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).