It seems as if we have forgotten society here. It is all very well for learned ones to get their rocks off on fact and measurable truths, and scoff at we “weaklings” who carry a faith; what about those amongst us who just get on with life as good souls who are struggling with life's journey across barren country in their lives for whatever reason.

We need joyful and comforting words in our stories, which as a whole carry an intrinsic challenge to each listener. The words of rationalists are so intelligent, though frightfully barren. There is of course a place for them; but not in the public discourse of human affairs.

I feel that much of what Peter writes is towards freeing up people caught in the 'old time religions' that are on their knees after 500 years of Reformation and Counter-Reformation antics. Formulaic salvation, doctrinal dreariness and unreflective babble.

As a society we need the freedom for us to feel okay about referencing our "of Godness" in the public square whilst eschewing the style and language of a pulpit. And if we reference back ( not preach) to Jesus Christ and the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of his Church on matters human in the exposition of some public policy, then that is as valid as someone quoting Freud, Darwin, Marx or Adam Smith. And there is plenty to reference back to.

The paucity of the human spirit in the public square today demands we draw on our story, our deep roots of Christian culture, even in the light of its overstated faults. After all, is not the story about a path to live life to its fullness? Has it not been the wellspring of all that is good in our western culture? The rightness of learning and the systems for it to blossom. (continued)

Soren Kierkegaard wrote of the Absolute Paradox: that of Jesus the man being God - you accept it in faith or you reject it as an affront to reason. We of faith support that it is okay for others to adopt the rejection position. It is after all a personal choice in life. Yet, we have not cast off reason. It needs to be present in our understanding of things as they are within the faith realm which encompasses all of life and its wonderful stage.

And so when it comes to development of public policy, then we will again put up our stories as being the undercurrent to true civilization in which human flourishing is assured.

There is no real surprise that in the world of politics there seems to be a review of many social and economic policies set in place in the last 50 years. Their excesses or straight foolishness are coming to account. They sounded so rational and full of intelligent goodness at the time.

It is a fact that the vast majority of our population ascribe to the Christian “stories” rather than being bitterly opposed - the latter position being well represented in this Forum; much to Peter’s bruising. There is a yearning for something of more substance; there are ears to hear our civilisation’s stories. Those of secular rationalism had sounded so rational, so right, so intelligent, so cool. But in the end they have been as empty as a resounding gong and cymbals clashing. They lacked something essential

Boxgum,
The problem causing the rejection of Jesus Christ being God is that many espousing this truth base their definition in a false premise. That Jesus was born God on Earth, and Mary was the mother of God.

God is never defined as a spatial being, though personified images of him having hands, arms, a breast, a right and left side are meant to give us mental pictures of things in our spatial world. Those that define God as trinity endeavour to place the human Jesus into Godhead. This is where they come undone. God is not a creature man: and creature man is never God.

The spirit [the presence] that is God is manifest in Christ, even as it should be in our lives. God is spirit, not a spirit or ghost. God is that eternal spirit that was manifest in Jesus Christ character, attitudes, actions, and wisdom. To reject God or the existence of God is to reject the character, attitudes, actions, and wisdom as expresed by Jesus Christ as the template of human behaviour.

Faith in Jesus Christ is not merely defending his existence, but that his life and character is very God. We are defending spiritual values, not natural chemistry. "We say love your neighbour as you love yourself"; this is a spiritual value that we believe as truth, it cannot be reduced to natural chemistry and still have the same meaning.

Quote, "Soren Kierkegaard wrote of the Absolute Paradox: that of Jesus the man being God - you accept it in faith or you reject it as an affront to reason. We of faith support that it is okay for others to adopt the rejection position. It is after all a personal choice in life. Yet, we have not cast off reason. It needs to be present in our understanding of things as they are within the faith realm which encompasses all of life and its wonderful stage."

Mhoram
First of all it is insulting to insinuate that I “peddle” anything in these pages.

In my theological training we were not just spoon fed doctrine. That may be the case in other denominations but certainly was not for where I studied. Theology must always begin over from the start, nothing must be just assumed, everything is up for grabs. However, a severe cynicism will not be helpful. If we began our chemistry studies with the cynical view that molecules are a figment of our imagination then we will not get far. All studies require some belief as a starting point. This is true of theology which is best described as “faith seeking understanding”. But that does not let us off from a critical and enquiring attitude to all things.

Monotheists like the wind, swing in whatever direction they hope is favourable for their theory.

Sells, its insulting when you peddle hearsay and unsubstantiated delusion. As we have theoretical and applied physicists, so it appears that Sells is a theoretical theological scientist. Unlike physics, the applied theologians can't repeat, apply or quantify the theological theory.

In chemistry, we can see the event, or molecules, with god we can see nothing. To equate the belief in an psychological illusion with a viewable physical event, then change the illusion to try and represent it as equal to the event and an event in itself. Surely is the act of infantile minds, not capable of understanding beyond illusional superstition.

I believe I understand where Sells, Philo and co are on the evolutionary path. They are between a primitive un-evolved mind set and the evolved mind which sees the past as the past and sees the future to be opened and experienced without prejudicial and restrictive fears.

Psychological evolution, can be seen in all its varieties, from very primitive understanding's, to those who view existence as an open challenge to constantly move forward in our understanding. That view, will free us from the restrictions our stature in the universe places upon us.

We see in children how they fictionalise life in an effort to support their lack of true understanding and come up with all manners of fictional situations and existences to verify their illusions. Its the same with monotheism, they continue to put forth changed illusion after illusion in a vain attempt to convince us of the unconvincible.

Against the evidence, they roll out the theory that a belief in god has been good for the planet and can't survive without god. The infantile mind does that, to avoid the reality of their misunderstanding.

I have had a delightful time in the last couple of days reading various views on the nature of religion, science, post moderism and the philosophy that underly these thought processes. I think most of it is interesting but unecessarily semantic. The sad fact about Christainism (and other literalist religions) is that the belief system is based on written "revealed truth". In the case of Christianism this "truth" is recorded in the New Testament (and to some exent Jewish scripture). It is ONLY from these sources and verifiable recorded history that the value of this "truth" can be assesed.

Unfortunately most "academic" theologians begin with belief as a starting point. They are already infected with the religious meme years before they even attempt rational investigation (Peter?).
(BTW. I wish someone would give me a fancy degree and title for the many years I have spent evaluating scripture.)

A critique or promotion of Christian beliefs cannot be made without reference to scripture and recorded history associated with those writings. It is encumbent on the believer to demonstrate, using scripture, the voracity of their claims. Peter does this to some extent but fails to convince me of anything about Christianism but more about what his particular world view is (as interesting as it is). I can't recall the scpriputes mentioning rationalism or the Post Modern concepts mentioned by Peter. "Give unto Caesar...."

Chistianism, although containing embarrasing elements of pagan Greek philosophy and religion, is not negotiable, it does not give the believer "wriggle room" because if it did it would not be something revealed but rather something that can be developed like politics or philosophy.

Forget comparisons with science. The two thought processes have nothing to do with each other.