Time has now come to discard the futility of "religions" claiming their authority to "God".

God cannot be defined,confined,authorized by a religion.God cannot be bounded/claimed by some medieval belief[read religion] held sometime by medieval humans at medieval times on Earth .

Religions are just a set of beliefs,rituals,rules and regulations held and promoted by people at particular event of time and subsequently followed by followers.They claim their path is the way to know "God"/They even Humanize God[:-)] and claim who so ever believes in their belief is a true human being.[:-)] and rest are under grip pf Satans :-)].

Religion should limit their limited knowledge to moral values and good ethics.The concept of God is tooooooooo complex and tooooo vast to be claimed to be a proprietary of a medieval religion.

This article has generated the most disappointing comments yet. Usually there are some worth of reply (Pericles came the closest) but comments have quickly degenerated into the usual drivel. If there could be a case for formal study of theology in our schools and universities the comments on this page would suffice.

Braindrain,
I think you’ve made some thoughtful comment with regard to Gnosticism. It continues to be regarded as somewhat of a heresy by some. Rather than mere apostasy, Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Contemporary research indicates that during the first three of four centuries A.D. there was as yet no true orthodoxy and thus no heresy either. Instead, many opinions on religious matters, including gnosis, flourished side by side. Certainly there were disagreements, but to arbitrarily extrapolate standards of falsity and authenticity from these polemics does not seem justified. Sells may well be frustrated and indeed legitimately call some of the ‘stuff’ here “rubbish”, but, as with Hawaiilawyer he merely disenegages people (even if I might agree with some of what he has to say).

Gnosis can be referred to in the early Catholic authors so too with the Neoplatonic, the Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis (Carl Jung) are gnostic too, Blake and Yeats were gnostic...

The perennial question is, “How do we ascribe meaning or interpretation to words?”
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things".

Sells you are just a writer and one whose ability, perhaps like the rest of us, to articulate is not very good. You are not OLO's resident godly writer. The "drivel" you whinge about is in response to your article. Maybe you aren't as good as you think. Maybe it is your elitist and patronising carry on that winds people up. Maybe that is just the nature of OLO.

You asked an unanswerable question: "How does God exist?" What did you expect the Masters of Theology to rush to OLO and marvel in wonder at your intellectual prowess? It was hard going reading all those posts, but I love that we can be exposed to other people's ideas and thoughts.

Numbat I am a litle confused by your response. I was mocking the idea of eternal hell, of Sells reference to God as an object after arguing that He wasn't an object. He did this by calling God "God Himself". "Himself" suggests human characteristics.

My portrayal of Satan as "good" was what society generally regards as good characterisitcs in a person. I was mocking how these things can be used by bad people to suggest goodness.

If I have crossed the line, tell me what the line is and I will try to respect your boundary. Nothing personal.

Numbat, even though I disagree with some of the things you say, I hold you in high-esteem and regard you as a person of goodwill and character

ronnie peters: Sorry I confused you, there was no intent to do so nor offend or belittle you. No you have crossed no line as far as I am concerned and you are more than entitled to your beliefs.
It's difficult to talk religion when church language is used by others. Church language is totally at odds with God's way, with the Bible so one is prone to come across as pompous or somewhat confusing. By the way this does not in any way make me superior to you or any one else. Any knowledge I have has been given to me for whatever reason.
Thank you for your kind words I will try harder to live up to them. Regards, numbat

BrainDrain and Haiwiilayer,

1. Relda is correct, Christianity didn't stablise until after over three hundred years. Even then, the Latin and Orthodox church split. The first 10 to 13 bishops post-Jesus were Jews.

In the beginning there were small Jesus sects. The gospels were written decades later by writers borrowing the aspostles' name. A convention to assert authority. Only the favourite stories were widely distributed, because copies were expensive to make. The Latin gospels were pretty much in place c. 187, about ten years after Hadrian exciling the Jews, including some to Pella. Those worshippers, whom renounced Jewish faith and allowed Gentiles to join were permitted to return to the Holy sites by the Romans. The roots of Christianity.

Another branch stayed in Pella, later moving to Syria. These guys wrote the Gnostic gospelslater. At Nicaea (325), these theologies clashed... divinity, the trinity and the like.

2. I tried unsuccessfully, to post some equations with comments to demonstrate how time can be created "from nothing".

DaVici Code,

A fiction. The Meroveringians dynasty started in the sixth century. The god involved was Neptune.

Sells,

Your article has drawn interesting comments.

In your reply to me, it was good to see a tilt towards objectivity regarding, "How does Zeus exist"? But, I felt you seemed relunctant to stand back and view the topic, afresh.

Let's try this:

- Guantama Buddha
- Attis
- Dionysus
- Krishna
- Adonis
- Zocaster

All of the above are alleged to have had virgin births. Just the same, Mithras (Mithra) is more interesting, because

a. The virgin birth took place in a stable (c. 600 BCE)
b. Mirthas held a sacraficial dinner
c. Mirthasism uses a eucharist
d. There is judgement and, heaven and hell
e. There is baptism
f. There is a resurrection story
g. The Romans recognised 25/12 as Mithras' birthday
h. Mithasism was Hellenised
i. Jesus grew up in a defunct Greek city-state
j. The Trinity was not Christian doctrine in the first century CE

Peter: "How does Mithras exist?". No double standards or definitions, please. How does (that) God exist?