Here we go again! Peter Sellick publishes another article and at the sight of his name a hundred knees jerk. Some of the previous posters have obviously not read the article carefully, if at all. Others simply spit venom and don’t even attempt argument. Yet others automatically trot out grievances or favourite opinions that have nothing to do with the content of the author’s article.

Nevertheless I can discern in the frustration of a few posters a genuine wish to understand what Peter is trying to communicate. Perhaps their problem is more to do with the language of theological discussion, which is outside of the experience of so many people.

All I can say, Peter, is that your article makes sense to me. (Maybe that’s partly because I’m not one of those Christians whom you say “think about God in an objectifying way”.) I hope some of the more vituperative posters will one day try to consider your article dispassionately, slowly and deeply. They may then, like Rhys Probert above, make some pleasant and valuable discoveries.

"I have not read any of the recent books that attack belief in God because I sense that they say nothing new."

In other words "I am making bald and offensive assertions without the slightest shred of evidence whatsoever and I have no interest in seeking any."

Ho hum...

The article was too convoluted to make much sense. However it raised some questions for me.
If there are many different religions with their own gods, and each assume that their god is the only god - then who is really right? If we acknowledge that other people have their own gods and religions and we are accepting of this, do we therefore concede that there are indeed many gods? If you don't accept this and assume your god is the only god, is this not illogical considering the the influence of culture, socialisation, geography, history, etc that result in the adoption of a religion?

The Bible has been around for only 2000 years or so. We have been in existence for many thosands of years prior. Therefore are all prior beliefs and gods deemed redundant simply because Christianity evolved to be the religion of that time? Does this mean that there may well be another 'man' who appears with a compelling belief or story and this manifests into another compelling book or belief system? It all seems pretty fluid and subject to evolution.

Peter -- you theologians like spiritual exercises, don't you? Here's a spiritual exercise for you.

1. Form in your mind a clear and coherent picture of the place in the Universe held by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

2. For the words 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' substitute the word 'God' throughout.

3. You now have a complete grasp of the atheist viewpoint.

See, it wasn't that hard, was it?

Seriously, your articles are getting increasingly incoherent and your refusal to accept contrary evidence is taking on a shrill and strident note. I wonder if, like so many other intelligent believers, you are heading for a complete crack-up due to your failure to reconcile your cherished beliefs with ordinary common sense. Time for a reality check?

You can be sure that whenever a religionist such as Sells starts talking about the "trinity" he wouldnt have a clue about Real God as the Indivisble Sphere of Radiant Conscious Light. And that he is trying to justify the naive childhood "creator-god"--the parental deity.

As for me my favourite childhood trinity were Curly, Larry and Moe, that is the Three Stooges--lots of laughs there. And the Three Little Pigs, which is really a very wise teaching story.

The "trinity" to which Sells is a fully paid up subscriber, and which completely governs every aspect of our "culture" too, is the tripartate presumption of being a separately defined meat-body personality, completely separate from all other meat bodies, completely separate from the World-Process altogether, and completely separate from Real God, the Divine Conscious Light.

God as separate, entirely other, and thus objectified. The world as separate, entirely other, and thus objectified. And my meat-body as separate and thus objectified and separate from all other objectified meat-bodies too.

Where there is an other fear spontaneously arises.

In other words Sells, and and all of us in our normal dreadful sanity, live in a fear saturated world.

What is more, the moment one objectifies anything, the whatever that is thus objectified becomes your mortal enemy, and you are thus at war with everything, and seek to control any and every thing thus objectified.

At war with The Divine Conscious Light, the World Process altogether, and all other human beings.

The "god" who is presumed to be other is not your refuge, sustenance or help, but your mortal enemy.

Meanwhile I also quite like the Hindu trinity: namely Brahman the "creator", Vishnu the mysterious preserver and sustainer, and Siva the transformer and destroyer. Siva acknowleding that everything is part of a never-ending process of transformation and decay---or that death rules to here.

The Christian "trinity" doesnt even begin to take the reality of death into account. Whereas as the key to right life altogether is to fully understand the meaning and significance of death, and to thus transcend ones fear of death.

1. http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp

For Crabsy, let me expand on what "incoherent nonsense" means...

Here is the Cliff notes version of Sellick's argument:

1. If God is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere) then surely he must have an effect on the physical (material) world - even overturning physical laws at a whim. He can't just be a "prime mover" because then he is bound by physical laws he set in motion (and is therefore not omnipotent).
2. Sellick informs us that this is a straw man argument because only pagans (and most Christians) believe that God is omnipotent in this physical sense
3. Instead, we are told, God acts in the social world where God/Father IS (literally) love, God/Jesus IS grace, and God/Holy Spirit IS community (i.e. God doesn't SHOW love he IS love).
4. So a-theism (interpreted here as anti-theism) is to be anti-love or anti-grace or anti-community or more charitably to not believe in love, grace, or community. Given that most self-proclaimed atheists believe in love then they are not really atheists with respect to the Christian God but only chasing the shadows of the pagan world.

So apart from telling MOST Christians they are ill-educated in their own faith we basically have the propositions that:
1. Any act of love/grace/community IS God (or is that an act of God)
2. Don't expect God's omnipotence to manifest in the physical world (so much for all those miracles we hear about)

To which I can reply:
1. Any act of love/grace/community IS NOT God (see, I can assert things too)
2. Don't expect God's omnipotence to manifest in the physical world

Let's apply Occam's razor - if there is no physical evidence for God then we don't need God.