame Newton Peter, you have failed, as usual, to show that a god does exist. You may be right in saying that there is no argument to show Christianity is "true" but not because it has no basis in "modern argument" but because of the source of your faith i.e. the Gospels.
Who cares about atheists, Communism, Facism and the like when your position always comes back to the Gospels, because after all that is all you have got to base your arguments on.
Consider.
A. Paltry evidence of Jesus' existance. A phrase from Tacitus, a reworked paragraph from Josephus etc. none of whom met Jesus.
B. No contemporary achaelogical evidence of Jesus, his beliefs or deeds

The gospels apparently bear up well under the srutiny of a believer like yourself Peter but fail comprehensively to convince the disinterested observer that they are nothing more than corrupted records of unknown events from antiquity. The discussion about the "truth" in Christianity can only be gleaned from sources which.
A. Are written by unknown authors
B. Have been written at unknown places.
C. Been revised, added to and tampered with.
D. Have been chosen for inclusion in the NT because of their adherence to fist century religious concepts inspired by Paul (who never even saw Jesus).
C. Contradict each other with no Gospel from a disciple or eye witness. (What happened to the Gospel of Peter? or James (the brother).)
D. Contain obvious allusions to Pagan beliefs and practices wrapped in a weird Jewish cult context.

Rail against our increasingly secular society as you must but first century superstition is continuing to fail us all.
Peter, first convince us the Gospels are true then we can work on the rest using your basis in faith.

Gw. The problem with evil is predicated, as you point out on a theism that gives God all of the old philosophical attributes. I would say this is not a Christian understanding but one imposed from outside of the tradition, from the Greeks etc. The God that Christians worship is the God who rules from the cross not from some point in the universe with absolute knowledge and power. The scandal that the NT points to is just this weak position of God in the world. If we think in terms of the Trinity then most of these problems are solved because they are based on monism worked out in terms of supreme being. Christianity subverts all such conceptions via the cross. Wondering what God cares about again assumes this monadal consciousness. The medium of the revelation of God is history, ie the history of Israel and the history of Jesus. That is why so much weight is placed on the bible.

When Christians talk about truth they point to Jesus, an historical person who got into trouble with those who could say with Pilate “what is truth?” Truth is therefore not to be had in terms of precepts but in terms of a particular life and death. The only way we can discern this is to listen to the stories about this man and see what happens to us.

Ash
The anti-Christian wave started in the 17th century and was linked with the rise of scientism that argued on the grounds of extreme scepticism that nothing can be held to be true if one cannot measure or test it. Since tradition could not be fitted into this category it was abandoned. The other force was romanticism that relied again on the individual as the one who must immediately experience something. Neither scientism nor romanticism could deal with intermediaries or history.

Garra, I share your annoyance and will certainly not try to impose anything one you.

Peter

If rational objection is rage then rage is what you're gonna get.

Heh, I just found out that the "pair of scissors" thread is still going, >300 posts. Yep, most arguments are about religion, or sex, or some other subject where widely varying postions exist. Debates on religion aren't all about xianity, and even when they are, Jesus is not the issue, but dogma or claims of fact. You are dreaming if you think we care about who Jesus associated with and him being an "outcast". The scandal(??) and why deism is preferred isn't because God has made himself known, but the exact opposite.

Secular != atheist.
Non-christian != atheist.

"If this is taken at face value, then someone like me could be seduced into thinking that those who rage may be tamed and turned around by rational argument. In my experience this is rarely possible, suggesting there is something else at work, something akin to the original offence that Jesus occasioned."

You ignore what "scientists turned theologians" say and assume they are witholding they're real reasons, you admit to not being able to give a straight answer, you say that it is not an intellectual decision, but you try to explain away your failure to convince. Are you afraid that you may be wrong? Are you worried about self-preservation? I will happily say that I do not want to see my skeptical side being destroyed, because it is logical to apportion belief to the evidence, if I'm wrong about other things I do not mind.

What rational argument did you expect us to be turned around by? You cannot provide objective evidence of Christianity or the accuracy of the Bible, so how do you expect to be able to convince any skeptic? Those of us who seek but aren't going to adopt a position that is logically flawed, such as begging the question? Show us that your story is true, or show us why we need a story. What scholarship? What in Christianity can't we find elsewhere?

We want to know! You ask us to forego logic, but why?

Peter I don't think many people have any objection to what they understand as Jesus' message. I think the problem is with the church.
I had 12 years of Catholic schooling, left the church as soon as I left school because of the hypocrisy, but like many a lapsed Catholic have continued to read and explore the subject. I don't want to underestimate the value of study and expertise, but if one reads the Bible, with commentaries and aids, investigates projects like the Jesus Seminar etc then I think Jesus' message is really quite clear. Very simply it's about love and justice. And it's definitely not about excluding, judging and punishing. And yes, there's another mystical level, as there is with really profound ideas.
I suppose what gets me angry about the church is that it really does seem anti-christian in many of its social teachings - on women, on homosexuality for example. You obviously don't support the literal interpretation of the Bible, because you invite us to "enter the story" - but then, stories are open to varied interpretations. I just don't think the churches' position on those subjects can be a valid interpretation: it's the opposite of Jesus' message. And your claim that "the Christian story is the best, deepest and truest story around. It produces graceful human beings and truly free selves" is a bit of a boast - you have to admit that there are and have been plenty of non-christians who are graceful and free.

Peter

I would like to draw your attention to an interesting article in the New York Times from a fellow Christian.

He writes: "Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth"

You wrote in your post above "The God that Christians worship is the God who rules from the cross"

You know God's truth?

I am in awe.

Here's the link for the complete article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?incamp=article_popular

I am curious as to why you bothered with your article at all, knowing full well the usual pro and con brigade that would invite. Did you hope to convert an atheist from the error of their ways?

You argue critics of Christianity get it wrong - I posit that Christians get it wrong as well.

Priscillian.
“Peter, first convince us the Gospels are true then we can work on the rest using your basis in faith.”
True in what sense? Would you be happy with an event that happened last week reported in the Australian? Or perhaps six months ago or 2 years ago? Alas the earliest writings we have are from Paul, who, as you say did not meet Jesus. Paul’s earliest are about 40years after the death of Jesus and are occasional letters written to young churches. None of the NT material pretends to be an historical account, which is a very recent idea. They were written by the church and for the church as documents that sought to shape faith. So there are no independent eye witnesses who wrote. The only way the NT can convince us that it points to truth is the witness of our hearts and minds as we read it. This does not mean that we base faith on purely subjective grounds nor does it mean that faith is irrational or a leap into the dark. My experience with the tradition is that the more I live with the texts and preach from them and read about them, the deeper they become. My world would be impoverished without them.

Even if we had a video record of the life and death of Jesus that would not help because the richness of the NT lies in the years of reflection and embellishment that went on in the early church. It took quite a while for people to understand the import of the history.

Solomon.
The church has always been a mess and always will be, from Paul’s troublesome congregations to the present malaise. We are invited to look beneath the mess and see the body of Christ. I know full well how painful and disappointing being in the church can be but it is they only place that I can hear the words I need to hear and be with the people I need to be with.

"Even if we had a video record of the life and death of Jesus that would not help because the richness of the NT lies in the years of reflection and embellishment that went on in the early church."
Help at what Peter? If we knew it was authentic and it contained miracles it would help in determining whether there are any gods. But I don't think that is what you meant, instead it seems to me that you have a different purpose in your replies than responding to issues raised. Instead you use them to play with ideas and delve into your own Xian theory.

To demonstrate: gw asked five different questions of you, laid out in a stuctured progression. I'm sure you answered honestly, but your responses were in my view, nebulous and esoteric - had I asked those questions I would have felt totally dissatisfied with the response. Your actual meaning is not clear and the connection to the questions is too. Seriously, what does ruling from the cross *mean*? Thinking in terms of the trinity doesn't solve anything because the trinity is largely extra-biblical and ill-defined. Yes, the conception of God will have cultural baggage, but at least for me, you have not made clear what the correct version is - quite probably you will admit to not knowing. Like the Bible your responses are poetic and while there is no doubt some truth in them, but we don't have millenia in which to work out what you meant.

"The only way the NT can convince us that it points to truth is the witness of our hearts and minds as we read it. This does not mean that we base faith on purely subjective grounds nor does it mean that faith is irrational or a leap into the dark."
Likewise for adherents of other religions. It does however mean that there is no solid grounding for Xian belief. It's something you only feel, that you cannot establish in any way. Don't ask us to look deeper into an image that apparently isn't there.

Hi Peter, I do agree on one point, religion isn't the blame for all past atrocities, but nor can the secular regimes be blamed for recent ones. Tyrants kill, and wars rage, secular or theistic ideology is often –but not always- just a pretext.

I’ll follow up on Deuc’s ‘nebulous and esoteric’ remark though in that fine make Christianity impossible to refute with facts and science but also condemn Christians like those Creation science advocates over on Margo K’s blog abusing science by trying to validate their literalist version of Christianity.

BTW for the record are you a Intelligent design Christian or a Creation Science Christian?

Also allow the worlds other faiths the same latitude. Turning around and then saying either they don’t stack up scientifically or they are theologically incorrect smacks of double standards.

In all respect and sincerity Peter please tell us how or why you think your religion cannot be tied down and be analyzed for truth content but still come away thinking your religion is the one true faith and that other religions are ‘wrong’?

GW. Great questions, I would like to share my opinion with you. Concerning question one. When we look at the character and nature of God, as we know him in the Christian bible we see a God who deals with us in love. Now to many, love has several definitions, but to define love as we see in the character of God, this is a love that is not motivated by fleeting feelings or emotional needs, but one of choice. Simply put, God chooses to love us in spite of ourselves. With that being said let me address the question. Because God loves us, he allows us to make our own decisions and because of this, we reap the results of bad and good choices. Not only are we affected by our choices but those who are on the receiving end are affected. This can range from being unkind to someone, to raping a person or even murdering someone. All afore mentioned actions are choices and there is someone receiving the consequences of those choices. Coming back to the point, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, but because he loves us he does not force us to follow him, he allows us to make choices and some of those choices are devastating. Yes, it is true God can make a virtual utopia by taking away our ability to choose and forcing us to act and think in a certain way, but God gives us all the freedom to choose and sometimes we choose poorly. I believe this also addresses question number four. Thanks for allowing me to share.

Peter, I admire you and I appreciate your work. I would like to attempt to distill what I understand you have been writing over the recent months.

As well I have a few things to say of your critics and their banalities.

Firstly, let me say you are exhibiting in your work two of the great Christian virtues, patience and endurance.

Secondly, your love of the Lord flows through the burden you carry in service to Him and your contributions to the "generations yet to be born", of whom He exclaimed in hope from the cross. ( Note: Mark 15:34 : Psalm 22 - the poor bloke was human and must have thought " am I a nutter? - what will come of this?", but placed his faith in His Father to whom he was bonded in faith and existence. )

For those of you seeking an argument can I say that you just don't get it!

Peter's article in its 3rd- 5th paragraphs foretells the very act of your responses. Do go back and read them slowly and think. You really have to be more original. Peter acknowledges much of your criticism of religion and peoples' religiosity. They nailed the carpenter from Nazareth to a cross because he challenged religious practices that obstructed the revelation of God's love in the Hebrew story. He talked of that love in some marvellous stories.

Of your love of reason, proof and facts. The ancient Greeks in Socrates and Aristotle et al allowed their reason to extend to the unknown, the immaterial in the realms of the gods who they put into place to provide understanding in life and to assist in coping with it. Such extension allowed them to flourish in thought and civic practice. Yet it wasn't enough, as their eventual demise revealed. Contemporaneously, there were a people wandering through the deserts and establishing a land who had a single God. Their legacy is today spread across the world in the Judeo-Christian story; the foundation for our modern freedoms, prosperity and stable institutions that underpin them.

Second component to come..

Part 2:

Whilst the ancient Greeks extended reason to the reality of the immaterial, the modern scientific intellect, the temple of the Enlightenment, has restricted the rational to that which can be measured, exhibited and argued for as fact. Such sad limitations place the modern rationalist outside of the realm of mystery and wonder. Wonder restricted to the measurable is simply extended thought. Critics of Peter herein appear to me to be similarly stunted.

I understand Peter to be saying that we modern humans have a story into which we can immerse and from which savour, and in response to its source, extend to full humanity. To love and serve; to face the Absolute Paradox of which Kierkegaard writes, and respond in faith, rather than with offence to reason. To respond in the quiet of seeking truth, rather than the noise of jockeying self autonomy that demands control within a rational position wherein truth can be so easily managed in the name of self interest.

The irony is of course that Peter would have more virulent opposition to his writings from the self-satisfied, comfortable Christians who have God all dressed up in their tidy ways in their tidy lives, if only they took their head out of their Bibles or Sunday Mass Missals.

Good on ya Peter.

I may be no intellectual (as I find there are some wonderful thinkers on this site) but...

"The ancient Greeks in Socrates and Aristotle et al allowed their reason to extend to the unknown, the immaterial in the realms of the gods who they put into place to provide understanding in life and to assist in coping with it. Such extension allowed them to flourish in thought and civic practice. Yet it wasn't enough, as their eventual demise revealed. Contemporaneously, there were a people wandering through the deserts and establishing a land who had a single God. Their legacy is today spread across the world in the Judeo-Christian story; the foundation for our modern freedoms, prosperity and stable institutions that underpin them."....

So, expansion is a measure of truth and right... in that case, the muslim world (which consists of slightly more than double the Christian world) is more successful... does that make them more right than the Christians?

As to the whole nature of faith and religion, as long as it serves a source of goodness, compassion, guidance and personal strength, hasn't it achieved it's goal on Earth? Can't we then wait and see what's correct in the next life (if it actually exists... which I personally would like it too!)

Cheers,
JustDan

GW, following are my answers to your questions:

1. The "problem of evil" presupposes ethics. Ethics presupposes revelation from God who is transcendent. If materialism was all there was, then there wouldn't be ethics, because materialism qua materialism is meaningless. So any talk of evil ipso facto presupposes at the very least theism (though I would argue Christian theism to the exclusion of all others).

