George,

Thank you for you reply. I will repond again a little later.

[Aside on seeing colour: Humans typically have three types of cones in their eyes. Our trichromatic vision is possible because of three forms of rhodopsin. In "colour blind" people their may be only two forms of rhodopin. Red-Green is common. And yellow-blue rare. Turtles have septchromatic vision, seven forms of rhodopsin. Colour! Imagine! If I understand your point, we can't, nor, can we hear in 3-D like dolphins.]

Sells opened debate on a public forum on the Architecture of God and latter religiosity vis~a~secularism. Some contributors, simply, countered with atheist views, informed and less informed. Herein, Sells tried to maintain the same "indwelling" (Polanyi) structure, wherein, worship, rather than the exchange of information is purpose of the exercise :i.e., Credo. In this frame, Sells, sees [he said so] critique as opposition in hard terms. He is probably correct in some instances.

Alternatively, I posited a realignment of methodology, then quoting Confucius, "One does not see the face the mountain from the inside" [Wise advise, methinks.]. Instead, set aside the worship [living in the performance], where the ideal is confirm and "indwell" (Polanyi), not exchange information. Herein, the authority of the Priest over the congregation, does, I suggest, represent "authoritian traditionalism" and confirms the practise of a creed, ahead of, real knowledge discovery. For me, Luther's [understandably] reformation ran on only one cylinder.

Examining "Jesus" in the context theocrasia around his life-time could prove revealing: If measures did suggest Jesus was one of the syncretic (Toynbee)gods of the period, that does not necessarily disprove the existence of God. Worshipping "Jesus" could be prevent Sells finding God [If such an entity exists and chooses to be revealed.].

As alluded to in a previous post, I would engage a Flat Earther, but, I agree, it does not follow that person has no right to believe the Earth is flat. However, I would like the Flat Earther to leave the comfort of the Flat Earth Creed, and examine evidence (tentative accept/tentatively refute).

Keiran, Sells' article starts with "In the biblical mentality there is no such thing as life outside the body. All life is enfleshed." so I cannot see why "his version of transcendence is simply an exclusive break and rejection of the material world from which all exists." He seems to be arguing exactly the opposite, namely that a soul living on its own, outside the body, is not only in conflict with contemporary understanding of consciousness, but also at odds with biblical tradition; and that the body-soul dualism came to Christianity from Greek sources. The article again is highly technical and it cannot make much sense to a person without some previous theological qualifications. There are points, that I would present perhaps differently, but I would not push this because my theological qualifications are very meagre.

More importantly, I cannot see where his article can possibly conflict with convictions held by a non-Christian, atheist or what. His (and my) belief in a scientifically unverifiable extension of the material world is exactly that: an extension of the belief in a material world, and this belief is shared with atheists and agnostics. He even explains away the only point, where there could be a conflict - the re-emergence of Jesus in a material body with the same DNA as that which he had before his death.

I completely agree with you in rejecting the mindset which "simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host, rather than an organism in a symbiotic, and thus mutually beneficial, relationship with an infinite environment." This is how you could have described the Western universal mindset until only some decades ago. I am only not sure about your reference to an "infinite environment": probably not in the ecological sense, since our planet's resources are anything but infinite. Infinity is a clear concept in mathematics, not so clear in cosmology, and I suspect superfluous in theology. Anyhow, it is rather our ancestors - Christian or not - who failed to see humanity as living in symbiotic relationship with its environment, and acted, accordingly. (ctd)

(ctd) However, I do not see where Sells shows adherence to this outdated view. The shift from seeing the material environment as being something unrelated to us, that can be exploited, to the view that sees us as a part of this material world, which we have to cherish and maintain, has occurred - or is still occurring - in both the Christian and naturalistic mindsets.

I agree with almost all you say in the second last paragraph. Except for where you claim Jesus should have presented himself as the good gardener rather than the good shepherd, thus basing his teachings on the needs of humanity some two thousand years into the future - perhaps even explaining evolution and Big Bang - rather than on parables based on everyday experiences of his listeners. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just could not understand that part where you judge what Jesus should have done from today's scientifically informed perspective.

Oliver (and Keiran), I am sorry that it took me so long to realise what was the problem with these parallel monologues of ours. I was aware of only this article of Sells that we were supposed to be discussing, and could not understand why the topic slipped to being about Peter himself. Your reference to "Architecture of God" made me look up his other articles and I found another 58(!) of them. Of course, I did not read them all, only the one called "How does God exist?" since you probably had this one in mind when speaking of Architecture of God. Well, had he tried to defend some Flat Earth Creed, as you hint, I am sure he would not have got 242 responses; neither would I if I wrote something about, say, algebraic topology (and the administrator would let it through). This indicates that his topics are obviously touching a sore nerve in our society. Anyhow, I have to admit that I was impressed by what he wrote, though ... (you will have to wait for the continuation another 24 hours, since I am not allowed to post more).

