waterboy:

<<The tone of your last post was somewhat strident and not really in keeping with the conversation we had up to that point but lets move on from that.>>

"strident"? waterboy, i've been taking you seriously but i'm about to stop. it is not "strident" to ask for the meat of your claim. and if my tone was somewhat frustrated, it's because i didn't like your lazy and cutesy and baseless accusation that i was trying to change your beliefs.

<< It provides a framework within which it is possible to talk about God without the need for any referent in either a physical or metaphysical dimension.>>

the fact that one can talk about God is no argument that there is value in doing so.

<<Suggesting that I abandon the word God is tantamount to dismantling the greater part of my identity, >>

no it isn't.

<<but I cannot dismiss God as 'just a word'.>>

i never said God is just a word. I said "God" is just a word, and it is just that.

but, to hell with the word. it isn't a question of "god", it's a question of God. it's what your conception of God is. i saw nothing Goddishness in your earlier posts. and i suspect it's exactly why there seemed to be common ground. but if the appearance of common ground is merely because you left out the essential God stuff, then that is important and telling.

there doesn't have to be common ground, or much of it. but if there isn't, let's not pretend that there is.

Oliver

If you read my posts carefully and consider the philosophical references then you might reconsider your questions.
You appear to be making the common mistake of assuming a great deal about what I 'believe' based largely on your misconceptions about Christianity.
As they stand your questions make absolutely no sense to me.
They remind me of the old question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

waterboy,

Thanks for the reply.

What manner of philosophy would have it that one should accept Jesus as god specifically, without first considering if/how god exists generally? It is like building a roof without any foundation or any walls. At best, we have backwards Constructionism, relying heavily on fourth century dogma.

Daviy,

Appreciate the remarks on your interests. Thanks. I shall return to these.

Agnosticism has one value asset. It clearly makes no claim to infallibility.

Hitler was a Christian too. Saint Adolf of Obersalzberg?

It looks as though Sells has become redundant in this discussion, as Christianity has always been.

"Incoherent nonsense!" Posted by Stev, Thursday, 29 January.

"What utter rubbish." Posted by 37thFloor, Thursday, 29 January.

Accurate summations of the opinion piece.

Yet here we are 6 weeks later still carrying on.

The fundamental flaws in atheism and the essential element of Christianity are illustrated here. In the Old Testament, the obsession was with judgment. There is a whole book called Judges, there are ten commandments a person had to keep to avoid judgment, and it did not work for the Jews at all. They were subjected to oppression, subjugated to the Romans, taken as slaves, and eventually scattered to the four corners of the world.

Atheism is fundamentally judgmental. Because people who are atheists have no faith, before they judge, and judge those who have faith fools, they break the one commandment of the New Testament. That commandment is Judge not that ye be not judged. From that one commandment comes the fundamental of the Christian faith, and good government: Equality of all before Almighty God. In Christianity it does not matter if you are rich or poor, male or female, young or old, black or white we are all equal before Our God. The face of God in a Christian court was the judges, 12 in all sitting on the right, never one only.

Judgmental lawyers believe because they know the law, they are uniquely qualified to be Judges. These people were the only ones Jesus Christ despised. They judged him a menace. He was persecuted, tortured and murdered by a judgmental State. The resurrection proved this was unjust.

The very essence of Christianity is the establishment of a system of government where judgments are unassailable. The essence of atheism are assailable judgments by one person. The only unassailable judgments, in compliance with Christianity, are those made by the Christian system, where judgment is vested in 12 anonymous individuals. With jury trials it’s over and done with in one final proceeding. The monumental sagas that now congest Australian Courts, and always leave one party aggrieved, could be fixed overnight, by the return to Christianity, and rejection of atheism. It is no coincidence that in the US 95% of cases never go to trial. With judges as provided for in S 79 Australian Constitution, the truth rules and sets us free