Peter, here's a suggestion; if, as you claim, you can't say anything meaningful about God, then SHUT UP! Collectively, I mean -- you and all your proselyting cronies. You can't have it both ways; either God is something real and significant that you can spend your life painstakingly explaining to the poor benighted heathens, or he's a concept that you will never be able to make clear to plain ordinary people like us who think in terms of logic and reason. Pick a side and stick to it!

"The tiresome and never-ending debate between atheists and theists comes about because of the failure of each side to speak theologically. "

No, it comes about because of the failure of theists to explain what they mean and justify their assertions in plain language. If that's not 'speaking theologically', then so much the worse for theology. No other discipline seems to have the same difficulty.

But the debate WILL end, of course -- in fact in the West it is already trending rapidly towards the inevitable end, as people who choose to believe nonsense realise that they will always be challenged when they put forward their beliefs in public.

Dear Peter,

<<I find myself completely disinterested in the current round of arguments about the existence of non-existence of God.>>

Since the issue has already been resolved it cannot be interesting: For God to exist leads to logical contradictions, hence God does not exist. We thank God for this understanding that saves us from idolatry, that allows us to love and worship Him with pure hearts!

<<This debate goes back to arguments made in the 13thC about what we can know and say about God. An argument was introduced by Duns Scotus (1266-1308), derived from Aristotle,>>

Accordingly, here lies the root of evil, the contamination of religion by ideas of a materialist.

Those who advocate God as an object indeed deserve Jon J's fire and as he advised, should shut up. Instead, speak about yourself, how YOU love God, how you long to unite with Him, what you can do to love Him more, what you can do to draw your heart and mind closer to Him.

Dear Jon J.,

<<as people who choose to believe nonsense realise that they will always be challenged when they put forward their beliefs in public.>>

Such is the false belief in the world of objectivity, what nonsense!

The really amusing thing is that Peter and his apodictic chums don't even have an original idea. It was devised nearly a hundred and fifty years ago by Charles Dickens, no less, in his first novel, The Pickwick Papers. The book tells the story of an association of gentlemen in London, presided over by the genial middle-aged Mr Pickwick. One of the unwritten rules of the club is that if one member should say something unkind about another, he can withdraw it by adding that it was only meant in 'a Pickwickian sense'. Thus if I were to say that my fellow-member Peter was a lying bastard, then add '...in a Pickwickian sense', honour would be satisfied and amity restored. And it all works, provided of course that nobody enquires too closely into what a 'Pickwickian sense' actually means.

All that Peter and his fellows have done is borrow the concept and change the name from 'Pickwickian' to theological. Thus 'God exists' in a theological sense means that God doesn't exist, and 'God is benevolent' doesn't mean that God actually does anything, but that if he existed, and he did, it would be good, in a theological sort of way.

So relax, Peter. When I said 'Shut up!' above, I meant it in a purely Pickwickian -- that is to say, theological -- sense.

Peter, you might as well say you believe in flaydbli. What is falydbli? I can't say. Nothing I could say would about falydbi would be true. But you certainly should believe in flaydbli. And live your life accordingly.

The point is not new. If you cannot say anything literally true about God, then all that you say is empty, literally meaningless.

I think that MacIntyre was right. There are minimal requirements on the concept of God for worship to make sense (and I'd add, to be morally acceptable). These include that God is good, in the ordinary sense of the word, and that he acts, in the ordinary sense of that word.

Whatever the range of actions you then hold that God can engage in, the problem of evil arises. That is the starting point for many arguments about atheism.

<<..when talking about the goodness of God..then "goodness" means the same as..when a person is described as good.>>

NO..IT DONT*
god is pure..100%..good..[all good]..[not a hint of darkness/vile]

PURE LOVE..who LOVES every living thing
the fact of life love logic..{light sustaining all life*

mans best 'good''..
pales in comparison..NUTHIN as good..as all good
[thus all the worse those who feign..to lie deceive gods creation..via the all good god..being named as a judge..as if..we need special words like agape..allgood belongs to god

we get closer to the great good
by doing good..by striving to love other
thus TRY..to love them..as god does..for the love/good they will one day end up doing*

jesus taught WE EACH..can find..the personal..knowable good
just by loving other..by whatever name

<<..at fiercely guarded language..about God>>

feigns 'special' gnosis..lol
yet that gnosis leads to the darkness
blind seede..leading the blinded see..upon stony ground

god is with
and within you/me us all life..
right now..

where god is life is

<<and that it tended towards an objectification of God
that made Him an object ..mong objects or a subject among subjects.>>

thats that secret gnosis phycosis

<<..It is this objectification of God
both by theists and atheists that make the argument
about the existence of God entirely irrelevant to Christian faith.

It amounts to idolatry.>>

yes i agree

<<..We can say..that while God is "wholly other"
we can also say..without fear of contradiction..that God is closer to us than breathing.>>

if god was to stop doing
THE*..things only god..can do
there would be immediate..darkness/complete and utter nuthinness

till you begin to pray..
and the light emerges..from with-in

EMMANUEL*..god with..[in]..us..[all]
your very life..is proof of the only true good..sustaining all life our living.

nogod
no good/no logic/no light/no love/no life
give your good_works BACK*..to god..get back many fold more shall be a given

So...God is the God you have when you don't actually have a human-like God?
Well, that's a new concept alright.
Non God believers will never think 'theologically' Peter, so your argument is wrong.

I will go one further and suggest that any 'God' is the figment of some humans imagination, whether they see this God as having a human form or not.

I believe that back in ancient times, humans believed in gods like 'Mother Earth', who had a female form.
I think I like the sound of that one better....

As our world edges ever closer to a nuclear holocaust, this article seems to be particularly apt.

I mean, when the nukes begin to fall, people who avoided being vaporized will probably say loudly, "Jesus Christ! God save us! The Lord is My Shepherd...! Our Father which art in heaven!" etc. There won't be time to consider a special language.

Of course, not everyone will say the above. There will be those who curse God for making humans so evil, so cruel, so greedy. I won't commit to paper how they might express themselves as they watch their children die before their eyes and their homes burn and a wasteland is created before their very eyes.

And Sells, if he survives, will wander about calling out, "Come to me. Learn God's special language. Credit cards will be accepted!"

omnipresent*

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+science+god+particle

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/14/174287416/god-particle-update-scientists-think-theyve-pinned-down-the-higgs-boson

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/9929535/Higgs-boson-scientists-confident-they-have-discovered-the-God-particle.html

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57574247/scientists-say-theyve-found-a-god-particle/&sa=U&ei=LycIUr63EYXAiQe69IHgBw&ved=0CCIQtwIwAg&sig2=-8rs8feiFjACqyxCSfDaWw&usg=AFQjCNEYCyNkzZr41aGruXcufYCUb5DVHg

see the light
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtZz3yvclKR84rB8FuUwUZE-fuqZmWXTgkhHegThqgftDLFcWW_X36nv9N

do mathematicians..need to know formula?
if we all were given..the math..would it be proof positive..[indisputable]

the bible is a tricky read

eg the so called mirror-calls[miracles]..
wernt miraculous..at the time

[ie feeding 4000/5000 all they wanted..
means none wanted to eat..[ie eating..in those days *needed..*clean hands/recall the shewbread handwash jars/the canna weeding

[recall his deciples..didnt know
thus ignorantly..'saw miracles..]..

ditto the handwash jars at canna wedding..
[jesus said..i dont do miracles/..not my time

in fact
i couldnt careless..if you fed them
from the utterly UNCLEAN*...handwash jars..

[would YOU*..drink..even the *best wine..FROM A TOILet?
neither did the guests]

thus the servants.,.did serve the masters BEST wine..
rather than loose their upstairs position..
if our master looses face..so do we

as no handwash jars were present..on the mount[ie the shewbread..

where christ said..I
TS NOT THAT A MAN PUTS INTO HIS MOUTH,
which makes him unclean..BUT THAT WHICH ISSUES FORTH..from* it*

and so it has all-ways been*
welcome to satans realm..you will be tempted/tested/tried tribulation-ed..right here

so when we sort the wheat..from the chaff
the chaff sinks by the tares [weight]..of their own dark sins

the deceivers stole the good of god from god
yet he still loves them..so i dont have to*..

sure that enjoins me to go to hell..
but even there god doeth dwell.

