Sells claims: “So when Christianity is rejected even the old baptised authorities of the ancient world must also be rejected.”

We can choose the best of the ancient world, Christianity ,Buddhism, Plato, Hinduism or whatever – it is up to us. All philosophies have something to offer.

“In our day we have ensured that most people believe in nothing, in the nihil, in the name of freedom.”

Who are these people that Sells keeps referring to? These people who apparently believe in nothing?

Really Sells is trying on a very simple message, dressed up in religious rhetoric.

The message he wants people to believe is that freedom of choice leads into nothingness.

There is no evidence for this.

What he does posit as evidence is religious dogma, that is, to blindly follow a particular version of Christianity or nothing. Anything that does not fit his belief system is rejected as either evil or nihilistic.

For all that I loath Howard’s government – particularly the IR ‘choices’, at present I am still able to make decisions for myself. Whereas, if someone like Peter Sellick was in control, we would indeed, be in a dictatorship. No choice, no room to breathe, no variety – 1984 fundy Christian style.

Boaz - "The 'atrocities' committed in the name of Institutionalized religion, show us the evil which resides in man, not in the faith itself, when that faith is in Christ."

I couldn't agree more, and this was the point I was making in my first post - I mentioned the atrocities committed in the name of institutionalised religion to point out that it was people making these decisions - even if they adhered to a religion that preaches pacifism.

People - be they christian, jewish, agnostic, hindu, buddhist, muslim or otherwise are capable of committing violence. They're all just people.

The main thrust of Sellick's article seems to be that if we were all christians all would be well and good - okay so there would be less religiously motivated violence... though the same could be said if we were all agnostics adhering to a certain moral code.

So if we could all be forced into some moral/religious/spiritual subset - basically all adhering to a single ideology, then our potential for violence and moral decay would be reduced.

Well you know what?

It's not worth it.

I don't necessarily want to adopt your beliefs, do you want to adopt mine?

Not necessarily?

Well then it's a good thing you have a 'choice' then isn't it?

TURNright.....

The idea that if we were all 'Happy Clappers' :) i.e. Christians, that all would be perfect... is indeed naive. I don't think Sells is suggesting that, esPECially not that anyone be 'forced' into something like faith.

But, having lived in a country where there are conflicting religious traditions, and seeing the results, including race/religious riots I assure u we would be much better off with a Christian flavor across the board. Look at Cronulla for something closer to home.

But at the same time, don't misconstrue a 'cultural fabric/texture/legal system' which has a strong foundation in Christian ideas as anything other than people expressing their legitimate democratic right.

There is no suggestion that our social system would ever involve people being forced to embrace a faith, just as it does not involve people with faith being forced to deny it.

But ask yourself this, if you had been brought up from prep to grade 6 with your class opening in Prayer and suddenly you were told "You are not ALLOWED to do this any more"... it gets pretty close to forced denial. At least in the cultural sense it is.

The culture war in the USA is about 'social texture'. The ACLU is deliberately seeking to alter many accepted aspects of culture which reflect the Christian foundations of America based on a misunderstanding (and misuse, even ABUSE) of the constitution on separation of Church and state. Personally I REJOICE that the 10 commandments are on some plaque at a Court, its my democratic right to enjoy it. They are seeking to FORCEably take this part of my life enjoyment away.

If a community has accepted traditions, existing over 200 yrs, then suddenly some moron says "Woah.. I don't like that, I want it removed"
Should he have that right ? Personally I think that to seek to remove a vital cultural icon is irresponsible ..even cultural apostacy :) and I don't think such a "right" exists.

If so, it brings us to the reality of politics where the votes are what counts.

So, it cuts both ways :)

Sells states: ” What has happened is that choice has displaced faith.”

No it hasn’t. When choice replaces faith it means taking responsibility for our actions. It is about learning how to make decisions based on experience and accrued knowledge. People CHOOSE to believe in the supernatural or not. Some people even manage to both believe in a religion AND make independent choices.

“There is now no room for either Abraham or Mary who, when God appeared to them with the promise of a new and startling future said simply “Here am I”.

First one has to believe that there even was a Mary or Abraham for there to be no room for them. Sells assumes that everyone believes the bible is accurate.

Sells further states: ”The feminists would protest at her passivity in the face of an obviously male angel.” I am not disturbed by (Mary’s) passivity because I neither believe in pregnant virgin women or angels. I AM disturbed by religion’s continual subjugating of women.

Sells, again: “While we are told that we should be the best that we can be, that we should strive to create a life, even make a difference, achieve our goals, strive for excellence” he proceeds to take issue with this without explaining clearly why there is a problem.

When Sells says that Abraham and Mary’s obedience is the abnegation of choice. He implies that obedience is something that freedom of choicers eschew. Wrong again, I am obedient in that I uphold the laws of our land – that’s how humans manage to live with each other.

Somehow all of Peter's articles lead to a similar theme, an Orwellian theme that suggest Christians are more equal than others.

Boaz, you are partly right that scientific reasoning did not come from Allah, but you must admit that it also did not come from early Christianity, nor from early Judaism. However, even before the life of Jesus, intellectual Jews strongly attended the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt, which had been planned and built both as a tribute to Alexander the Great and Aristotle, Alexander's teacher - as well the the other famous Greek philosophers of Greece's Golden Age.

There are also suppositions that the young Jesus might have attended the Great Library when he spent some time in Egypt with his mother Mary.

Bringing in genuine history again, Boaz, it is a fact that Greek reasoning has had much to do with the success of Christianity. Certainly Indian culture has had some effect, but nowhere near the extent that the Moorish Islamics gave when they opened the learning centre in Toledo inviting all and sundry in a type of Ecumunalism including Golden Greek reasoning, something very much needed in the Middle East today - as well as probably in our own society

Wow, all that gospelly gibberish is the neatest form of nihilism I ever come across. Wait til my invisible friends hears about it.