When you ask how an omniscient, omnipotent and all-loving God can allow such gross suffering and injustice in the world, you presume to know of the character of God more than what he has revealed to you. This doesn't make sense, as a being who's knowledge base is finite cannot critique a being who's omniscient. All a finite being can know about reality is what the infinite being in his condenscension reveals to him. Besides, to find fault with God presupposes a standard of morality to apply against him , which, of course, it is impossible and nonsensical to do.

2. Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.

3. Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

4. You presume there's a standard of morality to apply, one by which you find the Church to have fallen short of. But what, pray tell, is this standard of morality you presume to apply? Is it an objective standard, which by definition must be transcendent in its provenance? or is it a subjective, arbitrary standard, which necessarily reduces itself to relativism?

5. God is sovereign.

Brazuca, I'd be interested to learn your reasoning in arguing that ethics presupposes divine revelation. This strikes me as a quite extraordinary logical supposition, but I am open to correction. That apart, your argument about divine omnipotence seems to be rooted in Saint Anselm's logically-suspect ontological argument for the existence of god, and is hardly the lay-down misere you seem to believe it to be. And please, would you mind telling me why an objective moral standard is necessarily of divine provenance?

A very readable article, Peter, but taking note of your Title, I do believe Christians along with Moslems and Jews have much to mend together concerning the problems in the world today.

As a bush philosopher with a love of learning and the teachings of the younger Jesus, I will pose some brief questions and suggestions.

1. To discover the true Jesus we must go back to the Sermon on the Mount.

2. The young Jesus could have been influenced by ancient Greek philsophy taught in the Great Library of Alexndria where early Greek science was also taught at the time.

3. Many of the teachings of Socrates are similar to the proverbs of Jesus.

4. The 'Donation of Constantine' a fake document written by the the Holy Roman Church around 1000 AD giving license for Christians to take over other lands militarily, but had not been advocated by either Jesus or the later Pauline Jesus Christ. The Donation also gave the false OK for the Crusades as well as colonianism and the Old Testament-style quest for the Promised Land.

5. Christians were lifted out of the Dark Ages by Moslem travelling scholars, the Search for Enquiry" mixing Golden Age Greek reason with Christian faith later bringing on the Rennassance, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment and the democratic ideals we are losing today.

6. In Moorish Spain the Moslems began a school inviting all believers in the one God including Allah, Jehovah. as well as our Christian God - again finding common ground in ancient Greek philosophy.

Indeed, a getting together of earnest Western thinkers, including Moslems, Jews and Christians, as well as so-called unbelievers, using Ancient Greek common ground, might help to end our greedy Western neo-imperialism and the associated blowback Islamic terrorism we are trying to put up with today.

Regards - Bushbred - WA

If I am going to be in on this discussion I am going to have to pick my issues because there are too many questions.

Neohuman. I am neither a creation science person nor an intelligent design person. Creationism fails to realize that biblical literature is a mixture of legend composed in historical context and history composed in a theological context. The creation stories belong to the former, how could they be the latter? Creationism sets up a Christianity that looks more like a modern cult with God beaming down secrets of the universe. Intelligent design is based on the difficulty of imagining the complexity of life being accidental. However there is no evidence that it is not. If the work of a designer could be demonstrated it would have nothing in common with the God of the bible who is “enthroned on the praises of Israel”.

I never said other religions were wrong. Although I insist that Christianity has no foundations in modern thought (that is rather a limited claim given the parameters of modern thought) we might point out the kinds of human beings and societies that Christianity at its best produces and compare them with what the other religions, at their best produce. i.e by their fruits you will know them. This survey does not rely on religious prejudice, but on levels of government corruption, sanctity of the individual, the ordering of public life. As I have pointed out before, theological systems produce social systems.

Many of the questions raised could be dealt with if we worked with a more biblical doctrine of God instead of the God of the philosophers. Forget the philosophical attributes, our God rules from the cross, a scandal and a sign of absolute weakness. God is weak in the world! It is only out of this weakness that he is triumphant and makes the powers of the world weak.

Trinity, I think I fit into the 'same old crowd' but there is value in the various positions discussing volatile issues.

Garra, you seem to be (still) feeling that any effort by Christians to influence the legislative process in shall we say "family friendly" ways, or, who speak their mind in this forum is an assault on your freedoms or is trying to 'force' you to do this and that. I'm wondering what kind of ugly and bad experience you must have had with a church or a Christian which has left you in this sad condition. (we have all had 'those' experiences...trust me)

Peter has some valuable things to say, and tries to communicate them in a caring way.

Oh...
Pricillian,

you made a bit of a booboo in your point "D" about the gospels being selected because the reflected the ideas of Paul.

That is actually very demonstrably INcorrect. It is one of the strong claims to authenticity that the gospels in fact do NOT reflect Pauls doctrines, as one would certainly expect them to do if they were a product of the church founded by Paul.

Have another read of Pauls writings and then the gospels.

Last wednesday in Bible study we looked at these profound words

Ephesians 3
14For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15from whom his whole family[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God

Sells wrote
>Neohuman. I am neither a creation science person nor an intelligent design person. Creationism fails to realize that biblical literature is a mixture of legend composed in historical context and history composed in a theological context. The creation stories belong to the former, how could they be the latter? Creationism sets up a Christianity that looks more like a modern cult …...

Thank you Peter for your considered and sincere reply, I hope to see you take that point up with Aslan at some stage.

>Intelligent design is based on the difficulty of imagining the complexity of life being accidental. However there is no evidence that it is not. If the work of a designer could be demonstrated it would have nothing in common with the God of the bible who is “enthroned on the praises of Israel”.

You are right again even if we could show an Intelligent Designer –which there us no evidence for- it not need be the Christian God it could well be a number of likely alternatives.

>I never said other religions were wrong.

No Peter, but your doctrinal centrality of Jesus, and the theology that goes with it, sin, Trinity etc must by it’s nature invalidate most if not all other religious traditions. For Islam Jesus is not the son of God but a prophet, karma and reincarnation is meaningless, the myriad Hindu gods become social/cultural creations.

>…. we might point out the kinds of human beings and societies that Christianity at its best produces and compare them with what the other religions..

That certainly is a new spin on it Peter, a functionalist view validating Christianity. But what about things like Democracy –Pagan Greeks gave us that- or the rule of law, separation of powers, these can be done without invoking Christianity. What about the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Humanism does this play no part in their creation? Don’t forget the medieval world was dominated by Christianity, if Christianity brought about these social innovations why have we moved away from that model?

Thanks for your response, Sells. While I disagree with your claims to their continuing salience, I take your point that the Jesus myths probably constitute the central narrative of Western culture. Where we differ is that I think that they have passed their use-by date in the multicultural societies that now comprise the 'West', at least in terms of their unquestioned dominance.

I see that a couple of the drones have arrived - clearly, they have much to learn from a reasonable Christian like you.

Garra,
So the words of Christ have passed their use by date, and are irrelavent?

Quote by Garra, "Thanks for your response, Sells. While I disagree with your claims to their continuing salience, I take your point that the Jesus myths probably constitute the central narrative of Western culture. Where we differ is that I think that they have passed their use-by date in the multicultural societies that now comprise the 'West', at least in terms of their unquestioned dominance."

We certainly know Garra what you do not believe are relavent principles of absolute morality and pure human relationships. So I would like to know how you would define a modern society with best human relationships and social interaction? Delete any influence of Christ's words and teaching as it is no longer relavent according to you. Come on give it a go. It is easier to destroy as position than to build a position. Obviously you prefer to destroy, show us how you would build!! Or is your primary values based in DESTRUCTION?

Philo, no I don't wish to change my mobile phone plan... oh, you're not that kind of drone, you're one of the godbothering kind. Apologies for the error, but you read from a similar script.

Speaking of reading, if you removed your fundamentalist blinkers, you'd see that I acknowledge the salience of Christian mythology to our culture, but question its right to dominance in a multicultural society that incorporates many world views and religions.

As for the values that I think would help to create a better world, that's easy:

1. Peace and nonviolence
2. Ecological sustainability
3. Participatory democracy
4. Social Justice

There you go - I don't need any kind of mythological narrative to imagine a better future for all of us.

Sells,
>.biblical literature is a mixture of legend composed in historical context and history composed in a theological context.

In this way Peter you have taken the same line as Spong that the bible is written in midrash and is not meant to be taken literally.

There must be though, a kernel of objective fact that stops you going that step further as do the Christian religious humanists like The Sea of Faith movement and saying while it does some worthwhile religious wisdom it is a human construct where there is no divinity or objective validity just like any other religion which are also human constructions which must be the view from Christian theology.

Could you make clear what that is?

So Davd Boaz are you saying you aren’t a creation science supporter and are at odds with Aslan?

Garra, Philo like many Christians find it hard explain why atheists aren't out their killing and raping to our hearts content nor it seems that any society can have laws and order if it isn't connected to Christianity.

Philo fact, many societies developed laws and order without any connection to Christianity, Chinese Confucian values for instance.

Fact, our current western society developed from many influences, including pagan democracy and pagan Roman law as well as Christianity

Sorry to disillusion you but the humanity didn't crawl out of ‘barbarity’ solely due to Christianity.

Neohuman said: No Peter, but your doctrinal centrality of Jesus, and the theology that goes with it, sin, Trinity etc must by it’s nature invalidate most if not all other religious traditions. For Islam Jesus is not the son of God but a prophet, karma and reincarnation is meaningless, the myriad Hindu gods become social/cultural creations.

It seems you put me in an impossible position, If I say that my belief is contingent on all other beliefs I will be accused of being a relativist, if I simply say what I believe I am excluding other truths. I think all we can really do is to state our position as carefully as we can and let those positions rub up against who they might.

I do think there is a functionalist argument to be made about Christianity. If we believe untrue things we will interact with reality in less than efficient ways. Religious belief can be tested on how accurately it describes reality. In saying that I leave myself open to scorn at the biblical miraculous, but these must be taken in their context as written by a pre-scientific culture. The reason that a video witness to the life and death of Jesus would be of no help to us is that it would not have shown him walking on the water or raising the dead. Biblical scholars are used to looking below the surface of these stories to see the writer’s intent, they did not write them to illustrate a nature miracle. Of course Christianity did not reveal Newton’s law of gravity for us but it did set the stage by affirming the existence of the material world and of us being a part of that world. This is quite different from some Asian religions in which the object is to escape from that reality or even deny its existence. There are real reasons science rose in the West under the domination of Christianity, despite Galileo’s little problem with the church.

>>"Brazuca, I'd be interested to learn your reasoning in arguing that ethics presupposes divine revelation."<<

Can you imagine it any other way? I'd be interested to know how one could divine ethics out of materialism. (I assume you're a materialist.)

>>"This strikes me as a quite extraordinary logical supposition, but I am open to correction."<<

I find it more extraordinary that someone could even imagine that logic itself could be possible in a materialistic universe! After all, if all there was consisted merely of matter in motion, then what are we to make of the thoughts that come from the grey matter known as our brains?

>>"That apart, your argument about divine omnipotence seems to be rooted in Saint Anselm's logically-suspect ontological argument for the existence of god, and is hardly the lay-down misere you seem to believe it to be."<<

As far as I know, my argument is not rooted in any Saint Anselm's ontological argument or whatever.

>>"And please, would you mind telling me why an objective moral standard is necessarily of divine provenance?"<<

Like I said before, how could it be any other way? Do you, for example, abide by a standard of morality? If so, is it objective or is it subjective? If the former, what makes it objective? If the latter, then how does one know the correct one of two (or more) competing subjective standards of morality?

Neohuman. Did you hear the one about…. Archeologists digging near Jerusalem came across the tomb of Jesus and they phoned the Pope with the news. But there was one problem, the body of Jesus was still in it. Deeply troubled, the Pope phoned Rudolph Butlmann and told him the news, there was a shocked silence on the other end followed by “So, he really did exist!”.

I find myself somewhere between these two positions. If Jesus did not exist then the incarnation is nonsense. On the other hand if the resurrection means that the resuscitated body of Jesus walked around Jerusalem then the resurrection is nonsense. All kinds of problems arise, like what did happen to the physical body? Is it in low orbit around the earth following the ascension? I am not an admirer of Spong, I find his writing more fitted to 1960s liberalism that lost the guts of the gospel. Neither am I a fan of Cupit and the Sea of Faith movement, it fails to take a stand anywhere because of its commitment to skepticism about the truth. I guess you could call me postliberal, I admire Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas, George Lindbeck, Rowan Williams, William Placher etc.

Is Christianity a human construction? Yes and no. Yes because it is an aspect of culture, obviously. The bible has a human history. No, because that construction was formed under the impact of reality or the truth. This is the crucial thing, the medium by which God reveals himself is history, actual human experience, pondered upon, written about, made into legend. This is why Christianity cannot float free from the truth that surrounds us all. This is why Israel had to be a real nation and Jesus a real man. In this way Christianity is empirical, its traditions grew from the experience of men and women. When Israel relied on God to win their battles they lost. Lesson: God is not that kind of God. Religion that relied on that thinking was a dead end.

Garra,
You seem to misunderstand the revelation of God; His eternal principles have never changed no matter who spoke them. You mistakenly think I attribute all relevant truth to the historical Jesus. The fact is the principles you identify are spoken of in the Bible, and supported by Christ. So your claim that the principles of Christianity are outdated, and past their use by date; assumes there is another truth more relevant and you have not proved that by your reference to the past history of society. Again I ask what is your new revelation for building a model society, apart from principles found in the Bible??

*****

The Bible is not fables and myths, though it contains allegory and parable to identify the human relationship with the divine. The Spirit identified in the words, life, character and attitudes of Jesus demonstrated the principles Christians believe is the mind, word and Character of the Creator. God is one and Jesus expressed exactly the Spirit of that one Eternal God. That does not make his humanity God. He is not part of a three person Trinity. Trinity is a mathmatical term to satisfy Greco spatial minds. God is spirit revealed in character, his creation, and acts observed by us

Thanks Philo.

Since those are actually the 'Four Pillars' of the Greens political party, I'm sure they'd revel in the hordes of newfound fundamentalist Christian support - if only the principles' supposed biblical derivation wasn't so nebulous. I'm fascinated by the intricate intellectual and linguistic gymnastics that some of the religious zealots in these forums employ.