.still doing his god/good..loving
the rejected poor sick..and *those choosing..to dwell..in hell

Dear Jon,

I like your account of Pickwickian: it's the language of love.

Suppose you call your sweetheart 'Honey Bunny', sure you wouldn't feel the same if you saw in front of you an actual full-sized bunny made of honey!

So as we love God, we may say for example, theologically, that if He had a body, then it would be bigger than the whole world, that if He had a mind then it would know all, that if He had hands then He could do anything, etc.

I say and mean 'Glory be to the Father' and some other guy may just think about his abusive parent: how prone to misunderstanding - some expressions of love should better be kept inside the bedroom.

Dear Ozbib,

<<What is falydbli? I can't say. Nothing I could say would about falydbi would be true.>>

Sure, but if I added that there is nothing but Falydbi, including yourself, wouldn't that make a difference?

<<There are minimal requirements on the concept of God for worship to make sense (and I'd add, to be morally acceptable). These include that God is good, in the ordinary sense of the word, and that he acts, in the ordinary sense of that word.>>

As for making sense, a worship that makes sense is mere barter and attempting to cause God to act differently (on the assumption that he acts in the ordinary sense of the word) is bribery. Superior worship should therefore make no objective sense.

As for moral acceptability, this assumes an external/independent source of morality, outside God. However, with all that science discovered so far, not a single particle of morality, or goodness, or even meaning, was ever found in the objective universe.

I am not saying that 'God is good' - that indeed would be meaningless nonsense except in the language of love, which should be kept inside the bedroom. What I do have is a workable definition of 'good' which I found in psalm 92:

"It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to your name, o most high"

Poor Sells, he keeps on regurgitating the same old tiresome, archaic bronze-age cultic nonsense year after year, after year, basically repeating the same nonsense every time.

One wonders which century Sells is living in. Especially as the entire contents of every known religious and Spiritual tradition are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. Which raises the question why does everything have to turn out to be Christian, especially the dim-witted infantile/childish version that Sells promotes.

Perhaps a better question would be: who is qualified to talk about Truth, Reality, and The Beautiful too? And/or the esoteric dimensions of our existence-being?
The set of references available at this site introduce some remarkable men and women who really knew via their REALIZATION what they were talking about. They had actually Realized something which the fear based left-brained verbal automatically shuts down. The left-brained Letter always kills the Living Spirit!
http://www.beezone.com/ArticlesTradition.html
http://www.beezone.com/verbal_mind.html

The purpose of the Beezone is of course to promote the Life & Teaching of His Divine Presence Avatar Adi Da Samraj whose first book (now very much updated and expanded) is intoduced here:
http://www.kneeoflistening.com/i1-spiritual-genius.html

Further references which thoroughly deconstruct and outshine Sells dim-witted reductionist scribbling.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism
On the nature of Reality or Real God
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god
http://global.adidam.org/books/ancient-teachings.html

suse.muse online/quote..<<I believe that back in ancient times, humans believed in gods like 'Mother Earth', who had a female form.

I think I like the sound of that one better....>>

god of course..is all sexes..and all form/function
a matriarchal mothering..good god must reign supreme

i personaly speak..to the femail essence
of god..in the love of service to other..

where as the love of patriarchal..[opposing/judgmental essence]..being that of the material father..

both terms though would be mute*..in reference to he/her of most holly omnipresent living spirit..all pervading..all sustaining

materially
father..bears the life ..[living sperm]
'that finds nurture with in the matriarchal egg'
just as the father/sun*..lights the fertile mother earth..to birth life.

god is so simple children know him better
but this being the deceivers realm..we soon grow suss
then we die..and realise the kids got it right..think of the lover..as loving us like its anagramatic namesake a large puppy[dog]

that sees the real you..of pure love
and forgives us..the little sins..knowing the true you*..shines through..in the end

Lucy Van Pelt: Aren't the clouds beautiful? They look like big balls of cotton. I could just lie here all day and watch them drift by. If you use your imagination, you can see lots of things in the cloud's formations. What do you think you see, Linus?

Linus Van Pelt: Well, those clouds up there look to me look like the map of the British Honduras on the Caribbean.

[points up]

Linus Van Pelt: That cloud up there looks a little like the profile of Thomas Eakins, the famous painter and sculptor. And that group of clouds over there...

[points]

Linus Van Pelt: ...gives me the impression of the Stoning of Stephen. I can see the Apostle Paul standing there to one side.

Lucy Van Pelt: Uh huh. That's very good. What do you see in the clouds, Charlie Brown?

Charlie Brown: Well... I was going to say I saw a duckie and a horsie, but I changed my mind.

Dear Suse,

<<I believe that back in ancient times, humans believed in gods like 'Mother Earth', who had a female form. I think I like the sound of that one better....>>

What one believes is unimportant, but rather one's actual relationship with God in one's inner heart of hearts. God has no form, yet most of us find it difficult to worship God without a form, so we invent a form to inspire us and direct us towards God. So long as we remember that imagining God in a form is not the absolute truth, but only a religious technique, then whatever form helps us to concentrate on God is good. If Mother Earth does it for you, then by all means, do worship Her with full devotion.

Dear Daffy,

Do not belittle Christianity - it is a valid path to God: http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/gospel/introduction/christianity.htm

Believe in God but for Christ's sake leave religion out of it. Religion opposes just about everything God is supposedly desiring in people. He must be cursing himself for letting people become so bad.

Speaking of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda these references provide a unique understanding of their role/function as fore-runners for the appearance of Adi Da.
http://www.adidam.in/vivekananda.asp
http://global.adidam.org/books/avatar-3.html

And no, it is now impossible to find the Living Divine Reality via the ideology of Christian-ism which is now an entirely reductionist exoteric religion, even essentially anti-Spiritual in its form, and via its influence in the world altogether.
The necessary prerequisite for engaging in any form of Spiritual religion is the stable awakening to the 4th stage of life, as described in this reference. Such an awakening requires an uncommon human maturity and profundity.And indeed the guidance/assistance of a Spiritual Master and more importantly His accomplishing Grace.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html

<<I find myself completely disinterested in the current round of arguments about the existence of non-existence of God.>>

Peter, I'm sure you meant "uninterested".

"" "An argument was introduced by Duns Scotus (1266-1308), derived from Aristotle, that all things "are" in the same way and as such they may be described by a common language; there is a univocity of being." ""

That seems to be an attempt by Duns Scotus to co-opt & convert the Law of Identity, the most fundamental of Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought.

The Law of Identity states "that every thing is the same with itself and different from another": A is A, and not ~A.

Peter,

>>I find myself completely disinterested in the current round of arguments about the existence or non-existence of God.<<

I am “completely disinterested/uninterested” in many things, so I don’t write about them.

Seriously, do you think this is the proper venue for defending Barth’s theology against possible other schools of Christian theology? Could you not have envisaged the reactions you got? If I defended here e.g.my approach to differential geometry in a way comprehensible only to other mathematicians, what reactions do you think I would get? And differential geometry is certainly not associated with so much emotion - positive or negative - as the question of God.

>>This means that when talking about the goodness of God then "goodness" means the same as when a person is described as good.<<

When talking about the roundness of Earth then “roundness” means the same as when a ball is described as round. What else could it mean?

>> It is this objectification of God both by theists and atheists that make the argument about the existence of God entirely irrelevant to Christian faith.<<

The conclusion seems to be OK, but what do you mean by “objectification of God”? Do you prefer its “subjectification”, i.e. reduction to what Dawkins calls delusion? Can you quote Karl Barth, where he would have said something the like?

>> The tiresome and never-ending debate between atheists and theists comes about because of the failure of each side to speak theologically.<<

I would rather say “because they usually talk past each other". How can you expect an atheist to understand, or even use, theological language (whatever that means)? One would not expect a non-specialist to understand, or even use, a language comprehensible only to specialists.

>>The real arguments are theological and use theological language. This is the debate we have to have.<<

Again, if you wish to have such a debate using theological language you have to restrict yourself to those who can understand it. Otherwise you will have readers on this OLO who have difficulties understanding you (like e.g. myself) or react emotionally, even offensively.

