Sellick says: "The experiment with rational secularism has demonstrated the fragility of the reliance on reason alone and has resulted in the abandonment of reason. Christianity offers us a way of rational reflection on the real and therefore a solid basis for being in the world. The real cannot be reduced to individual subjectivity but is to be found in Israel-history and Jesus-history."

In a world where there are no absolutes, Sellick attempts to paint christianity as one. The fact of the matter is, theology represents a sliding scale. You can't have secularism without the concept of religion and vice versa.

The 'abandonment of reason' Sellick refers to is exaggerated.
The society that is being condemned here is that of the secular west. The only thing we have to gauge the success of this society, is what we can compare it to, and when compared to religious regimes, it comes up as the most reasonable one out there.

Now the concept that the west is an inherently christian society is a valid point - but if it's basis is inherently christian, then what of the 'abandonment of reason' caused by secularism that Sellick points out? Using this argument represents a catch 22.

The only way to make this argument valid is to point to a past years in the western world that were more 'christian' and then ascribe the blame for today's ills on the fact that this religiosity has been lost.

I submit however, that it is not the decline of christianity, but the combined forces of a rise in population, a rise in conflicting aspirations (on the individual and national levels) in conjunction with a rise in encompassing media. Put those together, what do you get? the people of ancient rome lamented the decline of their world as well...

the more things change...

I really like this article; thanks for the insight Peter.

Just curious…

“Casey points out that not all secular religion is totalitarian and that there has arisen democratic variants, drawn from extreme versions of free market capitalism, feminism and environmentalism:”

Can anyone please give me an example of a secular democratic nation that has not derived its traditions, in large part, from traditional religion?

“inherently terrifying condition of being identified with a vulnerable body that is going to disintegrate and die”

Ho hum, why do you think the prospect of death is so terrifying for human beings?

New Testament:
In Luke 19:27, Jesus orders anyone who refuses to be ruled by him to be killed.
Let’s read Lk. 19:11 first:
11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
Jesus was giving a parable about what the Kingdom of God is like. He talks about final judgment right at the end of this parable, i.e. future tense, not present. It’s not like Jesus is saying “go kill everyone who doesn’t want me to rule them”. He rebuked Peter for bringing the sword out, and He also promised His followers persecution. He also said, the Kingdom of God was to serve not to be served. Hardly sounds like a war mongering king to me.

Old Testament:
“In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different God or who worships the Lord differently.”
Understand that the religions of the pagan lands at that time were terrible. Incest, rape, (we can assume, STIs floating around like crazy), murder, etc. God was taking the “prevention better than cure” approach with the Israelite children that had ALREADY promised themselves to Him (i.e. not just some random people).

“I can find others too, particularly concerning the manner in which God wants us to slaughter his enemies (including women, children, animals and even their trees).”
Actually the Bible says “Say unto them, As I live, said the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11).
I believe God gave people PLENTY of time to repent. The prophets of the O.T. did not spend their time exclusively in Israel, they went into other lands as well (e.g. Jonah and Ninevah). I don’t believe God punished people until He gave them the chance to repent, made it pretty clear that was His desire, and when they chose not to, He allowed the Israelites, under His specific command, to kill them. Like I said, the Pagan religions were carrying on a lot of unholy activities (and there’s a good chance there was very poor sexual health spreading around). Why such a total retribution? When the Plague hit Europe, people were locked into their houses so they would not infect anyone. Is it difficult to imagine, in the Middle East 4000 years ago, without the modern development of medicine we have now, that it would have been much different?

Anyway I believe that in New Testament times (remember Christians believe we're in the NT), God does not allow believers to carry out His retribution for Him.

Ronnie peters.
The definition of myth is slippery. The reason that I say that Christianity is not based on myth is that all of the NT ( and much of the OT) contain references to particular dates, people and places. The particular is never eclipsed. We find ourselves dealing with this nation and this man. Thus, as I have said before, history is the medium of revelation and that saves us from the purely mythological such as Israel encountered when it was in exile in Babylon and in Canaan in the Baal cults. But we do not stay with the particular, Christ ascends to the Father and sit at his right hand. Now you may well say that here we are in the area of myth since such a thing is condemned by our cosmology. However the basis of the resurrection and ascension in the flesh does not rely on myth but on the particular, historical event and that saves it from the looseness of myth (star wars, the lord of the rings). So as regards the resurrection and ascension we find that the meaning of these is essential to stop us spinning out into a spiritualised concept of Christ and ourselves but is extremely difficult to substantiate on the basis of historical event as we commonly understand it. “Sitting at the right hand of the Father” is not just a made up concept, it refers to real but not material things that are important for how we see ourselves and the world.

We can certainly say that “Christ rose and ascended in the flesh” as it were. This is not to resort to myth but to take on a specific speech that indicates a truth that is not demonstrable by us. Does this help at all?

"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".

Let me guess: this creator and redeemer is none other than Mr. Sellick's mythical sky-god, who is in fact a third of a tri-partite entity, and who, along with his son and the holy spirit (what? no daughter or wife? tsk-tsk, how very post-modern of you Mr. Sky-God), loves us, cares for us, but let's most of the best of us die needlessly while allowing the worst to live to 91 (I looking at you, body of Mr. Pinochet).

I mean, just how ridiculous is this Christian myth? Goodness me, I'm supposed to give rational analysis, the scientific method and my enlightenment heritage so that Mr. Sellick can tell the rest of how live? Because of course, the one creator and redeemer will have to have a man on earth - and I mean a man - to tutor the rest of us. And no doubt Mr. Sellick thinks he is just that man.

Well, you know what Mr. Sellick? You can bugger off: The days when priests and their acolytes could invoke the name of their almighty sky-god to scare the bejeezus out of the rest of us are over. After the witch hunts, the beheadings, the ex-communications and the rest of the terrors you and yours meeted out to the rest of us, it is now time for a new order, built on the *axiomatic* ideas of human rights, rational discourse and the scientific method.

If you think your sky-god can compete in this new order well good for you: come and join the fun, but don't expect the rest of us to bow before your "jesus-history" and "israel-history" as if those terms even mean anything. You'll have to prove your arguments just like the rest us and if you can't, well don't worry, at least you won't have to worry about being ex-communicated, or you know, burned at the stake.

Welcome to the real world of combative, rational discourse, Mr. Sellick.

Re: How does God exist?

Peter, before starting a new thread, it would have been helpful not to disregard your earlier contribution. Religion needs to be viewed from secular history.I thought "frankly" you were too busy. It seems you have time to produce a sermon.

All readers,

Suggest you change your Forum setting from last week to last month. Have a look at the last few posts under "How does God exist?". Herein, Peter wont answer the question, "Why would a REAL god" with a supreme message be cloaked with same attributes as secular gods he deems myth. He feels only a trained theologian can understand, and, demeans, secular history and secular anthropology, as tools to to assess HIS religion. Presumable, okay for other religions, Peter regards as myths.

Catch is the REAL religion and the MYTHICAL religions share a common architecture. The REAL religion is not differentiated from those of human invention. Would a REAL god produce such a poorly differentiated prouduct, when having the goal teach us? methings not.

There is a vital secular religion; it is called, mathematics. The positive heuristic is our universe is a closed system, with infinite infinities not requiring causality or original creation. In the improbable event the closed universe was somehow consciously created, the nature of that creating instrument is far outside our knowledge, and can be held only as degraded heuristic, which indications are does not exist.