I did try my best to get Sells to ignore most of the less well 'informed' question/argument (including mine which i feel were included in his 'very bad theological essays' remark, presumably he has had to mark some of them in his past life?) and answer at least one intelligent question here (ideally Oliver's).

We still await, but with hope (faith and charity) rapidly diminishing.

In the interests of fairness i have to correct one less-than-perfect statement of mine (although i stand by all those facts as opposed to mere opinions i have presented here). I imperfectly accepted one other human's view of the derivation and meaning of religion as coming from re+ligare, to re-bind or re-join (man with God).

While this can possibly be taken as literal in one particular case i now feel (after doing my OWN research and not relying on others for info) that Religion in English was a term intended to convey a way of life that required devotion to a supreme power or deity to which one devoted one's self to, over that of the individual's own will, in all matters. Religion translates to monastica in Latin, from which our terms monastic and monastery also derive which perfectly represent what 'religion' actually represents.

It is only my assumption but i believe Sells has experienced such 'religion' (devout way of life) personally and possibly still does in some form or other.

How does God exist? In human experience? - Through such devotion to 'Him'/It is probably one correct answer, equally as valid as any.

In the abscence of commentary from the originator it is probably best if we move on from here. There is still much i could add but will do so in other posts.

BD,

You have company in the waiting room. ;-)

Sells, I feel, regreted his own post, afterwards. Actually, I thought it opened the way for some valuable discourse. Albeit, I wish he would finish one job, before moving to the next.

Sells,

Please address my questions. I feel what I ask is clear. Thanks.

BD et al.,

My apporach has been to emphasise the HOW, in "How does God exist?" The architecture: the construction. History and anthropolgy vechicles to study the said building of gods. Psychology and neurology can explain how beliefs are reinforced.

What concerns be about Jesus Christ is how undifferentiated the product is. His architecture mimes that of other religions of the period and the conduit to the population-at-large existed for other gods and other purposes millenia beforhand.

Sells sees the 999 religions having the atributes as JC as myths, but the one product, known to have the characterics of Alexandrian gods and other gods, is accepted. Like, as mentioned before, saying all the elements on the Periodic Table are elements (myths) but not Zinc (JC). Even then, JC (Antioch)evolved from J only.

IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK...

I posit that the elements on the Periodic Table ARE elements. And, further, Myths evidenced by clearly identifiable attributed ARE, yep, MYTHS. Herein, I posit Zinc is an element and Christian Trinity/ Godhead is a MYTH

Oliver, I feel when it comes to matters theological we are but solutes in Peter's pure theological solution. I have appreciated your efforts to question from an historical basis and what you have said makes a great deal of sense.

Relying on religion to fix social or any problems at all is irrational, hence delusional and twisted. This is my concern and this new article from Peter offers quite convincing evidence. Just for starters examine our Peter when he says ..."We miss the point that the peaceable kingdom can only be brought about under the tutelage of the one who is both creator and redeemer." If we are to seriously believe Peter here then petrified or stock-still in his mindset is this belief in a superior creator and redeemer from whom all else in existence derives. However, in other articles, Peter will spin something quite the opposite. Why?

Oliver,

I understand your approach but not the basis for your rationale.

WHY are you attempting to 'disprove' Sell's belief?
For His benefit? For your's? For some undefined 'others'?

What do you hope to gain by your posts?

ALL Human thought is imperfect, we are imperfect beings. Therefore trying to correct imperfection is fairly pointless, i am beginning to believe. If we make a correction of one fault it does not actually make us any less imperfect. It's just not in our nature's to replace one incorrect belief with a 'true' one.

Sell's unwillingness to answer MAY perhaps be taken as some acknowledgement of innaccuracy in his own post, or it may just be my imperfect guess of a stranger's motives/thoughts.

Sell's seems to recognise the importance of having ONE thing that is unmoveable, unshakeable from it's position of impermanence in one's belief upon and around which to base all of our other thought, else we just build our 'houses' upon shifting sands and they will crumble in on top of us one day.

You (nor I, nor Anyone) can convince Sell's otherwise or his Universe and life would implode leaving him as bereft of pupose as the rest of us, who would all be vulnerable to the same fate if our 'rock' was put under similar scrutiny.

Today, armed with four centuries of Scientific thought and enlightenment 'reason', secularists feel confident enough to take the clergy head on and rationalise away their 'gods' and 'religion' ( although not one of them shows they understand the word accurately)

And yet they have no firm foundation upon which to base their solid 'reasonable' argument. They are as full of myth as are the religious they accuse of unreason.

What is the 'starting point', what axioms do you chose to adopt?
How well would your base stand up to scrutiny? or do you operate from a null origin and create something out of nothing?

For anyone who cares: Mine is that 'God is the sum total of everything that was, is and not yet is'. Lets see anyone tear that apart.

How does God exist? Compared to what?

How (or even whether) God exists in one person's belief is entirely up to them. One person attempting to 'logically' argue that another's God does not exist is inherently and fundamentally a flawed argument, just as we are inherently and fundamentally flawed beings while trapped in our physical world/shell.

Kieran's comment of 'relying upon Religion to fix... problems' is as inaccurate as is the 'God is responsible for all wars' fallacy.

There is only one 'thing' that is responsible for all wars and there is only one 'thing' that we 'rely' upon to fix problems. It is the same thing. it is NOT 'God. It is MAN! - US! WE, you and I are responsible, or those men we let decide such things for us. God or Religion do not make the choices.

It's always left up to the imperfect, misunderstanding, fallible ape-like creature that is still on the first rung of the evolutionary 'ladder'. He may sometimes try to use the supernatural to form his (imperfect) judgement upon or rely upon superstition to gain support of his fellow apes in his desire for conquest, but in the final analysis it's just down to... US.

Religion originally was a term to define 'a way of human life, dedicated to a divine perfection' beyond human capability under more 'normal' circumstances. It was an effort to achieve scrupulousness, exactness in our ways and abilities.

As ever modern man has putrified a glorious objective and turned it into a mere sham... or at least many of us like to think that in order to feel better about the mess we live in.

It may be a good time to take a long hard look at one's self and see the error of our own ways before accusing other's of theirs.

But when has any man ever taken such advice seriously??

What percentage of us would be bothered listening to Jesus or dropping everything and following him if he came back in person today?

How many would be holding out the nails and bits of wood?

Are,we,so,perfect?