Yep, guilty as charged, I should have said "uninterested."

Dear Daffy,

<<And no, it is now impossible to find the Living Divine Reality via the ideology of Christian-ism which is now an entirely reductionist exoteric religion, even essentially anti-Spiritual in its form>>

It goes without saying that nobody can come to God via an ideology - any ideology. It is however possible to come to God by walking in the footsteps of Jesus, through sacrifice and charity as he did. While not a Christian myself, I do know a few Christians who take their religion to esoteric depths and are spiritually well advanced, who sacrifice their own health and quality of life in order to alleviate the sufferings of others.

Dear Individual,

<<Believe in God but for Christ's sake leave religion out of it. Religion opposes just about everything God is supposedly desiring in people. He must be cursing himself for letting people become so bad.>>

I think you got it back-to-front: religion is by definition about coming closer to God - whatever means it takes, while believing in God is just one religious option. Better then forget about God, but follow religion.

Please do not listen to people who hold a position of power in organisations that claim to be religious: they are often spoilers of religion. If certain acts (including beliefs) do not lead one towards God, then these are not part of a religion. Period.

And BTW, God does not desire anything - it is we who desire God, usually once we suffered enough in this world.

Peter, it seems to me that the problem for the church is that there is too much theology, not too little!

What is the purpose of the Word? Is it to try to teach us all how to be better people, or is it to be an immutable and inscrutable Truth that only the initiated can grasp?

I went to church for the first time in over 30 years on Sunday. An Anglican church, because I was raised in an Anglican tradition and I know some of the forms of the practise. It was a good service on the whole, which was quite moving in some ways and I had a nice chat with the Ministers afterwards.

I was struck by two things. The first was that the average age of the congregation was 50+ at what was billed as the "Family Service". A couple of very young children, but no adolescents or even kids of 5-12. The second was that while the Rector was very good at delivering the Lesson, it was all about theology. He spoke of the need to glorify God because God is worthy of recognition as glorious and that god is an embodiment of the human virtues: justice, love, compassion, etc,and that this gives Him the right to be wrathful in turn. A patriarchal/paternal model, which hasn't changed much since I was last in Church. He went on to mention a case of female infanticide in Pakistan and tried to argue that while we are disgusted at such things, we should be MORE disgusted at a failure to glorify God, which I thought put the cart before the horse in a very big way.

If the church has a purpose it is to create a moral backdrop and foundation for society. Worship is not an end in itself, but has the function of making us better people. Preaching theology at people who have already lived their lives cannot do that

Drop the theology and look for the humanity is my advice

I think you got it back-to-front: religion is by definition about coming closer to God
Yuutsu,
So which of the countless religion's Gods is the right one then ?

Antiseptic,<<..What is the purpose of the Word?>>

the word [for me]..is as witness[ie the 4 gospils]
then the creed/the writings of saul/paul

the old testiment..surmises an agenda towards patriarchal dominance/figure heads and the primacy of the house of levie over the feminine/or rather maternal..that turns to loving service..reflected in the christ service unto other..from the house of david..

both books..of books..turn right..as a child of the fat-her
into rite/ritual/creed..via special dispensation/false god/saintly heads/dead ends

via AMASSING turn arounds..[like saul..jesus sworn enemy..
turning into paul..speaking on his behalf..subverting the stone/peter

or the potential child killer
into killing a scape goat[name changers..is a thing even the pope does[now]\

<<..Is it to try to teach us all how to be better people,>>

the work..made into word?
inversion[here in satans realm..of john1?

make us better?
or be seen to be equally fair!
by immersion..of us into satans material realm..to see if the muck..sticks?

here insatans realm..
where good and vile have equal opportunity..to make their case for our souls..[of course..our life giving spirit=sacrosanct..[as our spirit belongs to good..[god]

<<..or is it to be
an immutable and inscrutable Truth..that only the initiated can grasp?>>

so $ATAN$.minions would have us believe..
yet jesus himself said..just by loving [good service]..to other..loving sister..loving brother...can we know the supreme good [god]

<<Drop the theology
and look for the humanity...>> ..[in the l-east]..as much as the grea-test*..

<<..is my advice>>..too

i agree..if love/life/light
/logic/is ob-servable..via service

we reveal the love/life/light/logic/
via our works/service..by the things we chose to *do
or not..*do..unto other/..for other..or to each other

Thanks Peter for putting before us the greatness of good thinking about life and matters.
I found your description of special language to be of much help.
Thank you for stimulating thought about such important issues.

Dear Antiseptic,

<<If the church has a purpose it is to create a moral backdrop and foundation for society.>>

Another said, "If the church has a purpose it is to fill my pockets with gold".

Why should the church do either? One of the last things one can say about Jesus is that he was a social person!

There are plenty (too many in fact) social institutions already - better no church at all than a church serving the wrong master.

<<What is the purpose of the Word? Is it to try to teach us all how to be better people>>

Yes to be better, but not better people - to help us realise our full potential to recover our divinity.

Dear Individual,

<<So which of the countless religion's Gods is the right one then ?>>

Right one for what?
Right one for whom?

I cannot advise you about it without knowing about your particular background, circumstances and interests.

In relation to that you may also like to read my reply to Suseonline of 12 August 2013, 4:29:36 PM

Does God require a special language? Well, I'll be the mug, does he, she or it?

Which God does Sells refer to? I mean, there are thousands of gods in our world thanks to mankind's infinite imagination. They all have different names and they promise different things to their followers, you know: virgins or singing hymns forever.

I mean, if you have too much of Ra, the sun-god, you can be bloody Thor!

Yuyutsu, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The only thing we can do is to be people. I disagree completely that Jesus was not social. He was intrinsically social in every way. He had a large group of friends, he had a girlfriend, he had a large family, he spoke to lots of people and he gave himself completely to making people's lives better. How much more social do you want?

What he wasn't was institutionalised. He was a Jew who didn't get on with the Jewish authorities. He didn't like the rent-seekers ("moneychangers") who put themselves between people doing things that needed to be done and that used the structures of religion to do it. Hillsong and some other of the evangelical/charismatic organisations spring to mind.

As a result he fell foul of the authorities, but he did so because he was trying to show people that those authorities were flawed.

Peter's insistence on theology rather than humanity is intrinsically at odds with Christ's message, it seems to me. It's perhaps not unexpected from the Anglican tradition, though, which was founded because of the desire of a secular authority to dodge a fundamental obligation of marital fidelity in Christ's preaching.

George,
It may surprise you but I do not write for the commentators of OLO. Rather, I write for the many people who subscribe to the blog and others who have some level of theological education. My use of Barth was only an example, there are many traditional theologians I could of used who carefully guard talk about the being of God. Barth is one of the most recent examples.

Most of the people who comment on my stuff are just angry rationalists that refuse to think about an alternative view. I take little notice of them.

Peter, an excellent reason for the church to have no members.

You and the rest of your theological colleagues can talk to each other until you kick the bucket, but nobody is listening. So much for spreading the Word.

Sorry mate, but you represent all that Christ most despised. The pietistic elite that says "do as I tell you" but doesn't bother listening to what people actually say. What a tragedy.

Antiseptic,
Your previous post suggested that the function of the church was as a moral guardian. Morality is not the problem, we all know what is good, the problem is that we give ourselves to the wrong things and then morality is the problem. Jesus broke down more than he built up. He attacked the things that people give their lives to, country, religion, family, wealth etc. So you are right about him hating the kind of religion that just confirms the religious.

As to my replying to comments made here, all I need is a suggestion that someone is asking a real question instead of slagging me off and I will engage.

I must have made myself unclear, Peter. I don't think the church is a moral guardian at all. Far too many church leaders are or have been immoral for that to be the case.

Religions have a social structural function which is to provide a means of passing on education in what morality might be. The bible is above all else a guide to being a good person, not just in word or deed, but in thought. It's about how to think in a way that will lead you to do behave well toward others and it offers the promise of a reward or punishment after life as an inducement.

I don't think you need to take that inducement as real in order to learn from the bible and you don't need a preacher putting himself in the way necessarily, although a good one can be helpful, undoubtedly.