According to the various interpretations of biblical texts that one is deluged with in these forums, it is apparently possible to attribute anything and everything to the Christian God. All you have to do is believe.

The only trouble with that is that it doesn't allow for those who don't share those beliefs, nor those who believe in other gods.

I think I'll stick with the straightforward humanistic principles that progressive groups in our society like the Greens espouse, without the hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo, thanks.

Oh, and I really really don't want to change my mobile phone plan :)

Sells
>It seems you put me in an impossible position…. I think all we can really do is to state our position as carefully as we can and let those positions rub up against who they might.

With due respect Peter, the reason you are in an impossible position is because this dilemma goes to the root of your position. Stating you case carefully doesn’t avoid the dilemma.

Theologically Christianity is incompatible with other world religions.

Neither can both be right.

If Christianity is true the others are cultural/theological constructs.

If other human cultures are capable of constructing viable theological constructs and mistake them for real then it is apossibility Christianity is also a human construct and Christian do not know it.

Having honestly acknowledging this a Christian would ask how do I know that this isn’t just another human construct?

You cannot rely on faith because you are in the same position that the other human construct religions, faith can lead you anywhere, it is not able to tell you that you are in a created construct.

Nor is theology amenable to rational validation within itself, the same problem as faith.

What have you left to check the validity of your religion?

>If we believe untrue things we will interact with reality in less than efficient ways.
>Religious belief can be tested on how accurately it describes reality.

Only in extreme cases on a physical level , as by the Christian theology the Hindu worldview is untrue but that has no relation to how they interact with the physical world. The creation science people believe in an ‘untrue’ account of physical laws and they seem quite successful in interacting with reality.

Peter, Philo FACT our democracy –Pagan Greeks - or the rule of law, separation of powers, these are not the sole work of Christianity. What about the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Humanism, does this play no part in the creation of our modern societies? Or the fact that without the Muslims passing on the pagan classics we would not have the modern scientific society we have today?

"This is the crucial thing, the medium by which God reveals himself is history"

Sells you refer to god as 'he'. How do you know the sex of god?

A confused nine year old boy goes up to his mother and asks, "Is God male or female?"
After thinking for a moment, his mother responds, "Well, God is both male and female."
This confuses the little boy so he asks, "Is God black or white?"
"Well, God is both black and white."
This further confuses the boy so he asks, "Is God gay or straight?"
At this the mother is getting concerned, but answers none the less, "Honey, God is both gay and straight."
At this, the boy's face lights up with understanding and he triumphantly asks, "Is God Michael Jackson?"

I have been urge by a friend to expand on the difference between the ontotheological concept of God, that is the God of the philosophers who has the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence (knowledge, presence and power) with the concept of God that comes out of the bible, the Trinitarian God who is three in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It seems that most of our problem with God centers around this confusion, especially that of the rule of God that manifests itself as “a resentful anthropocentric requirement of God to justify himself”. It is the construction of ontotheology by the Enlightenment that excludes Christ and only has the background of nature rather than history as its source that has made modern atheism so prevalent and so irrelevant.

If the judgment of the world happens on the cross, what then happens to the three divine attributes? Christ does not reign from the cross because he has all knowledge, indeed as Paul says: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.” (1 Cor 1:21 NRSV)

While the ontotheological God is said to be everywhere, the scandal of the gospel is that He is in this particular man and is only universal as a particular man. The church celebrates the presence of God in particular acts of worship, the sacraments, the preaching and the prayers on a Sunday morning.

While the ontotheological God is said to be all powerful, Christ on the cross is totally impotent. His strength exists only in his weakness. It is in handing himself over to the powers of the world as a lamb to the slaughter that he overcomes the power of the world.

The reason it is so difficult to speak to the questions in these pages is that we are constantly at cross purposes, both with those who believe, and perhaps believe too much, and those who do not believe and use the ontotheological God to beat me over the head.

Yeah right Sells,

following on from the facetiousness of trinity,

so god is male?

Cool - I'm a bloke

Kinda reinforces the old patriachy then?

Peter,
“Is Christianity a human construction? Yes and no. Yes because it is an aspect of culture, obviously. The bible has a human history. No, because that construction was formed under the impact of reality or the truth. This is the crucial thing, the medium by which God reveals himself is history, actual human experience, pondered upon, written about, made into legend.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this premise. Religion is very much culture-based. If followed through, you might agree that Islam, being a result of it’s culture has as much validity as Christianity. Can it be that both Christianity and Islam are reflections of each other, subject to cultural influence? Is it possible that God wants respect and acceptance of each other’s view? Religious communities readily agree that these two religions (and Judaism) are branches of belief in one God. Is it possible that each is a result of the culture from which it came. If so, then why do Christians (such as BOAZ_David, Reality Check, Viking, etc on this site) revile Islam and deny its validity. Given this premise, what then separates the beliefs of Hindu, Tao and other religions? Are they simply reflections of a common belief system, based on cultural influence?

I won’t go into the debate as to whether God exists. I agree with XXX that man could develop ethics and moral guidance without God. It is in our nature to find rules for the world. That seems to be our fascination with scientific endeavour (and philosophic discussion?) – finding answers. Isn’t that part of the so-called ‘free will’ given to us by God? Find our own way and hopefully find ‘the right way’?

Whether or not one is religious, spiritual or atheist is not important – why should God care? A being all-powerful wants praise and glory? Wouldn’t that being already be comfortable with its position? Praise and glory are human desires. An all-powerful being would have concepts outside our understanding. If we consider high morals a standard, lets focus on getting there rather than who’s there first.

Peace and luck with the journey.
JustDan

NeoHuman
I'm at a loss to know why you asked me about being at odds with Aslan and creation science etc ? Can you expand a bit ?

I just refer everyone to the beauty and richness and depth and enduring value of the words of Christ and Paul and the other Apostles.
Without which our community would have no anchor, morally or spiritually. Thats my 'opinion' :) so Garra, dont give me 'your forcing it down my throat' please.

Garra, the values you espoused above are indeed nice sounding. But they really only seem to have ideological impact in peaceful western societies where we are more worried about the price of petrol than whether the Gestapo or Religious police are about to knock our door down. You still appear not to recognize the foundation on which such values rest. Socrates and Plato had some 'quaint' ideas, but strangely, the Persians had different ones. So, such ideas are always subject to the prevailing power interests. There are some states where just to express thoughts which are BASED on deeper ideas that are viewed as dangerous to the state status quo is enough to be placed in Jail with out trial for indefinite periods, SINGAPORE is one such state.

But there is one set of values, ideas, morals, which is enduring no matter which power prevails, it is the power that saw 2 million people attend Billy Graham crusades in China, a million in Seoul, Korea it is that power which after a few years saw 'those of Caesars household' naming Christ as Lord, it is the power of He who washed His disciples feet, who said "I came not to be served, but to serve"
Perhaps one day, more of us who visit this forum will also name Him as Lord

Sells while I did a paper on the Ontological argument I’m not familiar with the ontotheological concept of God could you give a quick run down?

B David you seemed happy to chip in along with Aslan with his sophistry, I just assumed that you had similar fundamentalist views. So you aren’t a creation science advocate?

But you go to say:

>Socrates and Plato had some 'quaint' ideas.

Hmmm two of the greatest philosophers of all time and you think they had some quaint ideas!

Well that pretty well indicates to all here, that your knowledge of philosophy and the history of western philosophy, amount to NOTHING.

Peter do you see what I have to put with?

Garra we are wasting our time, B David has this delusion that modern Western societies or a just human society must rely on Christian teachings. They had a positive influence on some, but we have also moved away from the nastier side of Christianity as well. (Ask B David and Aslan their reasons why the Bible implicitly condones Slavery.)

David ignores the fact that other societies also developed law and civilization without any contact with Christianity, the Chinese did quite well with Confucian and Buddhist teachings.

Our democracy –pagan Greeks - or the rule of law,-heavily influenced by pagan Roman law-(BTW yes I know English system is different to European) separation of powers, these are not the sole work of Christianity.

To B David the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Humanism obviously just didn’t happen!

Peter seems to think that Jesus was a real figure. As far as I'm concerned The Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament is a myth. Pure and simple. Any one in this day and age who believes that a ghost impregnated a young virgin girl (sexual abuse by today's standard) and she in turn gave birth to the Christian God 2000 years ago is a very deluded person indeed.

Neohuman, human history did not jump from the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance/Enlightenment/Humanism...In writing such, is it a deliberate action in expunging the Christian era?

Western culture is Christian founded.

Secular humanism rose out of the freedoms of individual conscience and action established in European culture from the middle ages. The concept of the person, the dignity of the person, conscience and individual freedom and responsibility flowed from Christian thought and practice. Our systems of production and commerce found their earliest formations in monastic life.

Such thought of exclusion sees you leap over the High Middle Ages where Christian intellectual thought rose from the earlier Dark Ages.

It was during the preceding centuries that Islamic scholastic practice flourished with their translations of the Ancient Greeks; Socrates, Aristotle, Plato etc. and which they passed onto the medieval Christian theologians through dialogue and debate.

An understanding of Aristotle by Averroes (Latin name for Ibn Rushd 1126-1198) proposed that there is a single human intellect and it is shared by each person. St Thomas Aquinas (1225..1274) saw the limitation of such thought in that it excluded personal identity here and into the next life. Aquinas's attaching the existence of individual intellect along with the personal soul was foundational in the development of personal responsibility, and indeed the understanding of each of us being made in the Image of God.

Lord Acton, and more recently, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) called Thomas Aquinas, "the First Whig," that is, the founder of the party of liberty in human history.

I will leave it to you make reasoned comparisons and evaluations of cultural development across the world.

It is sad that we lack knowledge of Church History. It is our story. It satisfies my intellectual needs, gives understanding to its Institutional realities, both its vast goodness and its occasions of terrible wrongheadedness, and enhances the ongoing challenges of living in relationship with the Risen Lord which it proclaims.

A good introduction reference to Aquinas is On Aquinas by John Inglis in the wadsworth Philosophers Series.

As well an essay worth reading is at http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/1998_oct/novak.htm

That link is
http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/1998_oct/novak.html

Jim,
There's more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar and I imagine you do not consider him a myth?

Your misinformation is derived from the Catholic Church and not from documented research. I suggest also read the Book of Mary and the Gospel of James - found on the net. God is not human, but he is manifest through human lives. God is Spirit, not a spatial ghost (too much TV). God is manifest in character, words of wisdom, acts of compassion and judgment. Christ states he didn't come to judge but to save people. That's the purpose of the cross.

Mary his mother educated from the age of three years in the Temple and upon her pubity the law forbid her entry into the Temple during her monthy cycle. So Zacherias as Priest to fulfil the precedent set by Isaiah 9 had Mary impregnated artificially by semen from young men from the lineage of David. The Essenes used this method to have children so as not to become unclean. Zacherias took care of Mary along with his own pregnant wife Elizabeth in the first months. Zecharias had actually selected Joseph to care for Mary because he had sons but was away working as a stone mason for the Romans. But Herod hearing of his intention to raise a child as king of Israel had him slain in the Temple court. Elizabeth hearing of her husbands death, fled with John his son into the caves of the Essene community while Mary with Jesus and Joseph and his children fled to Egypt.

As Peter states, "the Trinitarian God who is three in one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit"; is not three persons in one, He is one Spirit manifest through human character. The Matthew 28: 19 formula identifies a singular name, not three persons, similarly Isaiah 9, identifies a singular name of one person who is both the son and the Almighty Father. God is neither male or female, God is the eternal Spirit in whose moral character image we as humans were created.

“The secular revolution” edited by Christian Smith he makes the case that MJB alludes to. The secularizers, by and large teachers and academics who worship at the idol of originality and personal promotion, have, over the last two hundred years, convinced the general population that the church did not carry Western culture through to the Enlightenment. The very terms “dark ages” and “Enlightenment” say it all. This is secular propaganda, and relies on the myth that the church stood and stands for backwardness and superstition and that religion in general promotes war. On the contrary, there are few who would go to war for Jesus but many who would go to war for their country. Nationalism has always been the source of war, to put it down to religion is a thin reading of history.

Smith makes the argument that we have been convinced by the sociologists that societies naturally proceed from backward, religious communities to secular and progressive ones. He goes on to show that this has been discredited among sociologists and that the real reason for the triumph of secularism is that academics and teachers have persistently made the case that religion has been superseded by science and learning. In other words we have been duped by the academics! The result of this in Australia is that theology is absent from our educational institutions. That means that the very engine that drives Western culture is ignored. This had led to the flourishing of Christian fundamentalism on campuses that have filled the vacuum of informed opinion in academe.

This is why it is so hard to have an informed theological discussion on these pages, there are very few people who know the language to enter such a discussion. The attempts to mend an increasingly broken society by teaching values in schools is pathetic and will not work. As a society we have lost our seminal story and we will be healed only when it is replaced.

BTW this morning’s (26th June) Encounter on Radio National (Cardinal Pell and the nation state) was excellent on this.

Sells can I suggest you do a essay on “The secular revolution” edited by Christian Smith and request it posted on http://www.crookedtimber.org/ I'd be very interested to see replies to it there.

I'd like to focus on the ontotheological concept of God for here.

Could you expand on your it especially why it should only be applied to your 'God'and not allow other faiths?

>the last hundred years of theological scholarship.
Give us the short version.

>Christianity is but one voice among the myriad voices claiming religious truth. And so the obfuscations go. This is a weak defence that is transparently avoidant.

Please enlighten us as to why.

>There are no arguments that can convince us that Christianity is true.
So you are left with faith and that cannot differentiate between a true faith-if one even exists- and a human construct.

& BTW tell the creation science loons to keep the hell out of out science classrooms.

To propose hard and fast arguments about God would be to miss Him completely
So God is Zen.(TIC)

>This displacement happens simply because the Christian story is the best, deepest and truest story around. It produces graceful human beings and truly free selves

A Zen Buddhist or a Hindu could say the same thing.

Pls don’t cheapen this discussion with cheap shots- The above arguments are just the outer appearance of a deeper fear- so I won’t argue that Christians psychologically dependent on a meta-physical father figure because they lack the maturity to face the natural world.

>The reality is that anyone who wants to truly investigate the Christian faith must seek before they will find.

