Anyway, I won't waste my time parsing the fundamentalist sources of stupidity, because the commenters there do good enough a job at it. Rather, I want to focus on the essays of Sally Quinn and John Dominic Crossan.
Quinn's entry is about how she used to be an atheist, but now...:
I believe in God and I believe in the Divine. Here is what God is for me: Goodness and love and beauty, humility, kindness and grace, generosity, and the human spirit... I believe there is God in having fun, in laughter, in dancing, in having sexual intimacy with the person you love, in sharing a meal with wine and candlelight with people you care about. There are times when I feel a genuine ecstasy over something of beauty or love or an act of kindness. There is certainly God in my feelings of love for my child, my husband, my family and my friends.Now, I never was convinced that things like proper spelling and grammar are super important, but there are some offenses against the English language that go to far, and this is one of them. A perfectly well-understood word has been twisted beyond recognition. The semi-popularity of such definitions of the word "God" makes it somewhat difficult to know if anything at all is meant when someone says "I believe in God"--though I suppose some elected officials will breathe easier with such definitions.
As for Dr. Crossan, I sent him this e-mail:
Dear Dr. Crossan,Technorati tags: religion, atheism
In you recent blog entry for the Newsweek/Washington Post project "On Faith," you seemed to imply that the first believers in God believed in a metaphorical God. As far as I am aware, this position is not dominant in religious studies circles. Is this what you in fact believe? If so, what historical evidence is there for this position?