One thought that is true no matter your belief system, "You are shaped by your experience."

A belief in a God is a personal belief.

How you behave in the world will determine how you are received. If you proclaim a belief in Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, you shape the opinion of that belief system. You're belief system is judged by others based on how you present yourself and that belief to the world.

Any other argument for or against religion and its legitimacy or illegitimacy is ultimately irrelevant.

I'm content to let people believe what they need to, to survive this life, and be comforted when bad things happen to them.

Once again at the risk of repeating myself, personal responsibility is all that matters. Be accountable, and everything else will take care of itself.

The puzzle for me is how apparently normal intelligent beings can bring themselves to write a sentence such as this:

>>While the secular order can only rely on our desire for peace, Christians point to an historical event whose power reaches down through the ages and is active in our midst.<<

The "historical event", as far as I can tell from the densely packed prose that precedes it, is the story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise.

In what universe can this parable possibly be considered to be an historical event? It is a story, told by elders to the next generation, to reinforce the need for obedience.

If this is a belief held by a particularly narrow-minded Christian sect, so be it. Everyone has to have some form of emotional crutch to get them through the day, and religion is "mother's little helper" to many.

But in talking to the rest of the world, it is customary to recognize that not everyone shares your credulity. Taking a moral fable, dressing it up as "historical fact", and using that to remonstrate other peace-loving people, is an act of aggression.

Mr Sellick states as much in his article - "we are also subject to judgment from others and this brings enmity between men" - but proceeds to judgement himself without a second thought.

>>So peace for Christians is no ideology but an established historical entity that exists with or without our consent. This may be contrasted to all of the good intentions of the peace movement who think that all we need to do is to desire peace and peace will break out all over the world.<<

Once again, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who believes that they need a religion in order to give their lives some meaning that it would otherwise lack. But I do detest being lectured by them for not accepting Adam and Eve as real characters from history.

Where is BOAZ David ?

Coyote, I was wondering the same thing about the silence from our old friend Boaz. I thought that he would be in there with all his biblical quotes, poring over the minutiae of the article. Here's hoping you are well, Boaz.

Pericles - great demolition job of the article's central premise. The rest of us non-believers can hang fire when you are on the job.

Pericles, the historical event was the cross, not the expulsion of adam and eve.

Peter, I have a question regarding judgement. You speak of the moral wilderness, but I am not quite sure weather you are saying we should not judge ideologies, or just not to judge actual believers (who will generally differ from the ideology).

Thanks for you article, it is a pity that many refuse to come to spiritual/religious ideas with an open mind. Christians on this forum are often called out for arguing with Islam (after doing at least some research). The atheist contributors declare that the christians are being closed minded, yet when a Christian article (or conversation in the forum) comes up they are quick to disparage our beliefs as offensive to the intellect. strange world.

Dear Coyote :) *here I am*

I guess there are some comments which could be made here.
Sells has actually articulated very well the problem of original sin.
The fracture of the relationship between the created and the creator.

One might even suggest an almost inevitable consequence of being given 'choice'.
But the important thing in regard to what is theologically described as 'The Fall', is that it is followed up immediately with a promise of redemption, and reconciliation.

Sells said:

"The proclamation that Jesus is the judge of the world is good news that sets us free and breaks the cycle of violence between men."

Indeed he is "Judge", but first and foremost he is Redeemer and Saviour,- Sin bearer and forgiver to those who wish to fully apprehend the reconciliation offered by our Creator.
This dual theme was preached by Peter to Cornelius the Roman Centurion (Acts 10)

Pericles in inimitable style dismisses the whole concept at 'a crutch', but I've yet to meet anyone who did not in some way 'limp' :)
They just use different crutches.

I worry a tad when Sells seems a bit wishy washy on the Resurrection, I always gain the impression he thinks is doesn't matter so much if Jesus really did rise bodily, or that the idea of such a thing is the important point. For me and on any reading of the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15 in particular) without a real historical resurrection there is no 'Faith', only stupidity.

I have to draw Pericles attention to this issue as well. Paul knew very well what a 'crutch' was and went to great lengths to show that without a true resurrrection, that is exactly what faith in Christ is, a crutch, but with the real actual resurrection, the Gospel is that transforming, renewing redeeming power from the Real God who 'is' there.