The reality is that anyone who wants to truly investigate the Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu etc etc faith must seek before they will find.

So it basically comes down to there is no proof that God exists, you must open your heart, and be thankful that out of the myriad of different faiths you did it with Sells version of religion before being deluded by doing exactly the same thing in the humans constucts.

Peter, I admire your attempt to confuse us with semanitcs. It seems that most comments revolve around the same understandings of religion. Having spent the majority of my life studying religion, particuarily christianity and islam, I am afraid you missed the reality. A good read of the Nag Hamadi library and the un-abrigded greek interlineal text of the new testament will show you that religion is a con. It is almost impossible to get religious people to see truth, basically because they are in a state of continual fear and denial. To say that facism and communism have created the worst evils is flying in the face of truth. If you look at history you will see that the vast majority of conflicts have been of a religious nature. I am sure that the amount of people killed in the name of god over the years would far out way those millions that died during the last century at the hands of facists and communists. You must also take into account those native populations that have been wiped out around the world during the invasions of god fearing people and their murderous attempts to convert everyone. The truth is that religion is at the forefront of the death and destruction of societies and people in our age. There is no god, Jesus was just a bloke that was a great psychic and confused about life and where it was going. Sure there are some very powerful forces within the universe that have control over many things, but they dwell within different dimensions to us and have realities that we can't understand, just like the difference beween our reality and an ants reality. For us, the answer is in opening the door between this 3rd dimension and the next, the 4th. Then we will see truth from a different aspect. Try that reality and you will see that it is more rational and logical than any religion thats aim is to conquer all by whatever violent means it can.
The alchemist

Neohuman. I think it is about time you did some work yourself. If you are really interested in this stuff instead of just nailing me then spend some time to get informed, I listed some authors, if you want some specific book titles just let me know.

Ontotheology is no big deal, it is just theology written from the point of being. This includes Aristotle’s first cause or unmoved mover, Anselms ontological proof of God, modern cosmologists idea that there is a designer. It is essentially an argument from nature instead of history. This is the god who does not exist and is the god that theists and atheists cling to in order to justify their positions. It is about time we acknowledge that THERE IS NOBODY OUT THERE.

Trinitarian theology escapes the criticism that there is no evidence for the existence of God by understanding God as the relationship between the truth (the Father), history (Son) and our experience of these (Spirit). Rather than using the category of being as ontotheology does it uses the category of relationship. This formulation is fundamental to how we understand anything at all and its erasure from academe has produced a dumbing down of intellectual life evidenced in PhDs in gender studies, pubic hair and the latest cult film.

Hard and fast arguments about God miss the point in the same way that hard and fast arguments about a particular marriage miss the point. This is because persons are mysterious, they cannot be evaluated even by the person himself let alone by another. Since God can only be conceived as the relationship between the persons of the Trinity we cannot define Him just as we cannot define another person or the relationship between persons. The Christian God is therefore not a God who can be proved or disproved but only met.

Ps I would gladly tell creationists to keep out of the classroom, you can see why from the above.

Pt1
>Neohuman. I think it is about time you did some work yourself. If you are really interested in this stuff instead of just nailing me then spend some time to get informed, I listed some authors, if you want some specific book titles just let me know.

Do I have to send you off to read atheist and humanist literature, this is a real time debate work with me.

>Ontotheology is no big deal, it is just theology written from the point of being.
Point of being pointless (humor)

>This includes Aristotle’s first cause or unmoved mover,
No reason to think it has to do anything with the Christian God

>Anselms ontological proof of God,
did a tutorial paper on that got 10/10 shot it to pieces.

>modern cosmologists idea that there is a designer.

The God of Paul Davies isn’t the Christian God and even if you have a cosmologist that does pounds to peanuts they haven’t critically justified why it is the Christian God and not some other.

>It is essentially an argument from nature instead of history. This is the god who does not exist and is the god that theists and atheists cling to in order to justify their positions. It is about time we acknowledge that THERE IS NOBODY OUT THERE.

Thank you for acknowledging that you are a religious humanist now we can move on :)

Seriously though again even if we needed a divine spark for existence –which like this non-existence physical god there is no evidence for- if it exists meta-physically there is no reason to think it has any connection to your Christian concept of divinity.

>Trinitarian theology escapes the criticism that there is no evidence for the existence of God by understanding God as the relationship between the truth (the Father), history (Son) and our experience of these (Spirit). Rather than using the category of being as ontotheology does it uses the category of relationship.

Fair enough but by this line of reasoning is just as valid for of faiths

Jesus spoke in riddles and had a greater understanding of psychology and human nature than we give him credit for.
He was an intellectual in sheeps clothing.
As an intellectual he was an irritant in an oyster and made a pearl.
The Church often uses the word salvation like a cargo cult and does not explain the paradigm shift required in this life well before any other prologue in other worlds.
What are we being saved from? It is not sin but our limited and introspective paradigm of life. We are to be liberated. Jesus said few find this. It is not the universal anodyne the modern church preaches.
Why are Sunday schools so boring?
Why is Christianity and God presented as so dour, male and patriarchal?
Jesus was a zen master and not white. He was semitic.

Is it just me or does Sells' version of God sound like something the early Church would have (or perhaps did) denounce as heretical? And which appears to be far enough outside of conventional Christian understanding that it would be difficult to characterise as Christian?

Perhaps this is why he hates secularism and modern society so much, he thinks his own views, his theological language, were once well known and accepted.

God. Nothing supernatural, no great powers, not a ruler of the universe, just an abstract without existence -- unlike any conventional definition of the word. Or at least so it seems to me from the decipherable slivers.

Odysseus

Why is Christianity and God presented as so dour, male and patriarchal?

Because that exactly what it is, which answers the following question.

Why are Sunday schools so boring?

As above.

Sells still hasn't answered my question which is how come he knows what sex god is and how come he knows the truth about christianity above everyone else.

Enough! Silly me, I have again been seduced into thinking that you guys were interested in a mature dialogue. All that has happened is that you insist on ignoring what I have been saying, taking oblique points that I have not addressed and pouring out the ridicule. Your contributions confirm to me that you are disingenuous, all you really want to do is to make as many cheap points as possible so that you appear enlightened individuals stamping on the poor dumb superstitious, backward and patriarchal Christians. What you have done is to show your pure arrogance at not even entering the discussion, there is no charity in you, therefore no possibility of a mature discussion.

Sells, I was interested in your take on Christianity but I lost faith in you when you wrote "This is quite different from some Asian religions in which the object is to escape from that reality or even deny its existence."

Did you realise that right there you demonstrated one of the fundamental (!) problems of your religion; the reason why it was never and could never be the solution to human problems. You also demonstrate a real failure to understand the Buddhist philosophy.

Onya Odysseus! I have always thought Jesus must have studied with Buddah or was it the other way around? Whatever, Jesus is for all of us not only those who thing you have to be Christian to understand and appreciate his message.

MOLLY,
I commend you on one thing, you seek to separate Christ from 'Christians' and this is good, we are weak, sinful and hypcritical, (prime qualifications for the forgiveness we find in Christ by the way)... You don't need to condemn or 'bash' us, we do it enough ourselves. As Paul said "I am the foremost of sinners".
But Molly, in your separating Jesus from the christians you love to hate :), make sure you look at the 'real' Jesus, not just the bits you happen to find attractive.
Molly, please stop ripping into Christians when they say "Christ is the only way" if you have issue with that, take it up with the Lord :)
We are quoting Him.

JIM LEE
the redeeming feature about your post was that you are one for whom Christ died, i.e. YOU, no matter how off the planet your words, God in Christ is there for you, with forgiveness and love and till your last breath, with the offer of salvation.

Jim, in all seriousness, you expressed an opinion, which is fine as far as it goes, but as a judge is want to say "but on the evidence".... your opinion is difficult to arrive at without rejection of a land fill of material which is not even disputed by anti Christian scholars. So, please, have a good read up of the background to the New Testament (FF BRUCE is a good place 2 start.)
Then, learn how many critical scholars began with ideas which determined their conclusions, and have another go.

Your welcome to accept or reject Christ, but please let it be on common sense and evidence, and on true knowledge of the gospel.

Oh please stop playing the martyr Peter, you were trying to poison this well before the discussion even began. It's your own inability to state plainly your views that prevents a dialogue. Up until I realised you weren't talking about "normal" Xianity(@#8), I couldn't see any central notion being discussed; only disparate assertions and replies.

1. God is weak. Trinity solves everything. God reveals itself through history.
2. No objective evidence, can only be convinced through emotion when reading the Bible. Sells would be impoverished without it. Church is a mess.
3. Not a creationist. Compare success of religions, conduct a (naturally flawed) survey. Forget philosophical view, use biblical. God is weak.
4. Impossible position. Religious belief can be tested on how accurately it describes reality. No such thing as miracles. Christianity affirmed the existence of a material world.
5. Joke. Jesus being resurrected is nonsense. Christianity is a human construct, but formed under impact of reality/truth. Focus on experience, can't rely on God, have to do it yourself.
6. Ontotheological/Omni^3 God not compatible with trinity. Resentful anthropocentric justification requirement. Enlightenment's fault. Christ's weakness let's him overcome the power of the world. Crosspurposes/martyr-mode.
7. Secular BAD BAD BAD. Academics BAD BAD BAD. Nobody understands the language, Martyr-mode.
8. Read a book Neohuman. Forget ontotheology-it's wrong. Trinity solves everything. God is a relationship. Academics BAD BAD BAD. Trinity==truth,history,experience. Mystery, proper arguments don't work.
9. Martyr-mode. You're mean!

You don't believe in miracles, including the resurrection. Presumably you don't believe in heaven either or any other supernatural existence, and you certainly don't believe God has a physical existence. Basically you have this emotional connection to the Biblical story, and you find truth in the stories, but you don't necessarily think a word of it actually happened.

Issues: how has Xianity confirmed the existence of a material world, why the trinity(not just your view) is incompatible with a omni^3 god, and if you do still think Jesus was divine then how he was any weaker than anyone else? Additionally, the "resentful anthropocentric justification requirement" is more likely simply a search to understand/verify god(s).

Peter

Is it a matter of casting pearls before swine?

Perhaps it is time to wipe the dust from the feet and move on. Keep writing but do not engage in dialogue with them.

Your thoughts do act as a catalyst for others and I do appreciate your reference to the source of ideas and perspectives you build on.

Best wishes

The tragic thing about Christ is that man has always thought he could be put him into a bottle and market him in a particular way depending on the limited precepts of that sect, class, ideology through the ages. The genie is too big for the bottle and for most the message is just as elusive. The ideas brought by Christ are metaphysical, simple but complex, paradoxical but plain and both insightful and seemingly stupid.

The message is a elusive as a perfume one cannot see but only smell. That is why the church in the modern world is so incapable of communicating to modern men and women any more than a concoction of a message...dummed down, digestible, maleable and politically acceptable.

Jesus always stood outside the square and not inside it. He was an opponent of religiosity and a man with an unique vision of the human condition and what it had the potential to be in life. He went against the grain and inspires us to do so too. His existence is a summary of the human condition. Ask anyone who has lived long on this planet. Hence his universal identification.

He also was a realist and did not see his message as universally acceptable. However it has hit the mark in the lives of all people around the globe and throughout the ages, in all different ways. It is indefinable a bit like the sound of one hand clapping...and therefore is complete nonsense to most people. Buddha and Christ overlap in so many ways. You can see it only when one's eyes are open and the minute one is spiritually arrogant or exclusive the perfume evaporates and spoils. It was folly to his people and to us now.

So Ontotheology is about the God we cannot prove or disprove because it’s a relationship category, but we can infer exists from existence –contradiction-and through the fact there is an objective relationship, experienced through a subjective experience, we come to experience it's truth, which BTW other faiths mistakenly think they achieve as well.

Truly Sells this is just dressing up the fundie ‘open your heart and you will believe’ in fancy philosophical language.

How do you expect to have a mature rational discussion when all you are saying is you’re right, there is no evidence to prove or disprove it, nor can we use rational arguments to analyze it, just accept that I’m right? What is there to discuss?

If this is the result of the last hundred years of theological scholarship they might as well go back to discussing angels on pin heads.
.
Duec let’s do Fundie mantra 101.

God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it. God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it. God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it, God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it. God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it. God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it. God did it, the Bible said it, I believe it, God did it, the Bible said it I believe it………

Then we can rationalize like MJB does.

Peter,

I noticed few comments on whether God exists.
Don’t mean to stir things but I believe the theological debate should be the other way around: prove to me that God doesn’t exist!

Science and material facts are proving to us every day that everything around us follows very specific laws: planets, stars, animals, geology, etc..

Spiritual field is becoming more and more perplexing: years of medical research on why a mother rabbit in a lab in Seattle panics and get depressed when her baby dies in an animal test lab in Switzerland is proving more and more there is a connection or ‘laws’ that defines spirituality as well.

What I don’t understand about atheism is this: it is harder and harder to deny the presence of all these laws that guide everything around us (and inside us) in a manner that is so random and yet so perfect. How can you be so DEFINITE that this energy (or God) does not exist? Or at least, isn’t it too early to be so definite? :)

Well done Ash, your approach at least requires some to think outside the norm. As to proving that god doesn't exist, that is typical of religious people, find something that can't be proven then take it onboard and run with it. Atheists don't discount the natural laws of the universe, they believe in these powers but not in a metaphysical way. God, well that is just for those that aren't prepared to take repsonsibility for their own existance. The religious are scared to death of being wrong because if they are, then there is nowhere for them to go, whilst non beleivers have as many places to go with their minds as there is possibilities. Historical facts show us that it is the religious movements of the world that create the problems we face. Most fascists are religious and at least their debauchery is out in the open. The religious movement trys to hide its evil in a cloke of stealth and deception. Any so called superior being who stands around and allows the destruction of the things he/she created can't be good. To say that we have free choice is also a con, if that were so, then why don't the religious allow us to have free choice rather than try to convert us to their illusions with violence. Then saying that if you don't beleive, or you will go to hell. Sounds fine to me, if all those that beleive in god go to heaven, then I would prefer hell, as heaven would be full of wars and destruction because the vast majority of the religous are that way inclined. In hell would be all the atheists and non believers and we would have a great time discussing reality, whilst the religious would be in heaven fighting over whose form of religion is right. I am sure that their god would put up with that as he has put up with them destroying this planet and all of their gods creatures for their own self indulgence.

