Sells, can you follow this train of thought a little further for me please?

>>Our problem is that secularism has produced so much propaganda supporting its case that we no longer see what it is hiding<<

The most widely-used definition of secularism is "a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations".

The problem with the use of the negative - in this case rejection - is that it only has relevance when standing next to its positive, in this case religion. It does not exist on its own. It has no life or relevance of its own. It is therefore quite difficult for it to be "hiding" anything, on its own.

The propaganda that Sells alludes to can therefore by definition be merely defensive. In the absence of religion, there would be nothing to propagandize about secularism. In fact, there would be no need for the word to exist at all.

Secularism cannot possibly have, by definition, any agenda save illuminating the flaws and fallacies in the concept of religion. It does not confer power, or provide any emotional or spiritual sustenance. It is simply the everyman defence against the dogma and emotional blackmail associated with theology, and against the creation of a theocracy.

Nice try Pericles. Are you really saying that the evils perpetrated by the secular French revolution was just the result of the absence of religion? What happened was that when we threw off the old regime in the name of freedom we adopted another secular religion that bore bitter fruit indeed. I get tired of pointing out that what followed the revolution was Nazism and Communism, both anti Christian. And all this time we are told it is the fault of religion! Well, it is in a way, but not the religion of Christ. If the blood letting is really due to the absence of Christianity, let us have Christianity back!

It is about time that you recognise that a large shift is occurring that undermines the old modernist project and your kicking against the pricks will result in nothing at all.

Philo.
Interesting take on Babylon and Job, do you have a reference?

Sells,
The only text I have is from my 46 years research into the original Paleo Hebrew text, its development as drama and historical background. How it's been misinterpreted by Christians since the Hellinistic Jews endeavouring to be true to monotheistic removed all the original names of God /gods in the Septuagent, which has subsequently led to the view presented by Catholic doctrine of Satan believed by the Church. This view was deeply influenced by Zoroastrianism and its dualistic world view.

I've written 160 page research commentary which I want to publish after theological critics have evaluated and commented. Though I am not a Hebrew scholar I've carefully with the use of lexicons and word studies and observation tried to be honest to the meaning of the text. I've included a translation of the text into English upholding the names of God and gods found in the debate.

I've sent a copy to my former lecturer, Professor David Cline of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield for his comments. He has written a two volume World Biblical Commentary on Job.

From my view David is merely staying with previous Gnostic thought written on the book, the book is far richer in thought and the defence of monotheism than modern commentators present. It is not about suffering it is about who is responsible for the nature of mortality, with the conclusion that not all suffering is attributable to sin; this Jesus clearly taught. Job denies this to his counsellors who accuse him of sin against El; however YHWH vindicates his purity in the last chapter.

Compare Elihu's defence of El in chapters 32 - 37 where El [god of the earth] is attributed with giving the wild beasts their nature with YHWH's more dramatic statement of his role in creation, chapter 38 - 42.

If you would like a copy of my research for criticism send your postal details to philolipos@bigpond.com and we can communicate directly. To print and post this would cost about $25 or on disc about $10. If you give critical comment on the text I'll wave the cost.

"And all this time we are told it is the fault of religion! Well, it is in a way, but not the religion of Christ. If the blood letting is really due to the absence of Christianity, let us have Christianity back!"

Well clearly that little theory is flawed lol. Just look at history!
Christianity has done its share of killing and still does. George W
is a prime example right now.

Yes, there have been secular regimes who killed. Usually however not democracies, but despots. There are plenty of nations with either secular or buddhist beliefs whatever, who are not into
bloodletting. Clearly religion is just another major reason why people go to war. If muslims and jews did not have religious differences, they would have little to fight about. Perhaps they could learn from those bonobos and make love not war :)

Did your Xtian popes not send their crusaders off to kill? Was Hitler not a Catholic?

Sells, your theories are seriously flawed lol.

If logic is the basis of all thought, it is the basis of all thought about the existence of a teddy (theology). Since theology purports to make rational statements, then theological statements are subject to rules of rational thought, as are any other statements.

So in that sense, perhaps Peter may like to examine this situation and make some rational comments.
i.e.
Professor Ian Harper, an Anglican lay preacher and financial markets expert, and now the head of the proposed new body to set minimum wages in Australia (the Fair Pay Commission) says ..... "For me as an individual, I will be resting on my faith and my belief in God in helping me reach balanced decisions."

Perhaps in Philo's case, because he seems to know this teddy very well, is this Harper joker going to enlist his teddy to fight mammon or as I suspect, his teddy is all for mammon?

ps
All this stuff about people and their need for an imaginary teddy is top shelf insanity.

Keiran,
Spot on! and a very good example indeed of religious belief scaring the rest of us out of our wits.
I was agog last night watching Lateline. Was this guy serious? are low wage earners now subject to the whims of the god of an economist?
I was waiting for Tony Jones to ask Professor Ian Harper if his god actually has a policy on low wage earners. I can't find a mention of it in the good book.
If Peter is worried about being duped by secular rationalism then he can rest assured that his lot are worrying us more.
I have yet to see a public official state that decisions will be made on the basis of secular rationalism.