The church can be good or bad, it depends on the people who own it. It has no intrinsic value beyond those people.

One of the most inspiring things I've seen recently was the graduation speech that was widely reported in which the speaker said the greatest advice he could offer to people is to "be kind". Too much of the church's message is about being pietistic for selfish reasons and the message about being kind is missed. The way the message is delivered is formulaic, not passionate. It comes from dry theology, not red-blooded humanity.

I'm sorry for "slagging off" at you, but I did it in order to try to draw you out of that theological shell you're hiding in. You can't minister to people without listening to them and you can't proselytise if you're not speaking a language that people understand.

I've been accused on a few occasions of "speaking down" to people, which is never my intent, but I have to accept that people see it that way and try to change the way I write. I think that you might need to do the same.

Just a thought.

Dear Antiseptic,

I stand corrected: Jesus was not fond of social institutions, rather than of social relationships as such.

<<The bible is above all else a guide to being a good person>>

That's wishful-thinking on your behalf, with the exception of the book of Proverbs.

Being a good person is a good introduction to religion, an important preliminary (after all it's quite difficult to concentrate on God when the police is after you; or when your conscience constantly throws unwholesome reminders back at you for your past actions; also when your body constantly reminds you that you haven't treated it well), but religion is not about that - it goes far beyond.

It's OK if you wish to stop at that, being a good person, but then why call it 'religion'?

Peter,

>> Rather, I write for the many people who subscribe to the blog and others who have some level of theological education.<<

I did not question your writing to “people who … have some level of theological education” only wondered about your choice of the language given this venue, and whether this was a good way to make people appreciate the insights that Christian theology could provide.

If your writings are not inspired by Karl Barth, then I understood you - or Barth, or both - even less. Therefore I asked for a relevant quote from Barth. But I shall still try to read you through the Barth prism as it seems to be the most promising way to comprehend you.

I am certainly not a Christian theologian, but I enjoy Peter's articles, written mostly in plain English. I don't know or care who Barth is, but I still get the main ideas of the article. I did get a bit lost towards the end where it gets Christian-specific so one probably cannot understand without first-hand Christian experience, but most of the article is universal and can be understood by any religious person.

The church are nothing more than a 'don't do as we do, do as we say' cord.

david..<<..Does God require a special language?
Well, I'll be the mug, does he, she or it?>>..

in fact..no..god does not
god requires,..not any word..only works/deeds
and not just words..on works..but that we do* the works we do..with passion.

think how evil..LOVES doing its evil
till we can do..only the good..with the same passion..
as this is Satan'$ realm..what is in it..will in the end be only that you CHOSE..to be made real..here..by doingit physiclly

in the next realm..often
fo-cussed thought..brings its realization..
[you in affect make it real..specifically..*only for you..

and what you chose to realize..[make real]..there
determines where you will *be..[but even then the word be..isnt relative..as in the concept of a simple..or sinfull being..as much as simply letting it be..or obsessing about the being were then chosing to become..

usually just as we each..now..
are choosing to be..[the good will still be striving to be good
and the bad..at heart..striving to do evil..to each other]

the issue of one god/or many..is of little importance..in both..heaven and hell..[as in affect..*we each..hold the one true [wholly spirit]..love life logic light etc..

ALL LIVING..BEING*..of the one
yet each living holds..*our own lifes sure gnosis
[ie the witness and lessons..we hold in common..with the god of life/love/logic]

ie we each..hold our own bit..of godliness within
that sustains us our every living breath..what we do..with that gift..is to sort the goats fromthe sheep..sort trhe tares fromthe wheat..or thye wheat fromthe chaff

WHATEVER..you love
more of the same will be given..
to the greatest equal..as the least
[as great evil..allows greater good in ending it]

never the less all murderers..have their own room..in gods haven
where they can spend eternity..*only murdering ONLY each-OTHER..intheirr own room

JUST LIKE CHRIST..WENT to our fathers house*
..TO BUILD XTIAN's..their own room

ditto each passion..religion/creed
be they MORTAL self-ish sin..or sins upon..our other selves..
at physical death..all you can hurt..is thyself..and or others like as thyself.

individual/quote..<<..The church
are nothing more than a 'don't do as we do, do as we say' cord.>>

one needs ask..which church..specifically*

[at last count..there were..millions of churches..in the aether realm
each has their own room..[but these usually are seen as building/villages/cities..called realm/planes]

eg the christ 'room'..spans from the highest
to the lowest realm's..often along the lines of creed
or common held mis-perceptions as much as..common held ..mis-conception

thus we see..many budda realms
many christ realm..many mahamoud realm's .etc
many atheist realms..many realms of sheep..many of goat

of truth..the reason..we have an expanding universe
is because the dwellers in hell..move ever further away
whereas in heaven..we draw ever closer

till..we yet again..
gain enlightenment..via the atonement[at one meant]

man is not meant..to be alone
neither..the wholly spirit

"It may surprise you but I do not write for the commentators of OLO."

Well, Sells, I hope that Graham, the publisher, is aware of this extraordinary position of yours. The commentators are the audience of OLO and, as such, should not be insulted by the likes of you!

Your admission also explains why you rarely bother to argue your case with the intelligent audience that, in the main, OLO attracts.

Why don't you take your box of religious tricks and duplicitous theo-babble and choose somewhere else to peddle your arrogant, one-eyed, misguided wares?

<<..derived from Aristotle,
that all things "are" in the same way>>

yes things are
and all are ..by virtue of being things....
the things..*being..are being[existing]..in the same way[ta0]

mean-ing..<and as such>>..by simply being of the same circumstance
things are being..thus<<they may be described by a common language;>>..inherent with all being..in that..<<there is a univocity of being.>>simply by letting it so be.

..<<..The argument is..that this broke with a tradition>>..EDITED..<<that it tended towards an objectification of God..that made Him an object among objects...or a subject among subjects>>

that is totally absurd
GOD IS CAUSE..of things..
as opposed to the things..god is allowing the many fold of THINGS to be.

..<<<...Barth framed God as the "wholly Other",>>

and yet he egsists
WITH-in..all..living things
ie..OMNIPRRESNT*..cause of causes
pure great good/love light sustaining life /living
via logic[logus]:..grace mercy service..love of other..

all sustained to live
via the one true wholly spirit cause

<<..the one who could not be found at the end of any human path.>>
because..he is with and within..*us all...all the time*
YET*..he is without [out]..side of us too

omnipresent*

<<<..The result is that God is protected from all human projections>>

yet to..hurt one
is to hurt HIM*..to serve other..is to servbe him

THAT WE DO TO THE LEAST..[think thing]
we do to the most..[thinkeverything]..ie primo cause..[god]..sustaing them their living..and everything..

[eve-wry thing]


<<so that faith could be free of idolatry.>>
god wants us to see our own greatness
by seeing his greatness IN other*

Antiseptic
I am amused that you think you understand something about the church. Very little of your observations coincide with any church I know. Perhaps you should go and check it out before you make such wild and incorrect pronouncements about what is wrong with it.

Thank you Peter,
I'm doing just that, as I said earlier. I also spent my childhood at the premier Anglican church school in Brisbane. That experience taught me that those who profess religiosity the loudest are often those who are least likely to behave in a Christlike manner. Your behaviour on this thread hasn't done anything to change that view.

Still, I'm pleased you're amused. It is my greatest pleasure in life to provide entertainment for those who consider themselves to be my betters. At least it means they can't be causing any harm while I'm doing it.

Christ was scathing of those who held themselves up as leaders while failing to demonstrate by their actions their own commitment to the things they demanded of their followers.

Looked in the mirror lately, old chap? Perhaps better not to...

Yuyutsu, our "divinity" is simply our best possible morality, surely? A truly divine being is perfectly moral.

Dear Antiseptic,

<<Yuyutsu, our "divinity" is simply our best possible morality, surely? A truly divine being is perfectly moral.>>

What I'm going to tell you can be dangerous when misunderstood, so please allow my message to be burned in 30 seconds:

The divine is not moral - there comes a time in our spiritual evolvement when even morality must be left behind, when it is no longer relevant.

