Not being a theologian, I tend to look through Sells' pieces for sentences that can be understood by the layman, to use as possible signposts to the point that is being made. Here, I found many sentences that I could understand from a literal point of view, but few from which I could wring any meaning.

However, the article spoke my language - I thought - in two places:

>>The assumption was that we were all Christians and we thus all believed in this God. That is just what Christians do... but what worries me is that critical theological thinking only goes so far and then cops out when it comes to the question as to how God exists. There is an element of double book keeping here<<

Aha, double book keeping. The keeping of two sets of books, like the corporate plunderers of Enron. Makes sense - a foot in both camps, as it were, one view (God exists) for public consumption, and another (God cannot exist) held privately. Could be seen as hypocritical, I suppose, but then we all have to make a living as best we can.

But then Sells comes back to the theme somewhat differently later on:

>>Christian worship can be astonishing and can be at the centre of life as long as it is saved from the double entry book keeping that places God somewhere else and from the deadening naturalism of the scientists.<<

Double entry bookkeeping is a fish of a totally different colour. It is the means by which an accountant can record a transaction in a way that ensures the books will always stay in balance - one entry in the debit column (nearest the window), and another exactly balancing it in the credit column (nearest the door).

But as Sells would readily admit, there can not and never can be a balance between scientists, who speak only of what they can observe and test, and the theologian, who is free to invent, colour and embellish at will, without the tedium of a discipline that ensures a consistent and credible outcome.

REALIST said:

1/ “Make no mistake about it, I want to believe”

COMMENT: this is indeed good news !

2/ “why would any rational person take a punt on one of them when you have the likely chance you will pick the wrong one and possibly follow false prophets/gods? (EXCELLENT_question.)

and

3/ “Your chances of picking the right one lies with luck and your culture, and that is IF it existed. So what is a person to do?” (another great question)

RESPONSES.

1/ as Jesus would say “My son, you are close to the Kingdom”

2/ “by their fruit you will know them. Can good fruit come from a bad tree ?”
Meaning ? this is referring to false prophets.
“Many will come saying “He is here.. there.. do not follow them”

TEST: Panders to carnality....or not.

Realist mate.. the ‘many books’ by ‘many authors’ is not an insurmountable problem.

Have a read here first:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
It won’t convince you, but it will (I believe) encourage you to a higher objective confidence level.

Then..have a look at the real world contemporary hooks used in Luke here.

LUKE 3
1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

COMMENT
Note the words ‘Annas AND Caiaphas’ is a historical hint which is supported by Josephus. Normally there was ‘one’ high priest.. but here it mentions 2... this is so accurate it ain’t funny. Luke was thorough, reliable and trustworthy in historical matters....why not also spiritual ?

3/ The RIGHT one.

I only know of one faith where its founder died for mankind then rose from the dead.
As testified by http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

There are many pagan myths, but they are just that- myths. Gods fighting,chopping each other up... good grief.
Christ....is the ‘right’ one.... no question about that. Forget about‘which denomination’.. just look to Jesus.

Sadly I do not grasp whatever is the main point that Peter is striving for. I am not without preparation, having been an ordained minister with a bachelor of divinity and a masters in theology. I realise that communication between humans about the ineffable is a big ask, so I am not knocking Peter. But could it be put more simply for a struggler like me. I won't put a label on my "faith" but I believe in a "something that is beyond any likelihood that I will find out about" So, I give up, I am an agnostic. But I also believe that there are heights to human existence, experiences of being aligned with something good and the possibilities of good and evil. I value knowledge about how others have struggled with the meaning or lack of meaning about existence and what is good and bad, and in my best moments I crave to be a contributor to the good - that I suppose makes me a secular humanist. But, I have given up on hoping to know anything about God. Sure it is sometimes interesting to know about how some others have struggled with the idea of God. So I would like a clearer, and perhaps braver description from Peter about what he means when he refers to God. Is he just as secular as I?

I'm rather echoing Fencepost's sentiments here, I think..

"The increasing detail of scientific knowledge fails to ignite the spirit, tell us who we are or trace a hopeful trajectory. "

Well, that may be true, but what of it? That's not the purpose of scientific knowlege. It may have undermined a belief in God, which may have done those things, but such is the price we pay for having a better understanding of reality. There may well be no answer to the question of who we are. There may be no hopeful trajectory capable of being traced. If we want our sprits ignited, we'll have to find some other way.

"The way should be open for modern men and women to become believers, there is no essential conflict as regards the nature of the physical world."

So if I were to become a believer today, what is it that I would believe? Therein lies the problem. The moment you start to enumerate the content of the belief you lay it open to scrutiny, and few are going to be willing to believe things without a better justification than that doing so will make them feel good. We know that snake oil has been sold before, and found wanting.

If we started out from scratch with our current scientific understanding, but without being weighed down by the religious baggage loaded onto us by our less scientifically enlightened forbears, would it even occur to us to invent a God, in whatever form, in which to believe?

Sylvia.

I can't accept the bible as being the Word of God at all. In the main it is just spin on the part of the various authors to justfy their perceived position of the tribes of Israel and Judah as God's chosen people. Its authors are the original "spin doctors".

On the position of science, your statement that "The increasing detail of scientific knowledge fails to ignite the spirit, tell us who we are or trace a hopeful trajectory. " I will have to stoutly disagree. I would suggest rather that the more science discovers, the more we should be in awe of the magnificence of God's creation Those who would rail against scientific discoveries are denigrating the work of the Creator.

Ever since our species had time to draw on the walls of caves and reflect upon the awareness of self,we have yearned to escape our mortal chains.Spirituality is difficult to define.It seems to be our aspirational self wanting to escape the pain and mundane things in our lives.

Under our democratic,secular society where all things are questioned,there is nothing to replace the moral and ethical constraints that religion once put on our behaviour.Religion is not based on fact,but it served a purpose of putting constraints on anti- social behaviour.The West is in serious family/social decay and seems to be oblivious to it's imminent destruction.Our present dilemma is how to replace the constraints on the negative attributes of our humanity,that religion once facilitated.

There is no way the Muslim Hierarchy will ever accept democracy,since it means a dissolving of their powers,and the eventual decay of society that they are witnessing in the West.The legal disease has replaced common sense and community spirit.We have rights with few responsibilities peppered with bad manners and self indulgent egotism.

As Muslims become more powerful,so will we see the rise of other fundamentalists religions,primed,ready to take their turn in the sun.