Alchemist, you miss the bit that according to most god centered faiths only those who believe in their particular version of God will go to heaven. If there is a hell we will be stuck with all the ones who believed in god but got the detail wrong. I suspect that if that occurs most will not let a trivial detail like being in hell sway them from their brand of belief.

Ash, it is very true that there are lots of things in the world athiests and agnostics don't understand. Things happen which are not easily explained. None of that necessarily points to the concept of god or a particular version of god, it may point to aspects of quantum physics or something entirely different.

At the end of the day the equation for me is do the claims of a particular god (as conveyed by his followers) match what I can observe or test. It is not a proof of the non existance of god, rather a means of filtering out the irrelevant rubbish.

Certainly all the mainstream well known faiths appear to fail the test and if the truth about god is that hard to find then it's unlikely that god has much interest in our knowledge or belief. If god cares so little about my knowledge or belief then I don't see that it can be a very important topic.

R0bert

Thanks Robert and Alchemist,

I guess my question was try to understand whether atheism have a spectrum (ie degree between 'nothing there' to 'something is there' to 'consciousness' to 'single consciousness' to 'single consciousness that connects all creatures').

The last one is what people like me call God..
But I was trying to get an understanding of the Atheism spectrum (who believes what and who stands where?)

A summary so far:
Christians: I’m right because my version of history and the Bible tell me so.
Atheist: I’m right because there is no proof that any God exists.
Peter: I’m right because the general concept of God is wrong and my Bible tells me so.
Agnostic: Well, we may be right but we’re willing to see what happens.

Really, do perhaps we think too much on the ‘what is’ and too little on the ‘what matters’? If God expects you worship in one way, he’d/she’s/it’d damn well tell you which way.

How about the following:
God does not care how you worship. The ‘existence mystery’ is the test of your character, to see if you can form worthy moral values in an uncertain world.

Note the word ‘worthy’. All morals and ethics are subjective, though one must concede a general root theme running through the various versions.

If we had proof a God existed then many people would know how to act in a certain way, which would negate the aspect of free will that is claimed as God-sent and defeat the purpose of making choices. What choice is there when you know the supreme being IS watching and what he expects? Of course, this all depends on whether you actually believe in a God.

I am no intellectual but I have quite enjoyed reading about the various concepts I had not previously known about. Leaves me with some more thinking. However, as much as thinking is necessary it sometimes gets in the way of reality. Believe if it gets you through life, or don’t if that gets you through life. In the end, you are judged by others on this world and perhaps by another somewhere else.

Preaching is nothing without practicing. As I have said elsewhere, without acceptance and tolerance, you are nothing but a hypocrite – no matter your beliefs.

Peace all.
JustDan

Ash, failing to prove a negative does not itself validate a positive, as I am sure you realised when you posed your somewhat mischievous question.

"I believe the theological debate should be the other way around: prove to me that God doesn’t exist!"

Only the fanatical would even attempt such an act, at which point it would be easy to destroy whatever "evidence" they put forward - shame on you!!

One of the problems with threads such as this is that they waste so much time and energy trying to prove one thing or another, when the reality is that it doesn't matter a hoot. Beliefs are just beliefs. They don't need proofs - in fact they would cease to be beliefs if someone came along and said "God? Of course there's a God. Here's his phone number, give him a call."

Beliefs in this context, and the moral codes they engender, are fundamental to the way we exist and interact as human beings. As JustDan points out, judgement of the results of those beliefs and those ethics takes place on earth regardless of whether it does anywhere else. It is healthy to debate as human beings the relative merits of one code or another - I'm particularly attracted to the Buddhist approach to the sanctity of all forms of life, for example, not just human life - but it is unhealthy to use religion as an excuse for not thinking.

Ash as to types of atheists there are generally two the strong and the weak

The strong think the Christian God doesn’t exist, even taking into consideration you cannot prove a negative in the real world. This is often portrayed as arrogant but may Christians have no qualms thinking that the Olympian, Hindu gods don’t exist. Or that many people have no problem with dragons or fairies.

A weak atheist says I lack the ‘God’ belief which is not the same as saying that ‘God’ doesn’t exist.

As far as the fine tuning argument the case is certainly not conclusive either way and you are still left to justify why it has to be the Christian God or conversely why it isn’t some of agency.

JustDan
>?Atheist: I’m right because there is no proof that any God exists.

Not that there is no proof, but there is no evidence, just like the Olympians or fairies.

>How about the following:
God does not care how you worship. The ‘existence mystery’ is the test of your character, to see if you can form worthy moral values in an uncertain world.

By doing that you deny those God constructs, if you do that why even keep it at all?
& why not if he is all knowing tell us the ‘right’ laws from the beginning and save all the killing and bloodshed while we work it out ourselves?

Neohuman, I could be wrong but I think ontothelogy refers to the normal understanding of God.

Ash,
"Don't mean to stir things but I believe the theological debate should be the other way around: prove to me that God doesn't exist!"
It is impossible to prove the total non-existence of a god, partly because it has a variety of meanings and characteristics. Some forms of Deism can't be disproved. For gods that are well defined, it is possible to show fundamental contradictions and logical flaws, eg. the problem of evil, and there is a natural defense: re-interpret & create uncertainty. (I'm not saying this is a conscious or malicious thing.)

For interventionist gods, those that intervene in our affairs, supporting evidence is theoretically possible but has never been presented to the world. Usually the events are far enough in the past to prevent examination or otherwise the evidence is subjective. That poses a problem for atheists, whose only means to disprove these gods involves showing that the critical claims of intervention are false.

Assuming only weak atheistism/agnosticism, it is theists that are making claims, and so the onus is on them to first show evidence that their claims have a significant probability of being true. Furthermore, when the issue arises it normally doesn't simply involve theists making the claim but also imposing them or using public resources for promotion.

Things may only seem perfect because we wouldn't be able to see them if they weren't. You can be atheistic/agnostic depending on the which religion is in question. And atheism has many meanings; it can include Buddhism since it has no god or exclude anything supernatural. A natural connection between living things would be fine, and in the narrow sense a single consciousness and some forms of pantheism would fit, but it does go against the common meaning of the word.

Hey Peter,
quick question regarding your reference to Luke 4:16ff (I am unsure as to what this ff stands for?- but that is a side question)
KJV "And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read....
I think it is Luke 4:29 where, after hearing what Jesus has to say they set about to thrust him out of the city to cast him down to the brow of the hill.
Thanks,
Tania

Opps my bad Deuc you are right,

Sorry, Ontotheology is about the God which SOME think we cannot prove or disprove, because they belong in different categories , SCIENCE vs FAITH.

Sell’s God is a God we cannot prove or disprove as it’s a RELATIONSHIP category, but through the fact there is an objective relationship between you an a non-existent entity, experienced through a subjective experience, that we come to experience it's truth, which BTW other faiths mistakenly experience as the real thing.

Poor me, I was mixing the fact that both types of ‘God’ have people that think you cannot prove or disprove God. Also I’m still trying to take in this new theology that says you can have a relationship between yourself and a non-existent entity.

Don’t we just call this madness?

But wait, if it interacts with our world, we can infer that you have a relationship with something or relationship loses any meaning. So is that the proof Sells is talking about?

Or is it like saying with narcissism, you are having a relationship with yourself?

Or-r-r-r, is this a Christian Koan like the sound of one hand clapping thing, it’s not meant to make sense?

Neohuman,

Thanks for the explanation.

Pericles,

No offense intended. Just wanted to understand the difference between atheism that co-exists with religions and the soviet model of jail sentencing Koran and bible holders. Neo human explained it.

yours.. fellow human..Ash

You are right Neohuman, religion is madness, for people to put their faith in something so old and so unsubstantiated is serious madness. What amazes me is that they constantly refer to the bible, knowing that the book they refer to is totally different to what was originally written. If you look at the religious assertion that the universe is a well ordered state controlled and ministered by god, then you look at the reality, you will see a vast difference. The universe operates in a state of controlled chaos, just like a river does when it goes from peacefully flowing through the countryside to a raging destructive force whilst in flood. What religious people forget or refuse to accept is that we, are within an evolution that is constantly changing. Look at things logically and rationally, you can see the answers are simple and religion easy to dismiss, as the rantings of those that are totally freaked out by change and difference. Evolution is a process that we are part of and as we are within a 3 dimensional world, and aware of single and dual dimensions, the most logical evolutionary step is the 4th dimension. If an ant looks up at us, it would see something it can't comprehend and we may look like our universe does to us, for the ant. Space is most likely made up of the 4th dimension and we are yet unable to access that. That is what we must do, discover the key and door to that dimension so that we understand that next step. Not sit with our heads in the sand and our bums firmly stuck in the past. Religious people need to get over their insecurity and realise that what they worship and follow is not only a fallacy but and evil one at that. Mind you there are other sides to all this, but I doubt that the religious could take much more reality, as it is they are trying to again take control the world because their illusions are collapsing under the weight of reality.

The alchemist I wouldn’t go saying all religion is madness-it was a stage of our social cognitive development- just denial and delusion clinging to an archaic worldview that ignores the implications of pluralism, and advances in science

First the religious have to tackle the incompatibility of foundational pluralism, not hide behind political correctness and ethical pluralism.

Let’s forget the literalist creation science nutters, or the biased nonsense of Sells, and deal with the Intelligent design or it’s science and faith are two different categories.

The ID can try to fiddle in a divine entity but while they are at it is beholden to them to say which entity that is and why not the others. This is doubly so given not only the march of science that has lead to the God of the Gaps, but also when independent investigation of the archaeological and written Biblical evidence point towards a developing cultural construct which Christianity by default designates all other faiths.

Also -using Christianity because of our common cultural connection- unless you do extreme mental gymnastics and live in denial you have the OT God condoning advocating acts that we today find ethically unacceptable eg slavery, genocide. This copout that Jesus comes along and changes things forgets that this is a package deal, you cannot have one part of a divinity advocating amoral practices and the other ‘moral’ and be ethically or logically inconsistent.

Philo,

Re your reply to Jim on June 26.

What the...? Where on earth did you dream up that completely warped story? Have you been smoking some forbidden weed? Or are you swigging too much communion wine?

Peter Sells: What makes you think fascism and communism aren't religions? For Marx the working class - a universal God. For Fascists the complete Power over others - Ubermensch uberalles. Also please consider the estimated nine million good souls (mostly women) the Church (Inquisition) put to death over the six hundred years (the Dark Ages) when religion overtook folks' minds and their humanity.
To poster Trinity - God's gender? It seems pretty clear that God was a Misogynist - thus that God was Male.
Does God exist? Following the American tradition - if a blade of grass can exist - why not (a real and nice) God? Think about how every second you exist is just the most wonderful miracle in the universe.
Old saying: "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
New saying: "A little more thinking inclineth men and women to sack religion and search for the Big Fella themselves".

New saying: "Religion the refuge of good and evil."
Old saying: "That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."

Aslan, do keep up.

"What the...? Where on earth did you dream up that completely warped story?"

Philo was simply re-telling one of the many different versions of the history of Jesus' birth. This one doesn't have the stamp of approval from the church, but it is still a narrative that we can consider and discuss. I particularly like the slightly different angle provided by the "Jesus, son of Isis" faction:

"Jesus was sent by the [Daughters of Ma]. He was the result of the artificial insemination of a priestess of Isis, named Mary. He was sent by his Mother, not his father. His disciples were female. His supporters were female"

Makes interesting reading.

I thought I would return to these pages after the dust has settled and my accusers have become bored with them. I must say that I feel vindicated in my original thesis that the rage against Jesus has not subsided but continues in the mouths of “the cultured despisers”.

There are a few points I would like to make.

Some of the commentators took the familiar strategy of claiming to know what Christianity is. They purposely take the worst view possible and then proceed to demolish it. This is the strategy of the straw man. When I propose that Christianity is something quite different, particularly, the Christian understanding of God, there are howls of protest that I am not talking about real Christianity. When I suggest that these people read some theology in order to educate themselves they take the populist attitude that it is all commonsense. This outlines again the woeful state of knowledge of theology that has been produced by an education system from which it has been expunged.

Populism in theology is the attitude that no special training need take place to understand theological concepts. We do not take this attitude to the disciplines of philosophy, history, chemistry or car maintenance. We recognise that training is necessary. But why do we not recognise that training is also necessary in theology? This is part of the process of secularization that insists that religion is private and hence not a topic we can discuss in academe. There are such things as theological mistakes. If the comments I received were part of a theological examination they would be marked down just as surely as a student who did not know that force=mass x acceleration. There are theological faculties in Australian universities, more than you might think, and the academics who teach in them stand in a long tradition of scholarship that reaches back to the early church. If there were no basis for such a discipline, as there is little basis for astrology for example, then these faculties would not be able to maintain themselves in the modern university

There was an underlying theme in the comments that indicates an insistence that we believe in nothing, at least nothing that smells of religion. Two things come to mind. Firstly, modern men and women do believe in something, they believe in progress, unlimited freedom of choice, the ability of medicine to save their lives, and their own ability to work life out for themselves unaided by ancient traditions. These are truly beliefs because they cannot be grounded in empirical data and reason and function just as much as religion as the religion they despise. The second thing is that the time is coming when we will meet the “hollow man” who will really believe nothing at all, not even in the secular religions that surround us. This is a more honest position than the former, at least it is understood that there are no foundations. We are yet to see what this new man will do, they are the true nihilists.

In my article I stated that it takes a trusting spirit to explore Christianity. Alas, I did not find that among the commentators. Rowan Williams would describe this as a lack of charity, a lack of the willingness to go some way along the road. How would the chemistry student learn chemistry if she doubted it’s very basis? As in all subjects we cannot rely on logic alone, the student must concede that, despite not having seen it, the sodium ion does exist. My prediction that unless trust were present the conversation would go nowhere was vindicated.

I must admit that my experience of the comments section for this article has been an unhappy one, that is why I spat the dummy. There is a limit to the number of times you can attempt to answer a question, seemingly sincerely meant, and then have it torn apart in pure ignorance; that tends to seep into the soul. In the future I will be more cunning.

