Sells,

Thank you for your recent replies.

If you are typical, the Christian theology college graduate is not, “elitist”, rather complacent, self-righteous and self-satisfied. All-to-confident in that only they have answers. .

I find it strange one so knowledgeable can’t address the clear issues, I have raised, which have much to do with the rules of history and behavioural sciences, not merely theologies. Herein, I am not examining the life of one person using theology. In examining, “ How does God exist?”. I am using a suite of disciplines to answer YOUR question.

Basically my questions/comments to you are:

· Why adopt an a priori position in analyses?
· Alexandria was a god factory.
· History shows many gods share characteristics (theocracasia)
· OT gods and the NT godhead follow the same common pattern as
divinities of that period.
. You say, “BUT my god is the only EXCEPTION”. All the others are
mythologies.
· I retort with the Periodical Table metaphor, which you ignore.
· I posit the question, “why would a REAL god on a supreme mission
cloak Itself in the guise of a MYTHOLOGY?

I truly can’t see why these matters are too vague to answer. Here, I am saying, when analysing events, it pays to NOT hold preconceptions, triangulate disciplines on the locus of study and IF your god is real, why non-fiction manifest as fiction?

A PRIORI, we must answer the above, before any theological college teachings.

Herein, I am reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre (1963), whom asserts, “ Philosophy and Theology [I would add history and the behavioural sciences, Oliver] desires to offer a meeting place for thought of contemporary theologians and philosophers … without partisan or a priori assumptions [Love that part, Oliver] about the way the meeting may best be used. No doctrinaire scheme underlies the choice of titles, nor the editorial plans”.

The Historians you would serve to vilify and having less knowledge of events than you, are Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, Caroll Quigley and William McNeill. Now, that DOES put you in an “elite” company.

Please answer my questions.

Sells,It is really good news that you have finally seen and agreed that religion is a selective people authority and NOT a God's creation.
So once agian :
God is a TRUTH ,religion is a belief for that TRUTH.
Also God has no religion.So God is no christian,no buddhist,no Hindu,no Muslim etc.No body knows if HE is SHE or for that matter SHE is HE.or Even Human. HE has a larger role to play then just perform some medieval miracles in Mediterranean deserts.

And therefore,if a belief claims that it is the TRUE path,then it is lie. Because, as you rightly agreed and claimed that Religion is a belief held by a authority of selective people.
And a belief is a belief and will remain a belief.A belief cannot be a TRUTH and will NEVER be a TRUTH.
So if a Religion[read belief] claims to be supreme and ultimate TRUTH then obviously it is a lie.
If universities began to teach this belief ,then it would tentamount to teaching lies.So we are better off separating religion and education.

Sells,

The growth in knowledge in Western knowledge visa~a~visa did not come from theology. Rather, Episteme and Techne fused, resulting in the Great Divergence (c.1760). Many disciplines have specialist words used differently than in everyday life. To an anthropologist the word "caucasion" does not mean "white", but is a skull shape.

Christians often refer to Pilate as governor or proconsul. He was a prefect. The position of proconsul did not exsist untl 60 CE. Look at the Michelangelo's, "Moses". Christians thought he had horns! [actually a mistranslation of "light"] So, we do see, theology uses very specialist words, and, very wrong words, until corrected by historians and linguists. A medievil Sells would have assumed the a priori the Church knows best and maintained the established teaching.

Religionism occurs in history, in response to ecologies: The product is culture (e.g., state, family, community) which acts on the Self to reinforce (Skinner) or divest behaviour. At the level of soliciting superstitious rites, these conditions will even work on chickens and mice.

If one places a glass panel in a fish tank. A fish will learn where the panel is and turn to avoid it. After the panel is removed said fish will not try to venture into the otherside of the take, because it has learned not to do so.

Sells and other religionists, please remove the pane of glass, but don't tether all understanding to gods - first case. Don't turn back on the centripedal forces of theology. Instead, swim to the other side of the tank, and objectively apply multifarious disciplines to question, "How does God exist?.

[Thanks, Sells, I wish I had thought of your excellent question,.]

Oliver,

Didn't you read any of Sells' recent remarks?

He hasn't answered a single question you or anyone here poses because he CAN'T!

He can't because none of us here have proven our qualifications to challenge his supreme elitist authority in matters Theological, in that, before we could possibly pose any question worthy of Sells' consideration, we would firstly (a priori) be required to have studied NT Greek (and Old Aramaic and Hebrew), church history, Old and New Testament studies, and systematic theology and presumably have passed examinations in all these from a recognised degree factory like Oxford or Cambridge, otherwise our knowledge could not be considered 'practical' and hence worthy of his consideration.

I have removed the pane of glass and am learning to swim into the religion 'side' that was previously unfamiliar to me.

Sells,

Unlike Theology, Chemistry and Physics rely soley upon disprovable experimental evidence any pleb can repeat for his/herself upon which is built 'solid' theoretical understandings/Science.

'The hysterical outpourings on this comments page tell a long story of neglect and ignorance. '

Hysterical?

Quick definitions: (hysteria)
noun: excessive or uncontrollable fear;
neurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks and disturbances of sensory and motor functions;
state of violent mental agitation.

Who but the elitist Theologians are responsible for that neglect and continuation of ignorance, pray tell... oh sorry i forgot,... you can't dicuss this intelligently with one such as i.. can you?

Taking the simplest, most basic concept known to any aboriginal(personal spiritual connection to Universal God) and raising it to the most elite form of human knowledge only accessible to a miniscule minority of academics who are incapable of survival on their own without the assistance of the plebs.

You sure have come a long way in 5000 years Sells - you should be so proud.

Writing the article on this forum and then refusing to engage in OLO'ers comments: you're pathetic!

You won't even ignore the 'drivel' i and lochinvar and others have spouted and deal with an intelligent question, you coward.

I dare you to step out of your intellectual ivory tower.

Peter is concerned with the concentration levels of solutes in his pure theological solution. LOL

Well of course this is indicative of the theological. deductive mindset in the first place and explains the disenchantment. Like. how can we have a knowall discourse on the gods if there are no such teddies to be found? If the subconscious message is one of "simply believe, and it will be so" then isn't this inothing more than this cultural codification of ancient magical thinking or more emphatically a disorder of perception It seems that seek and ye shall find is useless if one hasn't developed the ability in the first place to find. Isn't it much better to build up from facts using induction .... where it is find and ye shall seek. Isn't this where true imagination is found as you comprehend infinity and infinite possibilities?

My question for Peter is if as a theologian and scientist you believed that a certain effect had no material cause, would you then ever be motivated or capable enough to find a cause? Like for so many people our human mind has this tendency to think with finite closed systems and impose this notion onto everything. The problem here is one of the deductive mindset where it tries to solve but makes things worse because it doesn’t comprehend that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. Certainly this is a pathway to disenchantment.

However isn't it the inductive mindset that perceives everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole, that is undivided, unbroken and without border, which flows to orderly action and along with it to the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally unhealthy.

DROPPING THE BALL

BD,

You are correct. Indications are Peter CAN'T answer the questions posed. Herein, he has dropped the ball and moved onto a new article,seemingly, without completing this thread.

I tried to encourage him to avoid a priori approaches and double standards. No luck.

At least, he didn't use the Catholic's, "It's a mystery of the Church", retort.

ANY CONTRIBUTORS FROM SELLS' NEW ARTICLE

If you have joined us from Peter's most recent article, please have a look back over the past eight or so posts. What do you think?