If I may continue:
“All of the old attributes of God, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence must now be interpreted not from the a priori of philosophy but from the biblical witness of how God acts.”
This would be the God who drowned the whole world. Who set bears against children, who obliterated two cities and, most inexplicably, concentrated his entire attention on one small race of 'chosen' people, at one particular time, and completely ignored the rest of Humanity.
And then, apparently, dumped his chosen people for a more 'advanced' lot.
This is the God who is love; who allows punishment not of a few years incarceration, or painlessly putting people to sleep, but 'eternal, never ending torment'.
“My point is that modern expressions of atheism are an objection not to the Christian God, who escapes their criticism, but an objection to paganism. All we Christians can say is “welcome”, we have been doing that for 2,000 years!”
Well, no. The christian God clearly does not escape criticism.
Atheism, by definition is an objection to all Gods; particularly capricious ones. The creation of a triune deity seems nothing more than an attempt to explain the contradictory nature of your God.
Even your 'sophisticated' version seems nothing more than a convenient mechanism to maintain the purity of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They -as separate (yet inseparable) entities- can keep their hands clean, while God (the destroyer) can remain inexplicable.
This was only a reprise of your first (more readable) page. The more deeply you delve into this illogic, the more illucid it becomes.

And from all of these meaningless words comes the only truth. None of us have the slightest idea and all there is in our comments is dogma.

I was once in a bar with a bunch of farmers, just after Michael Kirby came out and declared he was gay. One of the farmers said it is okay for him to be gay, so long as the government does not make it compulsory.

What has happened is that the government has imposed compulsory atheism on an unsuspecting public. I saw the post where I was criticised for pointing out to a Judge, that he was doing the wrong thing. I was urged to read the Gospels. The licence to crituicise leaders, is not in the Gospels, it is in 1 Timothy 5 Verse 20. Depending on your Bible, it says that a sinner should be rebuked.

When my studies revealed that court and church are really interchangeable words, in English, because the Greek root, Ecclesia used for Church also means gathering of the people, then I started to examine how we have been deceived by atheists.

The Church of Satan and latter day demons, has replaced the Church of Jesus Christ as the place where God's justice is dispensed. It is compulsory to worship the devil in Australia since 1970-2009.Jesus was tempted in Matthew 4 Verse 9. That is in reality what atheists believe. Why oh why have they made it compulsory.

Science has given us computers and they work on the on off principle, and so is the law. It is either Christian or Satanic. Black or white. On or Off. In most so called courts in Australia a computer could do as well and much cheaper than a Judge. Atheism is the substitution of a false premise for a known given.The known given is that the system worked for 700 years, but only in England and the USA. The awful experiment of the State as God, is a complete failure. Capitalism when it marries communism or Statism, and has no Christian courts to account to, is failing as well.

Peter the Believer: << The Church of Satan and latter day demons, has replaced the Church of Jesus Christ as the place where God's justice is dispensed. It is compulsory to worship the devil in Australia since 1970-2009. >>

Completely whacko.

george, re dawkins i have no particular argument with you. i know what you're trying to tease out. it can wait for another day.

as for my expression of distaste for sellick? nah. he's not merely trying to present his views. he's a stirrer, as you noted, and he's now gloating in his stirring. george, you're a nice guy. sellick isn't.

otokonoko, to challenge is one thing. to make what appears a derogatory attack and call it a challenge is another. i'm not scared of any sellick challenge: they have no mass. it's his overbearing, stirring style which i don't like.

crabsy, i didn't miss what sellick was saying. i have no huge problem with what sellcik is saying. my point is that sellick was framing his comments to be as divisive and as heat-generating as possible. he now basks in the heat.

i may frame a discussion about "christians". i may arrogantly and naively overstep the mark on christian belief, and foolishly generalize. that wouldn't be good form, but it's i guess part of the game.

but if i define "christian" in a particularly poisonous manner, in a manner which almost no christian would agree with. and if i then use my definition to make statements readily interpreted as nasty? then i'm just being a dick.

As close to vile divisive slander as any medieval apologetics I've ever digested. The trinity? Intellectual absurdity is not a strong starting point. It seems this piece is an in house ill informed jab at critical thought, which in assuming 'atheism' - whatever that is - can be defined in Xtian terms falls at the first paragraph.

Admitting to not knowing zip of the arguments of non theism in recent times, hardly lends strength to judging the character of those who can love without condition simply because it's human nature. Not because it "answers" the incomprehensibility of a life wasted on divine guesswork.

Then, far from admitting the gospels represent naught but hand picked rubbish - the origins of which are indeed Egyptian, crystalised in the worship of Horus [Paul is 100% Egyptian retelling the life of Horus using the name Jesus] - readers are asked to accept the historically impossible allegations of a minor cult as absolute. The Judas Gospel can be Googled in a second, forever sealing the zodiac origins of Xtian paganism - also originating with Egyptians. "None of you shall come where I go". Yup, can see why the Nicene Councils dropped hundreds of similar gospels. No prizes for knowing this is where the story of the Trinity arose....