Sells: “Some of the commentators took the familiar strategy of claiming to know what Christianity is.”

Sells – YOU claim to know what it is.

I, and many other posters, do not claim to know what Christianity is – we simply question those, like you, who claim to not only know Christianity but to affirm that it is the only true path of religion.

Do you not ever sit back and reflect upon your own arrogance?

You dismiss those who challenge your beliefs as disingenuous and then attempt to avert any argument by asking “But why do we not recognise that training is also necessary in theology?” This is an attempt to confine the debate to theologians and exclude the (by your standards) undisciplined, the uneducated. Cheap shots indeed. I don’t need training in astronomy to know the sky is blue.

Ultimately, you hide behind double standards and hypocrisy – as demonstrated by your own posts to your own thread.

I am prepared to listen to anyone’s philosophy/religion provided it is presented in a manner free of condescension and paternalism.

Sells I fully understand your position, like many biased Christians you apply a certain standard to your faith but don’t grant the same consideration to the others.

So you want us to go off to study theology before we can make an informed judgment? Well I suppose that means you have to send yourself off to study Islamic theology, Buddhist etc etc etc……. as well, & that you must go there with a trusting spirit, so you can go some way along their road before you can have an informed opinion.

(BTW it would seem few Christians know what Christianity is, there are more sects than you can point a stick at.)

I tell you what Sells first have a debate with Aslan and creation science loons and show them the error of their ways, then with all the Christian sects and then when you are finished with the theologians of the others faiths come back to us we’ll be waiting to see whether you can up with anything better than rationizations.

Better still write an essay for OLO on how pluralism is intellectually weak and that all other faiths are human constructs and that your version of Christianity is the ONLY TRUE FAITH.

At least I will admire your honesty while the religious moderates hide behind political correctness and say nothing, but still think their's is the only true faith.

The trouble with modern Christianity is a simplistic sales pitch. Jesus said there was only one way to God and that was through him/Him. We all take this superficially. I think he was getting to a far deeper idea and one that did not deny the essence of many religions at the time. Basically we cannot get to the other side unless we get our feet wet and learn a lot about ourselves and how we look with our duds off.
The Church has misconstrued this point for 2 millenia. He spoke in riddles.The Church filled the message with light weight cream puffs and worshipping of relics..Christian superstition under another name.
Go get a St Christopher medal. The Greeks believed in similar fetishes and had gods for all sorts of stuff...travel, fertility etc.
I also think the people is classical times had a far more 3D picture of the after life and all that. It is now all airy-fairy waffle. Devil...no Devil...Hell...no Hell....other universe...7th dimension or whatever....all one happy family up there.
Is the silence and peace of Oblivion so bad after all. I have seen countless men and women die...If death is so fantastic for Christians why all the hoo haa...why wear black. Underneath it all I think all Christians still have a sneaking suspicion it all could be...I suspect even some honest Muslims may too.
Why endow God with gender...why not just desex him and make him gender neutral...this is all very Freudian.
There is not enough room in the cosmos for a plethora of all powerful dieties. If there is, we have Greek polytheism... Zeus is God and Athena....the Blessed Virgin...need I go on.
Cicero said about everything Paul said in his de Officiis. Even the Church thought this. A man before his time.

My reply To Post by Aslan, Wednesday, June 29 Re reply to Jim on June 26.

What the...? Where on earth did you dream up that completely warped story?

Aslan,I do my own research from English copies of original material. Material that the Roman Church rejected because it did not appeal to their syncretised view of a National Religion. The writings of James the Elder "Protevangelion", Book of Mary mother of Jesus. Ante Nicene Fathers, Apographal and rejected writings of 1 st century not included in the Bible, Josephus, references and allusions to Zechariah in the NT (eg Heb 11: 37), Dead Sea Scrolls. Research his contact and sympathy with the peaceful Essene community.

Lk. 11:51 "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was
killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Read more in Josephus)

The words of Jesus in John and epistles of John on what identifies one a son of God. Certainly not his physical conception, but his spiritual birth. His conception was never established in NT doctrine to identify he had a miraculous conception that identifies his divinity. He was especially conceived by a virgin to fulfil a prophetic role as a king in the lineage of David. But his personal identity is sculptured in the book of Isaiah. He laid aside his kingship to adopt the righteous servant role of Isaiah 53. The rejected King by his own people cp John 1.

Poor old Philo, Christians with compassion, saving us, the book of mary, Virgin birth. Just the same old rhetoric from the religious wanna be's. Sell's like all other christians wants the goal posts in any debate where he want to put them, why because if they are moved to reality check 1, the religious are out of the game. Theology is the study of illusion, it is like studying a drawing pin, no matter how much you learn about it and worship its ability to hold things in weird places, it still has a deadly pointy end which is its only usefull part. Now that sounds stupid doesn't it, but it describes religion. When one of you god fearing people can come up with any evidence that christianity has been of benefit to the earth and if you want to get more selfcentred as the religious are, benefitial to humans, then I for one will listen. When you can show me that there is a basis of truth in what the christian religion espouses, then I will listen. But if you persist in rolling out the same rubbish, then all we mere mortals can do is laugh at your futile attempts to sustain the unsustainable. Give us some real facts not just bibical drivel. Philo, read some real history, study the ancient history of India and be in for a few surprise regarding your religion. Study the origins of the Gypsy race and discover why they have been so persecuted. If you have the guts, ask yourself why the world is on the brink of major chaos and note what force is behind it and has been behind all conflicts. There is only one thing that causes all the evil and violence in the world, religion.

I can’t believe I’m doing this….

Alchemist. Just on your point regarding the ‘truth’ religions claim (“When you can show me that there is a basis of truth in what the Christian religion espouses”)

Well, how about love, compassion and tolerance? Yes, I know that for a lot of the part, these are hypocritical and contrary to the acts perpetrated by many religious persons (at all levels) AND that these beliefs are not sacred to any religion – that any philosophical, non-religious value system can incorporate these ideals.

However, can you deny that the teaching of these values, wherever they be taught is not a good thing? I know I am probably splitting hairs here you cannot carte-blanche disregard the benefits/good of a religion because you blame it for ‘all’ the evils of the world (“There is only one thing that causes all the evil and violence in the world, religion”). This is really just as bad Christians claiming moral superiority over you for their faith and your lack of it.

Just my moderate approach and I am sure there are reasons I am wrong…

Good point Dan. Love, compassion, tolerance, are not related to anything but life. Those 3 values are seen within most living creatures. Our domesticated animals display those traits and I doubt that they follow religion. The teaching of these values is a very good thing, but again is not religious. It seems to me that they are inherent within all mobile life forms. Wildlife display these values even if just within their own kind. Non believers are very tolerant when it comes to the religious, we put up with having them trying to force their fantasies upon us in whatever way they can. How many indigenous people are left in the world after the genocide carried out by religion. Religious morals are created to control, not enhance peoples lives. I learnt the truth when on active service in the early 60's. Presently, we have the moral religious right, invading countries at will, destroying peoples ways of life whilst they get fat and more corrupt. Ask those that have had crimes committed against them in the name of religion and see what they say. Reality is what it is and no amount of wall paper can cover up the truth. I wish there was a god, then we may at least get some justice in the world, but as long as the religious control every aspect of our lives, then there can be no justice. You will also note, that on the whole, it is the religious that sends people to war and yet not go themselves. The current situation in Iraq is a perfect example, neither Bush, Blair, or Howard have served their country in war, but are happy to send everyone else so that they can gain more power. You can see by the posts here, the religious only want control, not discussion, unless we discuss this on their terms, they pack up. You can see that by Sells statement, “next time, I will be more cunning”, not truthful, cunning. You can't get more pure religion than that.

I must say I have enjoyed reading all the above posts. I would just like to respond quickly to Sells' last post, as it contained one point I really disagree with;

'Populism in theology is the attitude that no special training need take place to understand theological concepts. We do not take this attitude to the disciplines of philosophy, history, chemistry or car maintenance. We recognise that training is necessary. But why do we not recognise that training is also necessary in theology'

I really think that is a very elitist attitude. Are you saying that people who are not Theology scholars are not able to have an opinion on this subject? Surely the mark of a good scholar is being able to distil the essence of their knowledge into a form understandable by any audience? Surely they know what they believe? How can you prove that you are right, and they are wrong?

All of your answers are very esoteric, and I certainly cannot claim to understand Christianity perhaps in the way you do. However maybe your attitude is the problem with modern Christianity, and the reason why people are turning away from traditional forms of worship - the message is now too esoteric and difficult to understand. I recently attended a service at Hillsong church in Sydney, and even though I am atheist, was very impressed by the levels of energy and commitment on display. The message was very simple and very direct - and most of the people were obviously completely taken with the moment. I'm not really sure a huge amount of serious theological thinking was happening however, and I think most of what you have written in your posts would be as incomprehensible to them as it was to me.

So I guess it come down to the fact that if you believe, you just believe, and no-one can criticise you for that. But if you want other people to believe the same way you do, I would suggest you need to make the message much more accessible than it is at the moment.

gw

The alchemist,
It is obvious you have not followed my original argument to my previous post, but have merely reacted and sprouted out your hearts emotive poison about Christians.

Quote "Poor old Philo, Christians with compassion, saving us, the book of mary, Virgin birth. Just the same old rhetoric from the religious wanna be's....When you can show me that there is a basis of truth in what the christian religion espouses, then I will listen. But if you persist in rolling out the same rubbish, then all we mere mortals can do is laugh at your futile attempts to sustain the unsustainable. Give us some real facts not just bibical drivel. Philo, read some real history, study the ancient history of India and be in for a few surprise regarding your religion."

The fact is I have closely studied the history and religions of ancient India - "yes the same old drivel" that pepole like to imagine Christ taught.

The fact is your very mind, attitude, and opinion is of itself a religion that you devotedly follow. That is by definition what a religion is. You have ezangelised in your post your mind, spirit, attitudes and your own brand of religious bigotry. Evaluate how a society founded upon your brand of religion might function. Perhaps your own children reflect the moorings of your particular vision of society. A good functioning society is the sign of right attitudes and belief structures.

So Philo having studied the history and religion of India what is your stance?

Are they cultural/human constructs or do they have the same validity on par with Christianity?

Also what is your stance on pluralism in general?

I spent time yesterday with a wonderful educated Papuan man whose father was a head hunter in the jungles of West Papua befoe he became a Christian. He is here in Australia educating Australian people on his training Colleges in Java and West Papua. Ask him is his life is better today than farming pigs, sweet potato and fighting wars with his neighbours on the next ridge.

He has learned of peace, love for his neighbours, as he organised 80 of his students and workers to assist in Banda Aceh after the tsunami. I think I will follow his type of religion.

Philo, I would be very pleased if you could explain my religion to me, as it seems you won't answer questions about your own. I had the opportunity to spend time in the Highlands of Papua in the 60's and again recently, so I would believe I have knowledge in the how life there has changed. Even though I met some good christian people, their only aim was to convert and they refused to accept any difference. We can all see what the situation has become in all countries invaded by the religious. It is all well and good to drag out the headhunter scenario, but that only brings up the current invasion of Iraq and the unabated slaughter of the people there by the christian and Islamic right. It would be very enlightening for us all if you were answer our questions, Why don't you answer the very good questions neohuman asks, why won't you address the doubts of others when faced with the reality of what the christian religion really represents. Why won't you explain the actions of christians during the Spanish inquisition, and the thousands of women killed in the name of god because they expressed or looked different and were branded as witches. What about the indigenous people that have been slaughtered over the centuries, explain where that fits into your gods plan of love and tolerance. It seems that your brand of love and tolerance only goes as far as the believers, everyone else is branded as just cannon fodder. Come on, what about the question posed to you about evil. After all, it was a christian that started this debate, “ the scandal of christianity”. So we are just expressing how scandalous it really is. Sorry I forget, we don't discuss fact, just head in bible stuff. How will you ever convince us of anything to do with christianity, if you refuse to explain its approach and implementation within the world and why it is so.

gw
It is of the essence of populism to call anyone who delves deeply into a subject elitist. Populism sees itself as the great leveler, no one may stand higher than anyone else or have any more authority than anyone else. I understand the antinomy towards so called experts, the increasing professionalization of all aspects of life that is just a front for high fees. Perhaps we should call the lactation consultant in maternity hospitals “the milk lady”. However, you may not need to know much about astronomy to see that the sky is blue but you will need some sophisticated physics to understand why it is blue. Is that elitism?

I know that some of my posts seem obscure and I apologize for that. Part of the reason they seem obscure is that we have come so far from an orthodox understanding of Christianity, there have been so many theological mistakes in our time of modernity, that it is difficult to clear the air. As I have repeatedly tried to explain, the God that Christians worship is not the god that modernity has given us. This is the major obstacle to understanding and the major reason that Christianity is abandoned. It was only in the beginning of the last century that the Trinity was rediscovered in Protestant theology (by Karl Barth) and this has not filtered down to the pews. Most Christians still believe in the monadal consciousness of modernity even though the liturgy beings in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit. It is necessary, in order to recovery lost theological concepts, to go into the theological workshop as it were and to do some hard work. It is very discouraging that this hard work is not being done in most parishes let alone in the lives of unbelievers.

The difficulty involved in making the jump from the god that modernism has left us to the orthodoxy of Trinitaritian thinking cannot be underestimated. It requires some effort. That is not elitism, it is simply challenging theological work.

Sells, have you noticed that atheists have become increasingly sensitive about the imposition of religious perspectives on their lives? There is a reason.

The current conservative swing of the pendulum is perceived as an infringement on the rights and beliefs of others. The following link to the Washing Post exemplifies the reason why. Christians are becoming politicised – this is at the expense of an inclusive and egalitarian society.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/03/AR2005070300908.html

For you to propose that non believers should take up theological studies in order to ‘prove’ to you that non believers still don’t believe is evasive of you and is bordering on a game in semantics.

I attended Sunday school, I began to question the existence of God at age 12, by the time I was 15 I no longer believed – I literally couldn’t. The hypocrisies and inconsistencies and the lack of relevance to the real world prevented me from believing ever again. I am now 51 and have investigated the ideals of many religions from Christianity through to Buddhism. Buddhism relates more to living than anything else does.