HOWEVER, that time is not anywhere near for me and you, nor likely near for any of the people we know. For the stages most of us are in, morality is a crucial pre-condition for spiritual progress, so please erase the above.

Antiseptic,<<..our "divinity"
is simply our best possible morality, surely?..>>

i agree

but then..<<..A truly divine being*..is perfectly moral.>>
the error here..is in the objective,..*being..as opposed to the spirit subjective..which can chose to be..'perfectly'..moral..but then can chose its opposing..in light of new revelation..

to ex-emplify..a perfectly good being..can ascend upon high
but with the higher wisdom..or gnosis..to be found up there..

then..*decide on the negative..and thus be drawn..down-under*..KNOWING..god casts no blame..KNOWING he will be forgiven..KNOWING god is good/all mercyfull etc etc

yet this perfectly moral mense..is full still burning with anger
at how we mindlessly despoil gods great gifts..or other upset

perfection is like sanity
any one of us can loose it
if our right buttons get punched

[like say someone..abused a close family member
[and who is not thy brother or thy sister
all of a sudden..we *allow vile to get in

<<For the stages most of us are in,>>

most of the time

<<..morality is a crucial pre-condition for spiritual progress,>>

i fully agree

but its all ways important to...REMEMBER*

!*>>,,ONLY GOD IS PERFECT..<<*!

even ..just by repeatedly trying
mankind..yet..can be so trying

"Most of the people who comment on my stuff are just angry rationalists that refuse to think about an alternative view. I take little notice of them."

'Angry Rationalists' would be a great name for a band. But if you're referring to me, Peter, you're only half right. I'm not in the least angry -- what is there to be angry about? -- but I am amused. I'm particularly amused, for instance, when someone finishes up an article by claiming there needs to be a debate, then conspicuously avoids taking part in any such thing.

But I see now that I have misjudged you. I thought you didn't supply answers to my criticisms because you didn't have them, but you were merely maintaining a dignified silence. My daughter used to do the same thing when she was eight, and we asked her if she had tidied her room.

Dear Jon,

<<I'm particularly amused, for instance, when someone finishes up an article by claiming there needs to be a debate, then conspicuously avoids taking part in any such thing.>>

Well firstly we ARE having a good debate here, whether Peter takes part in it or otherwise. I must say, however, that I could enjoy this discussion more with his input.

Secondly, I believe that you should take that statement in context. Peter explained that this article was not intended for OLO commentators, stating clearly: "I write for the many people who subscribe to the blog and others who have some level of theological education".

It therefore seems that his blog was copied to OLO as is, without editing, including the last paragraph: "The arguments about the existence of God are arguments about an abstraction. The real arguments are theological and use theological language. This is the debate we have to have.", so the debate he wanted to have must have been in the circles of his regular audience, not in OLO.

So Peter, I enjoy your articles very much despite the fact that I don't understand some Christian-specific bits and pieces here and there. Would you consider editing and adjusting your articles a bit when they are copied to OLO, for the benefit of the non-Christians among us?

peters/quote..<<..The arguments*..edited..are arguments>>

the argue-meant..is about wether god is<<..an abstraction.>>

and i dont think we had that talk
so maybe need a link back..to the experts*..origonally posted for
or get anupdate about that debate

<<..The real arguments are theological
and use theological language.>>

so go ahead..right here
we get*..more than you would think

<<<This is the debate we have to have.",>>>

so lets get ready to de-bait*
at last expand..your target pool

Yuyutsu

I actually do write for OLO but am so weary with the comments that I take little notice of them. I understand that I expect too much of most readers. Add this to my own difficulties in attempting to explain the faith into our context and it is no wonder I get so much puzzlement and anger. I guess the gospel has always had a hard time of it and if it does not then we must suspect that it is not in fact the gospel. I think that there has never been a time in which the public mentality is so averse to the faith. While I can preach to a congregation writing for the unchurched is especially difficult.
Peter

Peter, if you can't explain it to people who don't share your ontological assumptions then you don't understand your subject.

The way Christ got around the issue was to use metaphor and allegory and occasionally demonstrations of his own faith in the essential goodness of people who were in the dregs of society. He didn't sit with the pharisees or the rich Romans speaking fine high-status Latin and Greek and Aramaic, he sat with the beggars and the shepherds and fishermen and the tax collectors and the despised Samaritans and lepers and prostitutes and spoke in the language of the gutter to those who lived there. He didn't expect them to meet him, he went to them and he expected his disciples to do the same.

Luke 20:46-47 - "Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greatest condemnation".

That translation is straight from the English Standard Version of The Bible, which is the one your church uses. I was given it last Sunday by a very nice and sincere colleague of yours when I attended church.

Perhaps it's time you read it again and thought about the message instead of the theology?

Dear Peter,

<<While I can preach to a congregation writing for the unchurched is especially difficult.>>

I suppose everyone receives their own different gifts, by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit.

But it's a pity because the absence of understanding your insights leaves the field exposed to bible-literalists and exoteric preachers who create wrong and hostile impressions about religion and about Christianity, who by fighting a losing-battle with science misrepresent religion and bring it to ridicule as if it competes with science about understanding the inner-working of the material world and with technology for material gains.

I think that public mentality is averse to the faith as a result of such irresponsible or incompetent misrepresentations: I hope someone can come and correct those.

Yuyutsu,
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I certainly don't have a hostile view of Christianity or faith generally. I despise elitists and rent-seekers of all kinds though.

As I mentioned earlier, I attended Brisbane's premier Anglican school. The experience caused me to reject any role for religious faith for over 30 years. It was a cold, isolating, violent, inhuman place. When I went there it had 52 acres of some of the best land in Brisbane, with at least 30 of that given over to sporting fields, swimming pools, tennis courts and the like. It has since expanded to take up a further 5 or more acres, which are filled with monumentalist structures to the glory of their donors and the tax money that was spent on them. I'm guessing, but the value of that school would have to be at least $500million, probably more. Everything is state of the art, every building double brick pseudo-gothic revival, paths are paved in brick, not sheathed with asphalt or (horrors) dirt.

Confirmation of the boys is not the duty of a humble local minister, the Archbishop comes in pomp (it used to be Hollingsworth, until he tripped over his G-G robes) and Government Ministers and judges sit behind the altar.

Right now there are 125 uninsured homes in the Wide Bay region that are still unliveable after the floods in summer. The Salvation Army has a contract to fix them using volunteers because QBuild has no resources. They have started on 7. The State Government (Tim Mander, the evangelical ex-referee govt Minister) has promised $15000 per home. As far as I know, the Federal Govt is giving nothing.

That's $1875000. It wouldn't pay the Council rates for half that school...

peter has a secret
use big words..then you can lord it over the ignorant
ride the high life..with the elite..[and the poor..let them eat stale crumbs]

falling..like dandruff..from the body of christ'0..
the holy sacrament crumbs/with only the best cask wine
/watered down of course..cause the poor..dont deserve the pure unadulterated life blood..of the christ..

stillthats a blessing of sorts
by hisd behaviour its clear the poor old dear..peter
dont get christ at all..thus he can deceive only his elite mates

its sad how satan..lies
embedded in the midst of the church

demons drink blood..demons eat flesh
if you cant do as jesus does..why copy that only demons do
but peter..is like a rock..just doing the ritual..serving demons creed

not the living christ..where peter would be the rock
but some death cult created by saul/paul..who too heard demons
turned the living christ into yet another faulse messiah...turnthe other cheek..or5 run away

yeah..though he lives..in the valley..of fear
he dont fear no evil..because his works give nurture to vile..GOD is NOT only in high sounding words/creed rite.,.but inthe wurks of demons..as much as saint

think how a demon church would
decorate its hut..with dead corpses

use/imagry..flesh/blood/gore..of its victories over 'good'
like a curtain of living eyes of the dammed././bones of saintly..for their cauldron/alter..dripping with its sacrosanct/life blood.

god dfidnt require nuthin..get it peter
he would like it oif we did as christ did
but if you love satan..thats ok too..

