Sells,
Whilst we certainly don’t agree on all matters, it is true to say crabsy and I give general support to you being “on the right track”. Again, an article you write attracts considerable attention and also angst for many of the ‘sensitive souls’ who frequent here.

Those who take a literal and linear approach to Christianity (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witnesses) continue to argue that mainstream Christianity has departed from original Christianity due, in part, to Pagan influences. For those here at OLO who move beyond a general trite understanding will realise Christianity was not a sudden and miraculous transformation, springing forth full grown as Athene sprang from the head of Zeus, but it is a composite of slow and laborious growth.

At around the 8th century "Beowulf" was an early and almost unfathomable piece of literature in the European vernacular. It is an uncanny visitation from a dark lost corner of our history, an era caught between paganism and Christianity. Fate, a pagan concept, plays a role in this story - "fate, the master of us all, must decide this issue". The pagan concept of vengeance is also found in Beowulf - the cause of Beowulf's battle with the dragon. However, these concepts are also linked to the Christian ideals of humility and unselfishness – ‘the proper bearing of man’. A strong sense of heroic pride within Beowulf is at times in direct conflict with these values and we see the dichotomy of pride vs. humility and sacrifice vs. selfishness.

Interestingly, in Beowulf, contrast is made between the pagan and Christian cultures for as stated (to Beowulf), "Have no care for pride, great warrior". The cause (hubris) and effect (a fall) are as true today as they were so many years ago. Many here fail to realise a central theme to Christianity - some, perhaps, for good reason but others, certainly, too proud for its acknowledgement.

Subjects such as these that Sellick raises always reminds me of how far we have to go in strengthening those binding ties that we all share as humans first and foremost. Inevitably it comes down to them and us which is a shame.

What gains do we make as HUMANS in defining those who do not share your opinion as "trolls", "sensitive souls" or at worst "filth". (Although I don't acknowledge runner as representative of all Christians).

The onus or burden of proof should not lie with those who question or might be sceptical in the face of unsubstantiated claims. To explain this disparity in terms of intuition is to over-simplify the issue.

As for hospitals (someone mentioned Christianity's role in tending the sick) well wasn't it the pagans who first practised herbal medicine and fostered alchemy? Are we to believe that the sick were cared for only after the advent of the Christian belief?

Atheists don't deny (in the main) that our moral framework has been largely derived through Christianity including our legal framework (in the West at least). Christians should consider the concept that Christianity itself is a construct of man to perhaps enable this moral framework.

This would suggest there lies a natural altruism inherent in man. Christianity as a concept is not responsible for altruism - if it is not inherent it cannot be manufactured. Christianity might have been the vehicle by which this humanity was delivered at a time of great turmoil (albeit not always delivered in a humane and compassionate way and was not without corruption, dominance and power).

Do we really need the concept of a God (or many Gods) to make us human?

Pelican, bravo. This must be a much more interesting and fruitful discussion than Sells' interminable 'Christians good, everybody else bad'.
Christian slave owners justified their actions by defining humans as white. People who weren't white, weren't human, therefore it was permissible to treat them like animals.
I'm still interested to learn how Sells defines 'Human Being'. Does one have to be a Christian, to qualify?
Can only sentient beings conceptualise Gods? I've found dogs get a certain look in their eyes...

Like most discussions on comparative religions Pete's tends to follow the well worn tradition of starting with a conclusion and then seek to justify that conclusion. Note I didn't say hypothesis.
Apart from the usual search for supportive evidence (?) (read conformational reasoning) add the bias of the applied logic.
He manages to offer two more fatal flaws, Christian arrogance and he has no real understanding of the alternative(s) either factually or conceptionally.