I would love to wrap a protective coat of religion around me, rather than face the fact that I alone am responsible for my actions. That would be an easy way out. Instead, I stand on my own two feet responsible for my actions, my mistakes, my life. I do not seek to impose my POV on anyone.

Your claims that critics of Christianity get it wrong reeks of grandstanding on your part. Then to state that without intensive study in theology none have the knowledge to disagree with you is highly offensive and insulting to many people's intelligence.

Please pay your fellow human beings the respect of their right to their own beliefs.

Different religions have differing views of time. One view of time is that it had a beginning and will have an end. Religions that take this view of time include Christianity, Judasism and Islam.

Another view of time is that it is cyclic, or rather, eternal. You're born, you live, you die, you're reborn and so it goes, on and on, ad infinitum. Religions that take this view of time, I'm told, include Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

The best scientific opinion we have these days is that time, matter and energy did indeed have a beginning. I understand that this is part and parcel of the Big Bang - whatever starting conditions are postulated. It is also required by the laws of thermodynamics; for if entropy is always increasing in a closed system and the universe is a closed system (which it must be, by definition) then the universe cannot be eternally old or we would already be in a state of maximum entropy, i.e., the universe would be heat dead. But it isn't, therefore the universe is not eternally old. So if you're wondering why we shouldn't regard all religions as equally true there's a good start for you. You can forget about Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism at least.

If it is so that the universe had a beginning then at some point there must have been no universe at all; not any particle of it. That is, as far as the material universe is concerned, there must have been nothing before there was something. Since you can't get something out of nothing (and even anti-matter is not nothing) there must have been something outside of (external to, greater than) the universe and that brought it into existence.

Anything powerful enough to do that surely deserves the name God.

The problem then, for people with the heart to search (and who, perhaps, can't stomach mythopoietic, existentialist, abstract hooey) is to find out who or what is this astonishingly powerful and creative being who made everything both on earth and in the heavens

2.

My own view (simplistic to some but reasonable to others) is that any being powerful enough to form the universe out of nothing (or, as Francis Schaeffer says, nothing-nothing - because he first had to make the nothing to put the something in) is certainly capable of leaving a record of what he (in the traditional, inclusive sense of "he") has done so that we, who have some capacity to appreciate what he has done, might come to know something of who he is, why he has done this and what, if anything, he requires of us, his creatures. So off you go. Go look for it. Those who really want to find it will find it. He will make sure you do.

Neohuman,
Your question was not specific so I will answer it in general terms. You ask if I believe in a pluralistic society. You might note my previous constant defence of democracy, rather than the enforcement of a totalitarian world view upon society. I believe in following one's personal conscience (convictions), the right to free thought and expressions, the right to practise ones personal religion provided it does not violate anothers personal choice or remove the right of freedom from another. That does not mean I cannot interact with other world views to learn or influence the basis of their personal ideas. That is the essential part of human communication.

The basis of a religion is ones attitudes, beliefs and values that form actions and reactions to the world and especially how I relate to other people. It is our personal philosophy or world view. In Christianity these are based in the nature of God. Christian faith is not believing in a past record of history, it is believing in the interpretation of history that opens ones future to greater experiences. History is His story, the revelation of the moral character of God in man.

In living as a Christian it means personal reconciliation of conscience a belief in the forgivness of our personal violations against the holy character of our Creator God, the knowledge of His presence in our lives, and that we believe there is a better future.

Sorry, I could not post to your question earlier because of forum rules. Your previous post coincided with mine, so I was not ignoring you as some have suggested

Trinity,
Your post is rather curious, since you do not wish to "I do not seek to impose my POV on anyone. What is your point in posting on this forum. Untill you stop posting and relax with a cup ot tea and let this debate pass by you are not seeking to impose your POV on others. Don't pretend you do not wish to influence or impose your views on others.

Your emotive defence in the following article indicates your insincerity.

"I would love to wrap a protective coat of religion around me, rather than face the fact that I alone am responsible for my actions. That would be an easy way out. Instead, I stand on my own two feet responsible for my actions, my mistakes, my life. I do not seek to impose my POV on anyone.

Your claims that critics of Christianity get it wrong reeks of grandstanding on your part. Then to state that without intensive study in theology none have the knowledge to disagree with you is highly offensive and insulting to many people's intelligence."

jrm
I think the whole nexus between science and religion is confused as I pointed out in my article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=439

The scandal that I was pointing too is that Christianity points to a God revealed in the history of a grotty little nation in the middle east and in the life and death of a travelling teacher. This cannot be equated with any universal idea of God who created the universe. Our problem is that as soon as we have creation in or mind we automatically think of cosmology. Paul, for example, when he talks of God creating somehing out of nothing refers to the resurrection of Christ. The Christian doctrine of creation is not about how the world came to be. It does not share the field with modern cosmology. Rather, creation is linked with salvation, how we become truly human.

Sells,

Many thanks for responsing to the barrage of posts on this thread - and I have a lot of respect for your clear view on Christianity.

Just one quick question relating to your last post. If Christianity is not not 'about how the world came to be', then does this mean the Old Testament is irrelevant? How does this tie up with the events at the end of the new testament, where God's plan for the end of the world is described? Surely the God depicted within revelationis the sort of all-powerfull god we have been discussing?

Could you elaborate a little more on your final statement 'creation is linked with salvation, how we become truly human'? It went over my head slightly :).

cheers,

gw

Gee Philo shame you're so easily confused - see I made a hyperlink about christians getting political and how this is imposing their will on others. Following your logic (that posting an opinion is imposing a POV on others) that means everyone here is imposing their will on others - are you really that absurd or were you just being nasty?

Why are christians so arrogant - I thought jesus was all about being meek and mild and generally being nice to one another. But then I didn't graduate from sunday school, maybe to be a christian is to be elitist and arrogant.

I think in my previous post I sounded anti christian - not true. I just have a problem with smugness and arrogance.

i am very interested in differing POV's when presented in a reasonable and friendly manner, such as the following:

"THE BISHOP'S VOICE
If I Have Seen the Future of the Church, I Do Not Like it

by John Shelby Spong

There are people who think that Europe or North America are the most secular parts of the world.

But I would submit that this "honor" is held by New Zealand and Australia.

Recent polls in New Zealand indicate that 84 percent of the population of this nation claims no affiliation with any organized religious body. Specific estimates for Australia were not available, but educated guesses by competent observers suggest Australia is not significantly different. So the reality is that a majority of the citizens of these nations has moved beyond the boundaries of the traditional religious frame of reference. They are citizens of what Harvey Cox once called "The Secular City." That, however, is only half of the problem. The other half becomes obvious when one analyzes the make up of that decreasing minority who still do claim religious attachment. They are overwhelmingly of the evangelical, fundamentalist Protestant or the conservative Roman Catholic tradition. They are basically ghettoized religious enclaves out of touch with the world in which they live."

Read on at http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox21297.html

Now I can relate to Spong - don't necessarily agree, being an atheist, but I find him very accessible.

Sells, has Spong got it wrong?

Philo>In Christianity these are based in the nature of God. Christian faith is not believing in a past record of history, it is believing in the interpretation of history that opens ones future to greater experiences.

Hi Philo thanks for the reply. I don’t think many would argue against a ethical accommodative approach to pluralism I just wanted to see if you believed the discredited all roads to God or by default only Christianity is true and one must infer that the others are human constructs.

At least you hit it on the nail it’s not about facts or history it is revelation through myth and while you would not see it as such “blind faith’.

Back to what I said in an earlier post if Christianity is TRUE all the other faiths are by default are human constructs.

If these sincere spiritual people cannot tell the difference-if there is one- between a true belief and a human construct then to be honest you would have to concede that it is possible for Christianity. Similar that people if they know what they are talking about must concede we could be deceived by a evil spirit or along the lines of the Matrix that the world around us is not real.

The trouble with you and Sells you see something that is possible –Divine Christian creator- but deny other accounts either naturalistic or other faiths which are also possible scenarios.

An intellectually honest Christian would indeed take the line you took in your last post but concede that you do so on Faith and that you cannot know or think that it is conclusively the one true faith, and indeed Christianity may in fact be a human construct with nothing to verify its meta-physical/theological foundations.

Gw an atheist may acknowlege that even though while the natural world operates quite fine without needing to postualte a 'God' there in fact may be one. Having said that there is no indication it has to be the Christian God nor do you escape by definitional tautalogy where God came from.

I wait with baited breath to Sells definition of what "truly human is". The introduction of Spong is a welcome change as with trinity, I am amiable to his understanding of the christian church. Philo's statement, "I spent time yesterday with a wonderful educated Papuan man whose father was a head hunter in the jungles of West Papua before he became a Christian. He is here in Australia educating Australian people on his training Colleges in Java and West Papua. Ask him is his life is better today than farming pigs, sweet potato and fighting wars with his neighbors on the next ridge.” So only christians are well educated. Having spent time in that country, I object to the put down of their way of life. Who is more educated, the christian who walks around the jungle in their long clothes and shoes, destroying the environment and way of life that has sustained the country for thousands of years. Or the papuan who wears no clothes, lives of the land, never gets lost can describe to you every plant, animal and insect there is and how to utilise it for every day life. Wasn't it the so called educated christians who brought the European diseases to this country that have wiped out so many. So who is more educated, I will stand beside the naked papuan any day and dig sweet potato's, something I have never seen from missionaries anywhere. As said earlier, religion is for those that refuse to take responsibility for their lives and can't even equate their beliefs to current scientific research. So if a christian god is real, wouldn't it be logical that it, (god) is aware and keeps abreast of our scientific evolution, Isn't your god progressive, or just sits firmly in the past with all other illusionary relics. Then again, the big bang may be the result of your god over inflating his ego. If this were true, then god is amongst us in big bits and little bits ever expanding to infinity. But wait, his next message to us may be, burp.

The alchemist,
Your world-view is so ridiculous it does not even deserve a reply. I cannot understand why you prefer to use modern technology rather than return to live in trees. Obviously you also contribute to the destruction of pure aboriginal culture. I have myself lived in the primitive bush, and grown sweet potato, and raised pigs. My post was to make a contrast of his life, not to degrade a people who are my dear and close friends. I have many close friends in the highlands of West New Guinea, and threes families now attend the same church in Australia. Several have lived with me here in Australia while gaining education at their own desire. Indonesian is transmigrating Muslims into their area and occupying their land. They are bringing with them Philippino AIDS infected prostitutes in an endeavour to cause racial genocide. Fortunately many of them are university educated and are able to take their place in a modern world.

The alchemist,
Your arrogance, ignorance and irelavence defines you.

Quote "I will stand beside the naked papuan any day and dig sweet potato's, something I have never seen from missionaries anywhere."

You obviously have never worked with missionaries in West Papua as the current head of Evangelical missions in West Papua is that very same man. All the villages currently survive on pork and sweet potato and introduced fruit and vegetables. My Church supports a trained farmer assisting them to develop a more diverse diet. One of the boys who lived here is establishing the exporting of native timber and importing of dairy products because they want to participate in a our world.

One of the girls from New Guinea with 3 University Degrees after her name and Masters in microbiology dealing with bacteria in health medicine has higher intelligence than most people I know, is proof that the evolution of the human genome is a falsehood. In one generation these people assumed to be primitive are our intellectual equals

Gw
Our problem with the creation narratives is that we cannot help but see them through the eyes of natural science. This is to impose on them a world view completely strange to them since the writers did not see nature as mechanism. This is obvious from biblical research that reveals the circumstances in which they were written. They were the culture wars of the time. The first narrative, the creation in seven days was written while in exile in Babylon and were composed in response to the Babylonian creation myths that would have it that the world was created out of the dead bits of Gods. Most good books on Genesis will deal with this, the best being Westermann Gen 1-11. Without going into the details here, my point is that the creation stories were never written as a description of how the world came to be in the way modern cosmology attempts but a theological natural history whose aim is to delineate the relationships between God and the creation. Whereas the Babylonian myths would have the world as remnants of the God, Israel would have it that the world was completely devoid of spirit i.e natural. Israel thus separates out spirit and nature leaving the way open for the development of natural science. For how could we investigate the nature of the sun if it was really a god?

It is completely misleading to think of these narratives as a natural cosmology written 500 years BC when Europeans only began to think of the cosmos as mechanism in the 16th century. The creation narratives are theological documents and are essential to how the Judeo/Christian tradition understands the world. They are true not as scientific explanation but as legend. Unfortunately, the immense success of natural science and the technology that it has produced has removed from us how legend may also carry truth.

Claus Westermann, suggests that an alternative reading of the first verse of the bible could be: “At the beginning of God’s creating…” This is a subtle shift from the usual “In the beginning…” because it puts the emphasis on the continuing creative activity of God. So when we come to the verse in 2Cor. 5:17 “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” we know that the creative activity of God continues as saving act, as the power to transcend the self. He does this by giving us a new type of human being in Jesus, the new man, the new creation. This highlights our mental habits that turn us towards the creation stories whenever we think of God as creator. But even there God creates a world in which the covenant of grace can be played out. The history of Israel and that of the life and death of Christ have to take place in time and sapce. The creation stories set that place up, a place that is not God, is material and not a dream, is dominated by time, contains the freedom for man to rebel, but is essentially good and not demonic. We forget that the creation stories are the prelude to the rest of the bible.

Just as the creation of the world is not historical, neither is the end. They both are necessary to complete a history of time. The end time described in Revelations is necessary because biblical time points to a goal, it is linear. This work of the imagination is a projection of the fulfillment of all things when every tear will be wiped away, it is a sign of hope that beckons us on. When it is treated like a future prediction existing in time it is prey to cranks.