UNTIL YOU DECEIVE ONE INNOCENT..
away from him..all loving/all mercy-full..
who are sure god forgives..know it..seen it/lived it

but what about others
equally sure of his mercy..who dont like deceivers..
or those THINKing..[thin-KING*}..big-words..lol..as being equal..lol..to big works..

to mean anything
but adult*eration..[adultery]
of the simple words..our savior spake.,.clearly

love god..[creator]
via love of other...[creation]

recall the law re adulteration
your doing it..yet cant see it

postscript

the peter[see above]
refers to the original peter/..pappa

please pass the missive onto the first pappa..elder

if you do this small thing
i thank-you..

our peter
sell it

pps
please use huge words
loudly

the saintly prepare the harvest
on high

144,000..like him /thee?..[the other peter]
..leave shortly..as the realms shift

and this materialist earth
becomes part of lower hell

heaven help those saved*
who return..only their own saving
for thee knew our master to be a hard master

ye that saved many
more shall be given

Antiseptic
We have something in common! I went to an Anglican school and the experience turned me into an atheists, in fact it turned me into an angry rationalist who was bent on doing the only thing that made sense: Science.

I would me much readier to engage with you if you were not so prickly. Take your opening sentence in your last post as an example.

Dear Antiseptic,

No, I was not referring to you, I was referring to Peter's general statement that "I think that there has never been a time in which the public mentality is so averse to the faith".

As for your criticism, I can identify with aspects of it, with others not, but going into details would take us straight off-topic: the behaviour of organisations that call themselves 'religious' has nothing to do with religion.

Unfortunately, faith does suffer as a result of the common ignorant belief as if those two are related.

OUG, thank you, there are none so blind and all that.

Adam's ale for me.

Peter, you're quite right, I'm afraid my tendency when poked is to poke back. Mea culpa.

thanks anti..
but i guess i got a head start

$ELL'$..quote..<<..We have something in common!>>

addressed toyour good self reveal
$ellS/quote..continues<<..I went to an Anglican school and the experience turned me into an atheist,>>

see i was born/bred/educated..that science was god
that no sky fairy to resist anything men do..thus none to judge anyone..

but in time i realized science is just like
the peer/based..religion only peer revieuw..in science..judges only..its own thesis elites..theo-wry.

anyhow science validated E[energy]..cant be created..nor destroyed
thus went into many 'forbidden/secret texts..that just like peer reviewed SCI-trance..had referances to yet other not so secret texts

[like the so called bi-[two]-ble[books]
plus the torah/koran/buddist stuff/shinto
even true scientists like swedenberg..and the likes of mary baker eddie

but i did this after meeting..[finding]..
the living godhead within myself and importantly..in other
[mainly the lower life/beasts nature..]

in time i saw it..even in man
[made not in gods image]..but in satans image
which even the beasts recognized.. as 'man'..

we see it ea-silly
in the young Nurtured fierclyby its parental
...[love of beast..for its own*..image]..inherent in nature

natures natural-selected surviving..
/ie pa-rent-al*..nurture* ..as witnessed in nature
living beast yet god loves even the least[and there is some awe-sum..but horrid 'beasts'..out there

[yet human inhumanity..reigns supreem

so i too feel the call..<<in fact it turned me into an angry rationalist who was bent on doing the only thing that made sense:>>

give good back to god..eliminate vile
yet what the greater good..to refuse to do evil

even hell is divided..on how best to do its vile
so too the higher..how to persist living LOVING good..
when the dark-forces..so tempt us to be..like they are..

but no death..serves the life giver
but we know*..E=mc2...

so...whats the rule..re energy conservation?
do unto other,..as you would have them do unto you

wake the dreamer
or teach vivid dreaming

yea..though..ye may hear of war
do not stand before god..with dirty hands

why ignore..the blood and gore..of war..?

[its simply satan taking his own?..to their new home]..
or let satan keep this realm..take away the few..what would we do?

love god..by loving
living..doing only good

While this ridiculous article about whether a non-existent god requires a special language has been furiously debated, people in Egypt are dying by the thousands!

Small things amuse small minds!

BRAVO*..david
but that aint the half of it
http://rense.com/general96/cowards.html

much more in store
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS89vNH-eeY

as israel expands..unseen..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg#at=32

via ever more gore via war/poverty..destruction of assets
while rome fiddles

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Bash_Brothers%3A_How_Globalization_and_Technology_Teamed_Up_to_Crush_Middle-Class_Workers/28090/0/0/0/Y/M.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/students-offered-grants-if-they-tweet-proisraeli-propaganda-8760142.html

Antiseptic..<<..Adam's ale for me.>>

nip of bundy rum
in a pot of coke..no ice
anytime anyplace..you got a great mind..discourse with you would be fun

but why did you get short
when peter perhaps..found one worthy..to expand the topic

[i know most of the things i say..are half truth..half not
as i walk the middle path..hoping the error is obvious..or will be corrected[just cause i FEEL* a fact true..dont allways mean..anyone of us is ALLWAYS*..right

YET..in fact..thats why god so loves us
for our imperfection..our humanity

anyhow..so many informed minds ...on this thread
that now has gone dead

because a demonvoice..closed it down
with the eye for eye
m,y plankis bigger than yournstick*

<<..my tendency when poked is to poke back.>>

who dont
but others cut and run

oh what would jesus do
probably what hedid [let be done]..last time

cause theytstill miss the meaning of jesus full name
god with us
YE SHALL CALL HIM...emanu-EL
el is gods secret name..inoted it in S-EL-ls..

Mea culpa...ok lets skip the booze
lets have a cuppa culpa..and skin this cat

what you two could talk of [with devid yu etc could go somewhere

we were talking
then what went wrong
we thunk.,..a negative attracted a negative
we let in demons unaware..[cause god must be seen ..to be*...fair

recall jesus said
why clean his house..
when the demon..returns with 7 mates

OUG,I'm not entirely sure why I got "short" with Peter, other than that I found his tone and the sense that some things are just too hard to explain to the plebs irritating. I have to learn not to react in that way. Of all my vices (and needless to say, they are many) that is the most difficult to control.

If a special language is required, then by all means we should use it, but only if you could explain it without using that special language.

Far too much "knowledge" is pretence and not examined properly because nobody wants to admit they don't understand what it means. Semantics is not syntactics - in other words, meaning is separate from the form of the words and it is a two-way process to ensure the meaning is properly understood at both ends of the discourse. Sometimes meaning is altogether separate from the form, as in metaphor or allusion, or in the way you like to pull words apart.

Antiseptic/quote..<<..Far too much "knowledge" is pretence>>..

thats understood though
that way we can distance our selves..from our expressed fears
we need to know..thus must presume/project from the known..into the unknowable future-tense

pre-tense=the theory
[in its present sense]
ok..thats my pre-sense pretense

feigned gnosis..<<<and not examined properly
because nobody wants to admit they don't understand what it means.>>

i like to think..that means..
were more open to a preferd error..credit
rather than assured but unknown..discredit..debit

<<Semantics is not syntactics>>
peter must love that..adjective
me too..lol..sin-tactics..we amuse ourselves..at so many levels

so im glad you clarified

<<<..in other words,
meaning is separate from the form..of the words
and it is a two-way process..to ensure the meaning is properly understood*..at both ends of the discourse.>>

thats why i like simple word forms
that encompass..sure meaning....like love..includes love of hate
or that hate cantlove hayte cause hate excludes love

or maybe the simple surety of hot/cold..
as in absolute oppisite..

yet even here with a 'thiest'..v..'athiest'
their one and the same..each sure of its assuredness

<<..Sometimes meaning is altogether separate from the form,
as in metaphor or allusion, or in the way you like to pull words apart...>>

i have a simple..yet sinfull mind
just trying to find if the messiah../destroys..or comforts

the one thing i do feign to know
as an adjective..is god within us all

and i love watching us ourselves
having that clear good god moment..when we rise to our best
and the love light shines forth..from our very beastly huh?.man being

cheers

lets sellsibrate

peter said..<<..I find myself completely disinterested
in the current round of arguments..about the existence of..non-existence of God.>>

me in the pre-sent sense..
..i missed that
where can we join in?

i know..*god is real
yet religion corporations..are fake

[ie only 'persons'..under the act]..ie paper personhood
as opposed to a living mind spirit..driving this flesh body..to grow its soul.