To be fair few in the west really grasp many of the concepts/unique logic in Shaman 'religions' (?) . Which is the antithesis of 'mass civilisation' logic.
IMHE Pete displays the above flaws in his erroneous declarations he makes about both women and the individual. Generalisation (one size fits no one) is a perversion/feature of mass civilisations/religions where the individual IS reduced to a number.
They tend not to think in these concepts i.e. there are 18 words in shamanic based Arabic for camel and 52 word for smoke in koori the same lack of abstractions/generalisations is true of most of the literal languages in PNG. The consequences on their language/conceptualisation or reality is immense. To understand them adequately one needs to jettison mass concepts logic and adopt their mentality. A tall order.
As I have said before I do not have the skill with words to be able to do more than token service to this.
Consider trying to describe the colour Red to someone who was born congenitally blind. Our reference points are too different.
Mass religions/cultures/civilisations assume supremacy and in the case of religious missionaries are so imbued with this arrogance that they create more problems that they purport to solve.
Shamanistic cultures do not make the separation of religion, spirituality (sic) , natural law , taboos and reality. They have evolved to suit their circumstances even cannibalism.

Yet they are considered primitive which often extends to their genetic existence.
Which (child substitution) proves wrong. Nature abhors a waste filling/ every possible life supporting niche... Ask yourself “why then the waste of genetic IQ potential why hasn't it been jettisoned?”
Pt1?

Well said, pelican. I'd also add that Islam was providing medical care within its communities while Christians were still slaughtering Jews as a remedy for the plague, and that the "moral framework" of Christianity owes far more to the intellectuals of old Greece than to the anything in the bible.

A quick look at history reminds us that Sells is simply making up a version of Christianity which suits his supremacist opinions, rather than examining the Christianity which actually exists.

As for relda's "sensitive souls", yes: I'm sensitive to essays which declare that the majority of human beings are in fact soulless zombies incapable of appreciating beauty, sensing profundity, or having sensibilities more civilised than Ghengis Khan's. It's uncomfortably close to the type of screed which religions have used throughout history to class non-believers as expendable cattle. It would be laughable if there weren't so many self-obsessed elitists (such as runner) who are completely receptive to Sells' message.

It begs the question: what is Sells' and runner's experience of the world? When they see someone kiss their child, or a crowd queing for an opera performance, do they assume that all those people are devout Christians, and thus able to give love or appreciate art? If Christianity is a prerequisite for any sort of morality or culture, do they think that millions of Australians spend their days at home in orgies of violence and sadomasochism?

We get horrified at extremist beliefs in Islam, but for examples of surreal hatemongering we need go no further than Sells' local church.

“Do we really need the concept of a God (or many Gods) to make us human?” - A fully balanced view of our anthropogenic history would clearly suggest the affirmative. Unless we are about to enter a brave new world with an ‘imagination deficit syndrome’ (my phrase), the concept of God is more than likely to remain.

Paul Tillich (whom Sells finds “impossible”) perhaps had the intention of stirring controversy, but with a point in the following:
"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

"God is the symbol for God"

"The God of theism is dead"

His remark that "God is the symbol for God" may lead many to conclude that he regarded God as merely symbolic (i.e., not real). However, Tillich was simply conveying the fact that human language can never fully grasp the ‘ineffable glory of God’, since our "superlatives become diminutives" when applied to God.

Thomas Aquinas gave a meaning for ‘truth’ as intrinsically linked with the notion of being – in many ways he parralells Tillich. He proceeds from an ontological understanding of truth, which is, as such, indicated by his conviction that ‘being’ is the first conception of the intellect (quod primo cadit intellectu est ens). The conceptual horizon from within which Thomas approaches the question of God is taken from the ‘Greek’ philosophical inquiry into the ultimate nature and truth of reality.

Since the entire universe is said to be divine in the Vedic texts, Hindus worship every form of nature as God. The Vedic texts, however, clearly say that one should not believe that a form of the universe itself is the God, but it is just a part of the divine wholeness. God is in everything and everything is in God – Tillich undoubtedly would agree and further, give embellishment from a Christian viewpoint.