B-D,

Thanks for the link: I see now that without a degree in "NT Greek, church history, Old and New Testament studies, and systematic theology" my hysterical outpourings are the result of my impovished schooling. My Bad. Maybe I am further mistaken: Perhaps Mr. Sellick or one of his brothers should be God's tutor on earth. He is clearly much smarter than everyone else and it must be exasperating for him to have deal with such ignoramousi.

Still, I have nagging doubt about theology - if such a thing can even be said to exist - that I think Richard Dawkins documents:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.shtml

Just as a general observation: If Mr. Sellick can convince you that his imaginary friend exists, that his imaginary friend is the "creator", the "redeemer", and the tutor, that only special people with fancy degrees in "theology" can speak with/of/for this imaginary friend, then you have unilaterally disarmed yourself in the battle for control over your own life. Mr. Sellick can claim anything - even the senseless, useless or meaningless claims we've seen here - on behalf of his imaginary friend and you have no recourse. Who are you to say that Mr. Sellick did not accurately intrepret his imaginary friend?

The beauty of rational discourse and the scientific method is that anyone can independently measure the accuracy of any particular claim or argument. It is hard - very hard - but in such an environment you can remain in control of your own life.

"Turn on your TV early on Sunday morning and you will get a does of secular Christianity from the televangelists. This is religion used for monetary gain or for personal healing. When Christianity is used instrumentally it becomes secular, i.e. having God on our own terms."

Hehe, clearly nothing much has changed! Remember when the Church
of Rome used to sell indulgences? There has always been a big
quid using religion to fool the masses. Now they simply use TV.

They all seem to have their God on their own terms, often involving
money and power. Given that the history of Christianity is very much
about the history of the Catholic Church, clearly Christianity
has a very, very dubious background! Blessed be the snakeoil salesmen, they are at least a bit more honest about their intentions.

Sells, you cannot simply hide your head in the sand. Your position on this is untenable.

>>Any aspect of culture that claims allegiance is a source of idolatry and hence may be called religious<<

No. It may not. And since it may not, all your arguments that attempt to paint a rule of terror exercised by the likes of Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin in the colours of religion simply do not wash.

If you were stand at a street corner and ask 100 people whether they understood the word "religion" to be associated with the word "God", 99 would answer affirmatively.

The hundredth is likely to be a theologian, one would suspect.

This is the classic political deceit, taking a perfectly serviceable and well understood word, "religion", and scrunching it into the shape that supports your argument. The fact that you are simply copying the idea from an article written by a similarly motivated language-mangler still does not make it right.

Michael Casey, whose article excited your attention to this meretricious position, at least had the excuse that he was presenting to an uncritical audience of Catholic fellow-travellers. It is only in these circumstances that he could get away with such duplicity as this:

"An ideology or a philosophy of life is not a religion unless it takes on the attributes and functions of religion, and it is only in cases such as this that treating an ideology as a political religion is justified."

Fair enough. Can't argue with that. A religion has to have the "attributes and functions" of religion.

However - and this is the bit I object to - nowhere does he take the trouble to describe how any of his examples of "political religion" demonstrate these qualities. Having established the qualification, he then chooses to ignore it entirely, simply making the assumption - as does Sells - that no-one will notice the yawning chasm in the logic.

From the disclaimer, which categorically excludes the gunpoint rule of a tyrant, straight to the assumption of the opposite.

Tricksy. Cute. But dishonest.

Ronnie, I was making an observation about your comment regarding the debate on WRD and your perception of the approach taken by those who are opposed to a genderised approach to DV. You linked it to Peter's comment about women in power suggesting that our viewpoints seem more like a matter of faith rather than fact.

Not an attack but an observation that from this side of that fence Peters comment seemed to fit your approach - again I'm not trying to start that up here. I thought it a useful point how much perspective plays in some of these issues.

I've not gone through Sells list in detail but it's likely that for each point he makes as an example of secular religion both sides of the discussion may seem to the other side like a matter of faith rather than reason. To the holders of the views their own viewpoint
would seem as proven fact.

I'm not sure if that backs up Sell's case or undermines it but it is something I find interesting.

R0bert

One should perhaps admire Sells for taking on the ‘evil’ and idolatrous nature of secularism. Like John the Baptist he beats his nary ol’ chest crying, “Doom!” and, actually, I do sympathise with you Sells. Well-known theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “The authority of the Bible was used to break the proud authority of the church; whereupon the Bible became another instrument of human pride. The secularists may be pardoned if, as they watch this curious drama, they cry "a plague o' both your houses"; and if they come to the conclusion that all ladders to heaven are dangerous.” I do believe many secularists are aware of the ‘sin’ of human pride, as some of the finer points of Christianity seem quite recognisable. They will perhaps avoid building their own nihilistic ladder without the need of religion.

Thomas Hobbs was even more pertinent when, after the Reformation, he wrote, "After the Bible was translated into English, every man, nay, every boy and wench that could read English, thought they spoke with God Almighty . . . and every man became a judge of religion, and an interpreter of the scriptures to himself" [Behemoth, Works, VI, 190].

I’m quite taken by the famous theologian Karl Barth when he said, “God may speak to us through Russian communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub or a dead dog - through a pagan or an atheist”. Loosen up a bit Sells, even your counterparts would advise you to do so. Martin Luther King was perhaps a little liberal for your liking but he seemed to make sense, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. … Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.” – M.L.K

We have the bandwidth. We have the connection to this God. You must submit. Submit to our authority and governance. God demands that you be obsequiously submissive. You are only useful to God in a inferior capacity. God will punish you if you do not comply. Imagine an eternity being consumed by fire. Comply, kneel, bow low. Hop, skip, jump. You have proven to be worthy and God will reward you at the time of your death. Oops. A little error there on your part mate. An eternity in Hell ought to bring you around. Remember, God loves you.