Boxgum

I am sure you are right that Sells did not intend to say that anyone was less than human. Unfortunately their is often a vast difference between the intended meaning of our words and the received meaning. When Sells says that believers have exclusive access to the 'fullness of humanity' then others will hear that Sells says they are less than 'fully human'. The nazis used language like this to define away the humanity of the Jewish people in order to justify the atrocities committed against them. Words matter!

Since language plays so vital a part in religions we need to be much more aware of the use of language than we have been to date.
Much of the language of Christianity is inaccessible to outsiders unless they make some considerable effort to find out what it is we intended to say. That is poor communication on our part and one of the primary mechanisms for keeping our Church clubs 'exclusive'. If Christian faith and religious observance represent the one 'exclusive' path to salvation then our Churches are effectively blocking that path to many people. I dont, however, believe God is so limited.

What I would say is that faithfullness pertains to our orientation to the world that is either true to God's demand for justice and mercy informed by the commandment to love our neighbour or it is not true to that demand. If our 'motivation to faith' is personal salvation then Jesus says we have 'missed the point'. I dont think He could have made that point any more clearly. God does not require our sacrifices or our songs of praise or our begging prayers. She listens only for the sounds of justice being done and mercy flowing like a great river.

When you see love for neighour at work then you see God, no matter the culture and beliefs at play. All else is folly.

I think Sells was being deliberately provocative.

An old debating technique is to make an extreme claim and let the opposition work to justify the middle ground.

If I claimed that Christians were sub human because they clouded their reason with fantasy, I would would rightly expect a torrent of abuse.

Sells here has once again demonstrated the intolerance of the church for any other view point.

Waterboy

I really appreciate your efforts here. However, I agree with Shadowminister (very rare) that Sells is fully aware of his provocative articles. Sells has considerable intellect and is well versed in theology, he could present articles that are challenging without being offensive. He chooses not to do so. Therefore I have no hesitation with criticising him. His articles do as much to alienate people as JW's or Scientologists or extremist Muslims. As an outside observer (atheist) I watch while each religion proclaims itself to be the one true path. It is a meaningless cacophony to the outsider who can only see the diviseness and prejudice that results from each competing religion. Add to that the direct insults that Sellick regularly hands out to atheists and agnostics - not at all impressive nor likely to win converts.

Boxgum, your posts amount to nothing more than attempts to excuse Sellick - I find this very dishonest.

Therefore I will continue to find awe and wonder at the delicacy of a flower or the immensity of the universe. My church is all that surrounds us, my path leads towards discovery - a very human way to behave.

I detect behind all this anxiety about our claims to truth the old liberal agenda of erasing all distinctions and discernments so that all are seen to be on the same level. The argument is enforced egalitarianism that insists that we are all the same. I referred to this tendency in my article on the trouble with liberalism. What it essentially means is that one cannot make a truth claim without at the same time relativising it. The result is an imposed blandness in which all opinions are seen to be equally valid and any discussion is disallowed. But the biblical writers made such claims all the time. What are we to think when in John's gospel we read that Jesus has overcome the world? I am reminded that the gospel is a two edged sword, egalitarianism blunts that sword so that almost nothing can be said, unless it is bracketed by the subjective "for me". This leads to weak preaching that is doomed to make generalisations about spiritual health, hardly the gospel that is heralded as the end of a world. Liberals need to discover eschatology. It was the loss of eachatology that lead to 19th liberalism and the castration of the church and the current demise of liberal Protestantism.

"Sells here has once again demonstrated the intolerance of the church for any other view point."

no, SM, merely the intolerance of sells. but of course you're right, that he was being deliberately provocative. and of course his follow ups don't take an ounce of responsibility for his mischief.

"The result is an imposed blandness in which all opinions are seen to be equally valid and any discussion is disallowed. "

complete crap. sells, the current point is not about your opinions, it's your deliberately inflammatory choice of language. but while we're at it, your opinions are definitely not equally valid: they're in fact vacuous, special pleading tripe. happy now?

Trav,

Please see:

http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitchellstephens/archives/2006/10/dawkins_belief.html

I think it is time you stop taking what Christians say about Dawkin's seriously. He believes very strongly God does not exist, with the rejoinder - he may wrong.

Would your local Christian cleric say, "I believe very strongly God exists, 'yet I may wrong'"?

The notion of infallibility is known to Catholics in the person of the Pope (ex catherdra) and to Protestants in the belief in inerrant Holy Scripture.

Dawkins admits he is fallible. I think that is to his credit.

Christians all-to-often claim infallibility. When people start thinking they cannot be wrong, we have problems, including those reflected in Christian histographies.