<<..The arguments about the existence of God
are arguments about an abstraction.>>

god isnt abstract
he is in the active..not in dead opbsure secret or big word

yet words are sacred
SACRED*word=s*word

the pen is mightier than the word
but nor when the word itself..is sacred

<<..The real arguments are theological
and use theological language.>>

so what..i google words i dont grok

KEY BIT..<<This is the debate we have to have.>>

lets diss-cuss..i so hate a de-bait

<<..That may seem surprising for a clergyman, but there has been nothing new in these arguments for a few hundred years.>>

invent new words
find out what the word really means[put it back into its proper context]

SATAN'$ minions HAVE DONE..THIS VILE
VIA..*CHANGING WORDS MEANINGS!

<<Protagonists and agonists have been laboriously
going over the same ground and end up at the same dead end.>>...

ok peter
what same dead end?

peter said..<<..I find myself completely disinterested >>

and proved it
thanks anyhow peter

cheers
johannine

towards the end..of the page
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909
that discourse went much further..with bigger words

god receives images..via our eyes
god receives sound..through our ears
what we taste..god tastes..what we smell..he doth 2

when we are happy..god is happy
when we cry..he feels the crying too
everything we do..or nature does..or.in thereby doing achieve..is an achievement of god/good..giving us is the great gifts only the living loving good can give..

that we chose to turn...good truth/light..
into darkness hurt betrayal..
is that..we did to god..

just by hurting each-other
we hurt the one

i was replying a topic..older going on for longer than this one
asking..<<..Is being a scientist compatible with believing in God?>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

thus clearly relative to this topic
re special gnosis or /big words
special language..

and linked to this yet older one
asking is god back?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909&page=0#66836

and realised we use big words
thinking the kidies dont comprehend us
or that demons wont grasp..what we are saying

in being precise we become exclusive
and then exclusive..us*.. verses..the all inclusive them*[other]

which begins an inevitable decay
delay..as we decay..next..the rot sets in

rot..just naturally leads to recluse
elude exclude delude..

but even those words
are too big ..for this little conversion conversation conducted by evasion

where doth the holy text say cut and run?
ignore the gore..

we enter-taint..entertain angels or demons too..
just by rejecting or accepting good or vile..unaware..as we dont judge neither angel nor demon..but thgeir fruits

hate the deed
not the being*

Under One God, you must surely be the least read commenter on OLO!

Your staccato, pseudo-poetic, bible-bashing ramblings are virtually unintelligible and, even with the best will, are difficult to make any sense of. I skip over your endless offerings and I'm sure many others do as well.

Why don't you try to write simply and without stilted affectation? Then people might actually get what you're on about!

Cheers.

David G,..<<oug/the least read commenter on OLO!>>

we all know why..
the fool[oug]..speaks..in tongues

speaks in riddles..uses small words..
brings big words back to the hidden meaning..under all words

and comp-re-hending..oug
does..<<..require a special language>>..skill set.
as he talks in the mode of the book..comprehensible mostly to those who/..already know the books words..in the context used..

soas to allow ignorance its own diss-covery
in their own works...or in yet other words..*in their own time[freewill]..i

when god has proved himself true[with-in you/with[out] you]
it obligates you..to allow *others their own joy..in their own way

<<Your staccato,>>
indicates my shortness..sorry sharpness
is with those..who would feign to teach lead innocents./.blindly

<<pseudo-poetic, bible-bashing ramblings>>
are inputs..from my guides
feelings..apprehension and so much more..

but basically obviously..
the ram-bling of an illiterate..
yet able to confound the wise..with a sharp tongue..
that makes each word..into..*s'word..to diss-spell..the spell..[ing]..cast into big words.

[asd one of those
who is sick..of the demonic spelling..
casting its spell VIA SPELLING

as cast by the words,..
variable spellings.into INCANTATION..[COMPREHENSIONS?]

big word's hypnotize
so specialized as to have become obscure

thus by being SPECIALIST*..wurds<<are virtually unintelligible and, even with the best will, are difficult to make any sense of. >>

again
freewill

<<I skip over your endless offerings
and I'm sure many others do as well.>>

thats ok
i was only tall-king to..$ELl'S..anyhow

<<Why don't you try to write simply>>

i really try..
but then repeat endlessly
trying from a different angle..to drive in..*that which cant be driven..[riven?]

<<and without stilted affectation?>>
the human..in me needs to silt..causeclear might hurt other[pl;us proof refute their chosden reality..[belief in deciete]


..<<Then people might actually get
what you're on about!>>and hopefully then explain..it to me
[the first shall be last/..nun so blind..as those who cannot see..

i begin with the surety..of god=E..
e cannot be created..nor destroyed..
only recognized..in its present[or presented]..form.

the proof of the living loving god
..is all around us..but can be seen..mainly via an..open working heart

Congratulations, UOG! Your response was even more unintelligible than most of them!

There is no prize for being perfectly obtuse! Only annoyance!

david/g..quote..<..Your response..was even more unintelligible>>
clearly you lack the language skill set..to comprehend
and thats fine..

clearly..you dont have any question
or answer to..topic.thus again find my reply topic..obtuse

<<..There is no prize for being perfectly obtuse!>>

obtuse..:..
1=annoyingly insensitive..[both of us]
2=slow to understand..[you]
3=not sharp pointed/blunt..[me]

<<..Only annoyance!..>>
from the french..
meaning..'it is hate full to me''..[ie you]

annoy=
1 make slightly angry..[you?]
[ie attracting demonic or other negative input]
2..pester or harrass..[you]
3..harm or attack..repreatedly...[who?]

it..looks like pot/kettle

i would have accepted
your feeling..irritation.or exasperation..or.vexation
displeasure..or charigin..or annoyance..bother or even a pain
in the neck..or a bore..or even a burr..under your saddle sore..

except its not personal for me..
nor even individual..but general..just my comment/opinion..on what got said..at this topic..whichifind far from annoying

in fact is key
timming is everything

petersells plse mention..
fatima/rhyme of the rosery/chrone'-os

as a final note
please note the lan-gauge..we are using

here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

i had such high..hopes for peter
such contempt for paul/saul..who muddied the waters

peter was to be the rock..that anchored the gospil..[personal witness]
instead..paul became peter..and creed divided the christs house

pauls christians fail to see
EVEN..the greatness..of yet other xtians..
luther/swedenberg/mary baker eddie/all laterday saints etc

[ie the true 'saints;;..revealing the innergood..
we 'saw'..[see me..see *him who sent me]..we see in the works of christ

thus..they fail to realize the greatness
/vastness..of the inner infinite good..of god..with/in..each other

the true peter..acts like a sure foundation stone
ever aware of greater revelation..
or it serves satan..not christ.

thus serves the material..[impermanent]
not spiritual..[eternal]

but its all..bluff wind creed greed
needing special meaning..for special word*

it is IT*..[find a big word]
which requires this..'special..lan-gauge'..

big wurds..to
con-found/con-fuse!

just like too clever by half lawyers..high priests
defending the money-changers tables..and their [ilk]

..govt creed..
[greed]

taxing the sacred bread crumb..off the backs
of the poor..

poor in spirit..
cause the watchman sleeps

i have been following previous posts
at..*..Is God back?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909&page=0#66836

and have noted that many links..posted..there
have been REMOVED*

<<...in case you want to know more
i suspect it goes something like as written in these stories
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/gonewest.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ne/newviews/wsltoc.html
>>..

anyhow the first link..is here..[gone wast]
[the best exposure..of after life][and of our ongoing redemption]

http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf

the others like ..*"the officer"
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Subaltern_Spirit_Land.pdf

''30 years among the dead ''
http://new-birth.net/booklet/30_years_among_the_dead.PDF

etc..will be found..
no doudt..in the vatican libary..as easily as google..
even if..a thiest or an athiest..deletes them yet again..

so much more proof
of what we could be doing..
just by seeing the true miracle..good/god
which lies..within us all...

love light logic logus = life
the living good..god

if you could just clarify..
what the messiah..returns to do..inas many big words as you chose

ps im posting..here..
cause i cant post on the topic i wish
and as your not using this topic..i can comment/update..
that has been gutted of mostof its working inks..from both sides

the one closed..
before its time..see 1 st link
just as sadly you let this one expire..

is that what jesus teaches
[or is that where the big words lead?]
we both know not..yet when good men..do nothing
or worse..chose to do other ill..of freewill..god help us all

who will the harvesters..be 'reaping'
believers or deceivers?