Yep philo, muslins who are at fault, they must be. The christians didn't commit genocide against the native populations of the world, it was in the name of god and good for them. Yes, it is better to deforestate Papua, import dairies and the diseases associated with them. Sells, are you saying that your god doesn't live within time or space and is separate to our universe. When you talk of time and space, aren't you talking about concepts. Time and space are that, concepts created to make sense of things that surround us. Isn't this legend you talk of, the gospels or creation theories, just concepts. You state that here man can rebel but on the whole,“essentially good and not demonic”. Explain the destruction of the environment, the constant violence perpetrated by religions around the world The enslavement of animals so that the religious can exploit, torture, then eat them, as not demonic. Take into account the millions of people that have been destroyed in the name of god, or in spreading the word. Why is it that most pedophiles are from the church. Explain why the majority of crimes against humanity are carried out by god fearing people. It is all well and good to go quoting scripture, but before anyone outside the programmed indoctrination of religion can accept any of this, explain why you only answer questions that fit within biblical expression and won't explain the situation that religion has created on this planet. But then your next step may be to revert to the time old honored approach of religion, if you can't convert them, condemn them or kill them. That is the approach the christian religion is taking around the world. If this way of life is so great, why is it destroying everything those that follow it touch. After all it is the religious who are at this moment controlling the world, and it is not in a peaceful manner. Maybe your god is both good and evil, if so you have it covered and can pick and choose to suit the day.

I have a post to follow about "truly human"... but first a comment regarding the cuckoos who have flown into Sell's nest to make it their own.

Besides being uncharitable, as opposed to honest dissent of thought, their reactive rants appear to me to be devoid of a desire to know; they read as more an arrogant position of claiming a "knowledge" of what "is not" in the world. That we are not "of God", exclaimed as a personal resentment in place of thoughtful deliberation as expressed in other contributors.

Peter Sellick's contributions deserve cogent responses, not rabid rants comprising the most obvious and debunked narrow viewpoints of human history.

I know my contributions are made with the full knowledge that my faith in a man from Nazareth being the Son of God is an offence to reason as an absurdity, and that it is understandable for people to hold that position in the absence of a faith sought but not found. It cannot be argued for or against, only evaluated, in informed awareness and honesty, as being for better or worse in the human journey, to date and into the future.

My understanding with reference to Sell's expression "truly human".

It is to be whole, as is to be "saved, redeemed" ; man desiring of God in response to God's call. It is a becoming, NOT a formula as expressed " Jesus is my Lord and Saviour" = my salvation and redemption.

It is more truly developed and experienced in the muck of life, than in the pristine world of tidy, comfortable parish life, or of late happy, clapping prosperity bargain worship.

It is a response to a God who willed us into being on a planet the equal of which beauty and goodness is yet to be found in the vastness of God's willed existence of galaxial matter; a God who chose a people in history through whom He sought to reveal Himself and His desire for us to be His people; a God who willed a human life into being to walk our journey of grit and dust, fun and laughter, joy and sorrow, to teach truths to bind us to Him in the face of fatal religious autocracy; A God who remained in Spirit with those who responded to Jesus to embolden them as a scared few people to take His message to the world and across generations to come.

Where God is truth, than being fully truly human is the desire for truth, expressed in a loving life of service and purpose defined in one's response to Jesus's call, "follow me" on paths he has walked in a shared humanity. To be patient, to endure, to live, to love, even your enemies. In a way, it is an enlightened self interest in attaining peace and joy in the midst of the "truly human's" consequential life of turmoil.

Where God is not truth, or is not, than let truly human be what you make of it to suit your rational self, generally to be confined by what is reasonable for oneself to attain/maintain one's peace and joy in life.

The Call To God

The Chief Rabbi of Israel and the Pope are in a meeting in Rome. The Rabbi notices an unusually fancy phone on a side table in the Pope's private chambers.

"What is that phone for?" he asks the pontiff.

"It's my direct line to the Lord!"

The Rabbi is sceptical, and the Pope notices. The Holy Father insists that the Rabbi try's it out, and, indeed, he is connected to the Lord. The Rabbi holds a lengthy discussion with Him.

After hanging up the Rabbi says. "Thank you very much. This is great! But listen, I want to pay for my phone charges."

The Pope, of course refuses, but the Rabbi is steadfast and finally, the pontiff gives in. He checks the counter on the phone and says: "All right! The charges were 100,000 Lira."

The Chief Rabbi gladly hands over a packet of bills. A few months later, the Pope is in Jerusalem on an official visit. In the Chief Rabbi's chambers he sees a phone identical to his and learns it also is a direct line to the Lord. The Pope remembers he has an urgent matter that requires divine consultation and asks if he can use the Rabbi's phone.

The Rabbi gladly agrees, hands him the phone, and the Pope chats away. After hanging up, the Pope offers to pay for the phone charges.

The Rabbi looks on the phone counter and says: "1 Shekel 50!"

The Pope looks surprised: "Why so cheap!?!"

The Rabbi smiles: "Local call.

Rainier, nice one.

MJB

Yes, the cuckoos have made a real mess of this page I have often been tempted to tell them to go and play somewhere else.

One being human. One of my favourite lines in scripture comes from the first letter of John:

(1 John 3:2 NRSV) Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.

This seems to get it right. It does not tie us down to mere imitation of Jesus since that would be a limited work confined by our conception of him and would lead to a dependent relationship in which freedom would elude us. Rather it leaves the future open as a work of God and trusts that when the final revelation comes we will be found in the image of Christ. In the wider biblical view this process is a reversal of the fall, the loss of the image of God.

A quote from Master Subramuniya:

"You have the power to break through the thin veil of delusion into the consciousness of knowing that you, yourself, have been the creator of all you attract."

Sells, look in the mirror, what do you see?

Trinity this is as hopeless as the creation science crowd that has been over at Margo K's Blog. In both cases we have people like Sells who trot out sophistry and think they have been honest and charitable, but not only that, we have their supporters who couldn't spot a rational arguement if their lives depended on it.

Combine this irrationality with the charismatic churches you don’t have to think just feel good mantra and a whole generation of brain dead Christian parrots and soon we will have Creation Science taught in schools, things homosexuality illegal and women at home minding the kids like the Promise Keepers

Where are the moderate rational Christians on this blog?
I would love to see Sells in an interfaith discussion trotting out this garbage and see how far he gets.

BTW notice the silence from Aslan where has been heated debate between Sells and him over Aslans literalist creation science views or the fact that only one Christian has questioned Sells radical departure from the all powerful God concept to his non-existent hole in the donut God, a God that isn't really there.

The great thing about theology is that its infinitely flexible and there is no way to verify it. Sells can shape his God into basically any concept and it still cannot be touched.
The only thing he fails to realize is that he grants this for his own faith but not to others therefore creating different theological standards of ‘truth’. There is no point in discussing anything with such a person as there is no point in discussing science facts and the absurdity of creation science with Aslan both are incapable of rational discussion.

Well said Neohuman. I thought Sell's posted this article to have a debate. Being in the christian church, I should have realised that he was just trying to boost his ego. We are cuckoo's to have the audacity to question. I agree with your last post. "(1 John 3:2 NRSV) Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is"). Maybe it is a time of revelation and christians are being seen as being like him and he is being seen as he is. God is there for all to see in Iraq, Israel, Africa, Europe and the America's. Sell's You look upon myself and others as below you and can't be listened to, because we are ignorant. It isn't worthwhile trying understand what you are saying, your description of 1 John 34:2 is a modern translation and not from the original text, so is useless for any real debate on biblical text. You dismiss Bishop Spong, me, having spent years ordained in the christian church, working throughout Sth East Asia and having just a measly PhD in theology, really doesn't count when placed with your illustrious understanding of sematic waffle. I don't quote scripture, why discuss something that has been discussed until it means absolutely nothing. At my age, it is much more rewarding to understand christianity from other viewpoints, then one can encompass the entire of gods kingdom and not just the narrow bigoted fanatics who only see themselves and the power they think they can achieve. Pity, we all may have learnt something. I do like being the devils advocate in religious discussions, it shows who has love within their hearts and who has war and madness. Sell's lot, get the madness. Sell's it's a pity that you even put yourself above your god and his understanding of the life he created, but thats natural for blind zealots.

The Alchemist it is like having half a dozen people with one door and all saying there is different things behind the door when they have no evidence that there is infact anything behind the door.

Again Selles wants us to have a mature rational discussion when all he is saying he is right, he knows what is behind the door -but then again he saying there isn't so maybe he is just a confused atheist-
there is no evidence to prove or disprove it, nor can we use rational arguments to analyze it, just accept that he's, right all the other guys are wrong by brute fact not by any reason or evidence.

In these sort of dicussions even a strong atheist will confess no I don't know the OT NT God doesn't exist but nor do i know that the Hindu gods don't exit or that we are infact all living within a Matrix.

Until Sells realizes he too much make similar concessions that he is not using reason here but simply making statements of faith -that he doesn't allow for other faiths- he is wasting our time.

Sells stick to preaching to the converted or the gullable.

I read the article to which you referred me. It explained a few things and led me to feel quite concerned for you.

You wrote, "The target of my criticism includes all general belief in God, all easy theism that is disconnected from the life of the church and the scriptures it celebrates." Good. Australia is full of people who say they believe in (a) god. The trouble is that the god they believe in is, "my god"; the one about which people say, "My god wouldn't ......(insert phrase here, e.g., allow children to suffer terrible diseases, allow a tsunami or earthquake to kill so many people, send my father and all my friends to hell [paraphrasing Mr C Darwin])". These people exalt a god of their own devising, one that seems good to them but is not the God of scripture. Don't you do the same thing?

You want people to give themselves to Jesus. Good. But who is the Jesus you're talking about? You seem to be a follower of existentialist theology which says that most of scripture is myth. There were no miracles and there was no resurrection. Your Jesus is mythical. Why do you want people to give themselves to something that is "myth"? Why not ask people to give themselves to the fairies at the bottom of the garden? In the (fantasy) literature they're probably recorded as saying we should be nice to our neighbour. If everyone was nice to their neighbour that could be a cure to many of our ills. What would it matter if it was a god who recommended it or fairies at the bottom of the garden?

--- 2 following

--- 2

You wrote, "The first narrative, the creation in seven days was written while in exile in Babylon". What makes you so sure? Have you read Josh McDowell on the refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis? If you are so willing to doubt the veracity of historical passages of the Bible shouldn't you be equally willing to doubt those who cast doubt on those passages - men who lived many, many decades ago and who, necessarily, didn't know what is available now for us to know?

Do you know that human beings seem to have a built in mechanism that makes them look for causation? Sometimes it causes them grief because they confuse correlation with causation. But the fact is that human beings are made to seek patterns, make correlations and identify causes. It may be that you have worked long and hard to come to a position where you can feel comfortable with calling yourself a Christian while denying the historicity of the accounts of the events which produced it. Maybe you grew up in a church culture, don't know anything else, think it's pretty good and therefore can't see why anyone else should think differently. But everybody else is not you. We all have our own histories and our individual histories give us a particular view of the world that is different to yours. These are our opinions based on our experience. What will bring us together? Only a universal, or an absolute, combined with a desire to know what that is, if it exists.

Jeremiah 29:13 "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart." Have you searched with all your heart?

Thank you JRM Aslan, Philo, or the other regular posters should have pulled hime up on this by now.

We are waiting for your reply Sells.

BTW the crowd who say faith and science are outside of each others areas and so cannot comment on either, are ignoring the fact that the supernatural or Divine in the case of Christianity intrudes into the physical world -we are not talking about a Deist God- so it is open to scientific investigation.

The Alchemist please pop over to Margo's Blog http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang/001242.html
it would be handy to have someone who can back me up if they start throwing Biblical passages at me.

The relationship between history and myth, I would prefer ‘Legend” has been a thorny one since natural science has confirmed the material nature of the world. As I have tried to point out, scripture is a mix of pure legend written in an historical context and interpreted history. In a prescientific culture it was easy to postulate supernatural interpretations on historical events. A similar process occurs in our day when we Australians look back to the events at Galipoli and talk about the birth of the nation. The historians will recount no such birth, they will only recount slaughter and mismanagement. Likewise if we had historical documentation of the escape from Egypt we would not see the sea parting Cecil B De Mill fashion. The historical basis of the story may be that the wheels of the Egyptian chariots got stuck in the mud but when the nation recalled the event it became more and more embellished. There are actually two accounts that have been cut and pasted into the scriptural account, one with naturalistic explanations like the sea being driven back by a strong wind and the other account that describes the sea standing in walls.

The biblical scholars I know do not believe that God intrudes into the physical world making a mess of science. However God does act in history in a similar way that the myth of national formation acts in history or the idea of communism acts in history. The statement that “God raised Jesus Christ from the dead” need not mean and indeed the scripture denies this interpretation, that he was bodily resuscitated. For example, one meaning is that he was vindicated, that he was not in fact judged on the cross but those who put him there were. Paul interprets cross and resurrection in terms of a victory over the “elemental spirits of the universe”, those powers abroad even in our day that dehumanise

Any belief that relies on the existence of nature miracles is on shaky ground. All sorts of questions arise. Firstly we must posit a world “back then” different from the one we experience in which such miracles do not happen. Secondly, what does belief in nature miracles point to? Such belief may point to an alternative understanding of the nature of the world in which natural law may be put aside, a very questionable proposition, but they do not point to the corpus of Christian teaching about the event of Jesus. They do not point to the victory over the elemental spirits of the universe, and the overcoming of the law of sin and death. To base faith on the occurrence of nature miracles just makes us superstitious, we might as well believe in alien abduction.

In John’s gospel Jesus sees that some followed because they believed in the signs that he performed and he did not trust himself to them

"Flatter me, and I may not believe you.
Criticize me, and I may not like you.
Ignore me, and I may not forgive you.
Encourage me, and I may not forget you."
- William Arthur

This quote is for er.. umm whatsisname?

Sells,
God is all powerful? God created all? IF these are right then…

God chooses the method and style of his miracles. God may OR may not intrude on the physical world (i.e. He may conform to the physics of this universe or not).

Where then in the problem with the beliefs of the Christian faith?

Sorry, I may be a cuckoo or ignorant but I don’t see the point of your argument any more.

Just Dan
My point is that the philosophical attributes of God do not apply to the God Christians worship. When you say god is all powerful what do you mean? For Christianity the power of God is hidden in weakness, God reigns from the cross the position of absolute weakness. We need to stop reading the philosophers whose god is a mere projection of human ideas and listen to scripture. This is the scandal that is the original idea of this article.

'We need to stop reading the philosophers whose god is a mere projection of human ideas and listen to scripture.'

OK I will:

"We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)
We should love God (Matthew 22:37) "

A scandal indeed.

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?