George, I value reading your thoughts and perspectives but I'm wondering if you are overly concerned with the role of a specialist and if this tempers your thoughts at the expense of the bigger picture. I feel there is a need to shift from closed systems to inclusive, interactive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment because isn't it reasonable that intimacies cannot exist in isolation. e.g. With articles such as Peter's I've found myself starting to pay more attention to the illogics in information where there is a need to look at it consciously and try to follow it down because one thing always leads to another.

This is most necessary with theologians who are brilliant virus writers where their software is so well designed to the point that many victims cannot detect its presence so won't know it and may even vigorously deny it. But just see how maliciously these viruses hack in on the vulnerable with great success and penetrate all bases by disabling mechanisms essential to human functioning. It seems that Peter's article did a pretty good job with a distracting emphasis on one type of dualism that everything else is overlooked.

e.g. Peter jumps on the point to remind us with "In the biblical mentality there is no such thing as life outside the body. All life is enfleshed." This is all well and good. However, whilst it may not be a "body-soul dualism" as such, we get a different other-world dualism when he proceeds to make whoopee with Jesus who "ascends in the flesh" ...... "and presumably, in his sitting at the right hand of the Father." Impossible in a material sense and his version of transcendence. This is an exclusive break and rejection of the material world from which all exists to whatever transcendental teddy world one likes to call it ...... valhalla, elysian, heaven, paradise, nirvana.

This is where we find Peter's inconsistency.

George at last you have woken up to the cuckoo behaviour of Oliver and Keiran. You have been very charitable in engaging with them. Not so with their abuse of Peter.

That Peter has wiped the dust from his feet and moved on from their responses is to be admired. Is that not the injunction of the Lord?

The limited confines of the measurable, the evidenced, the material must be very uncomfortable as reflected in their ongoing anger and resentment of people of faith, especially those who dwell in both the domains of science and faith and those who can engage in dialogue without pronouncing formulaic belief statements from scripture and doctrine. As Christians we can only talk from a personal faith position informed by the deep springs of the Church through which flow our story spanning millenia.

Is not faith the assurance of things longed for, and the conviction of things not seen. (Paul to the Hebrews). So longing for truth, and the loving strength of purpose flowing from the God Present but Absent is real to people of faith. Truth extended from the measurable and provable, into the anticipated future with all to be revealed, as it has for the past and is happening in the now through unfolding human knowledge and undestanding in all spheres of human activity.

As I have referenced before, Kierkegaard's Absolute Paradox applies; that Jesus is the Son of God is either accepted in faith with a great Amen, or rejected as an offence to reason. Therefore Oliver and Keiran are acting quite in accord with the Kierkegaard proposition. As am I.

Many of us position ourselves within the framework, forever expanding, of faith in God; we are of God, the Ultimate Reality. Others confine themselves to the measurable/ testable reality.

It is sad that there is not more engagement with Peter's work from people of faith. I stand to be corrected, but I feel it would satisfy Peter more, as it is the new money-changers he seems to be challenging

George [and Kieran],

I agree, interest in Flat or Round Earths would not encourage a similar response, as might the topic, “How Does God Exist”? Just the same, I posit, there are parallels between the two, depending on how one runs with Sells’excellent title.

From my frame, there was a disconnect between the title and the content. As said, early-on in that thread, Sells immediately adopts an “a priori” position to his topic. He has jumped several steps. Before, we can say “a”, “b” or “c”, is God , or, any combination are gods, one should stand back and place theocrasia on the table and examine the parts.

The OT and the NT have different godheads. The former, the Council of El, when Jehovah was a minor tribal god. Herein, Middle Eastern tribes members actually married the tribe to “their” god, not unlike the Nun marrying Jesus in the Catholic Church. El, was the Chair of the Council and the Father of Jehovah [Psalm 82]. A few generations after the lifetime of Jesus, a different godhead emerges (Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost) .

The NT Christian godhead, itself, seems well aligned to the Trinity of Serapis, Serapis, Isis, Horus, “three aspects of the one god” (Wells). The Trinity of Serapis appears to have been formed through the fusion of Greek and Egyptian gods, in the time of Ptolemy I (367 BCE-283 BCE). Wells continues:

“Horus was the only beloved son of Osiris (Serapis)”, whom, as known to The Book of the Dead was [a statue] buried with the departed to intercede on behalf of the dead with God the Father, “pleading for the dead” [The Book of the Dead]. Horus our Saviour, “ ‘he raises the dead … he will save us, after death we shall still be the care of his [sic. His] providence’” [Ancient Eygyptian source, in Wells]. When Horus “ ‘ascended to the Father’ ” [Ancient Egyptian source, in Wells], he became “one with the father” (Wells).

[Cont.]