Under one god,
Would you desist in publishing this weirded commentary on this thread. I can assure you that nobody reads it.

PETER..the thread has run it's course
how many days must we wait..to confirm,.,.you no longer need it?

you cant reply..even the basic question's
revealing you lost interest..in it..and other things long ago

the world is in a mess
mainly because chritians dont even try to comprehend what jesus was saying..[let alone do..what we know the christ did]..

go back to your well feathered nest..and rest
think of what you could do..but failed to even try to do..[ie answer questions]..

instead of telling me to leave..cause you know too much about this world..love the glories of this world..with not a clue of that world soon to come..

look at the empty church around you
you lot drove them out..jesus will be impressed

how many you buried?
never telling them..of what will come..
for all..not just you few.

your words give comfort to the elite..serving satan
but if you..

oh why bother

good riddance
sells sold out..

last word?

this
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5975#170377

was specifically addressed to you

this
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#265962

makes mention..of thy works
if only you didnt close yourself off

take special note of mathew 25..
recalling too the words jesus spake at the shew bread

[its not what we put in*[ie that we READ*/eat/hear/see etc] that condemns us..but our works..[that we did or didnt do]..[for other]

whats the special..*word
for thanks..for nothing?

but you gave me..good riddance
thus i must give it back..to you

i recommend pushing the unsubscribe button
to avoid any further of these reminders
just in case spirit calls me to recall

you
could have changed ..so much..but instead chose to run away

oh..ye of little faith*

ps brother
i could use a bit of backup
here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15394&page=0

and here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

you do your god a dis service sleeping at..this time

THANKGOD
the pope has done better than you
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15408&page=0

$el..has gods name kit it
yet you act like a demon in the dArkness would act

but god loves us all..
not for what we did..but..that we in time..TOGETHER DO*

however thats up to you
how to wake the sleeper..dreaming only of an end to it all..armogeddon?..

then he comes..
then...what will he say to you..that you did..with all YOUR TALENT$

then you will feel better?
you could prevent it..why arnt you?

anyhow peter
we figured it out without you
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

but [pappa's..letter] to puten..ahh la fatima
seems to have done the trick..too

and you were right
it did take a special language

including defining
where mercy ends..grace begins

funnny enough ben..helped more than you did
thnkks again ben

but if you can pass back to peter..
that he fulfilled 'the letter'

[thats code..between them and me]
[you could ask..but my work..is dun

over to who ever
its your choice

the fun has begun

karma?
balance?
NO DUALITY*

The Quran/says:
"We..have issued..two seas..[see/sea/see?]
that never mingle..with one..an other >>

ie good/vile...direct oppisites

but..back to..the last/link..
line 9

Satan is..*unable to touch any..but his own
..but*..he may tempt..a weak heart..weak will
ie when..one is ONLY..making half heart-ed attempt..[to do good]

<<..9 The devil/said to Allah:

<<..I shall certainly come upon them..from before them
and from behind them;..and from their right..and from their left;
and Thou wilt not find..*most of them*..thankful ..(Holy Qur-an 7:17)...?

them=good's servants

next..from same link
http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/black_man/blk55.htm

<<..46..My people..*must know the truth,>>
[good=god..not good =not of god]

<<the Gods truth --.the time>>
of common goodlyness..<<.is at hand!>

They are reared..and taught
by..devils and they know it not;

and being ignorant of the truth,..
They offer opposition..to the God..even of their salvation,

[god]..Who is the very author of..ALL* Truth.>>

ie ONLY truth..*

[good/truth]..[godly truth]
not the vile..pretensions/feigning..to be the *only true

BOTH..quotes..from

http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/black_man/blk55.htm

regardless sura 55..is revealing
http://www.islamicity.com/quran/55.htm

anyhow back to..surah 7..

satans fall

he was..*SPECIFICALLY..talking..of gods servants[in this case]
[them!][as in..you will know them..by their works]

<<..[Satan]said, "Because You have put me in error,
I will surely sit*..in wait for them..[your servants]..on Your straight path.>>

<<..16. He said:.."Because thou hast.thrown me..
out of the way,..lo! I will lie*..in wait for them*,
[YOUR SERVANTS]..[ie good/servants]..on thy straight way:..>>

<<....7:16 He said: Now,..because Thou hast sent me astray,
verily I shall lurk*..in ambush for them* on Thy Right Path...>>

I CANT FIND
A CORRECT TRANSLATION
THAT Clearly reveals..who..*them..is
them/then..refers to the un-fallen angels..[in this case]

its a key/bit to leave out.
WHO..is them/where/when?...

http://www.soundvision.com/info/quran/english.asp
<<No doubt, the peculiar..circumstances of history
which brought..the Qur'an..into contact..with the English language
have left their imprint..on the non-Muslim..as well as..the Muslim bid to translate it.

The results..and achievements..
of their efforts..leave a lot to be desired>>

anyhow them=gods messengers..WHO..know their masters/voice..
if its not good,..its not of god

read surah 7..
re satans fall..[thus too..our own]
http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch7.html

.

ps i know the/bible?..has some extra/writers..
not included..in other sects/creeds/translations

if..i had memory..in mind..i would will/to find..them..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=missing+bible+text
http://archive.org/stream/LostBooksOfTheBible/LostBooksOfTheBible_djvu.txt

but..the flesh..needs a tweak....
so..posted here..first/plus next..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995&page=0
after..wrongly/posting it..here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5984&page=0

That's cute.

>>Under one god, Would you desist in publishing this weirded commentary on this thread. I can assure you that nobody reads it.<<

Personally, I find one under god's commentary on Peter Sellick's articles equally as insightful as the piece itself.

thank you percules

i been..holding back..from putting this
to peter..publicly or private

TO PETER*
pass onto pappa

the writing..
put up publicly..on the wall..here
when you ignored the letter of ross kelly[7]..call

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995&page=0

>>ps.i know the/bible?..has some extra/writers..
not included..in other sects/creeds/translations>>>..

no doudt..peter..[papa1/2]..
these texts,,are..in the Vatican library
isnt it time..the father..*opened up the files..publicly..[online]

i wrote then..
that i had..*in mind..

<<..i would will..to find..them..>>
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=missing+bible+text
http://archive.org/stream/LostBooksOfTheBible/LostBooksOfTheBible_djvu.txt

well..that was informative
but..a dead/end*

but..found better
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/index.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/

ok..im going in>>

where are the facts?
all..the christ sects..teachings are sacred
mary baker eddie/swedenberg/luther wesly..morman
EVEN THE KORAN..

its time they were connected..EXPLAINED..clarified

declare all messengers saints
re unite christs broken house..first*
then rebuild the fathers house..in total..then rebuild the best*

anyhow..we beginit here
with you..or without you

<<after..two/..disappointing links..

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob17.htm

<<.. I am full of joy,..hoping the..rather to he saved;
inasmuch as I truly see a spirit infused..*into you*.. from the pure fountain..of God:

4.Having this persuasion,..and..by being fully convinced..thereof,
because..that since I have begun to speak..unto you,..I have had a more than ordinary..good success..
..*in the way of..the law..of the/Lord which is..*in Christ.

5..For which cause/brethren,
I also think verily..that I love you..above my own soul:
.because..&that there-in*..dwelleth*...the greatness of faith and charity,..as also the hope..of that life which is to come.

6...Wherefore considering this,
that if I shall take care..to communicate to you
a part..of what I have received,..it shall turn to my reward,

Dear Pericles,

<<Personally, I find one under god's commentary on Peter Sellick's articles equally as insightful as the piece itself.>>

I'll have to believe you on this one. Unlike myself you have a promising talent in philology and cryptology, as well as the patience of an elephant.

i wondered why you stopped comment..yu
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

anyhow

dear peter
please note..guidance is needed

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5984&page=0

idont know this stuff
thats your specialty

thanks chris

we all*..
have a bit..of the secret
but one..has more power..here

here i put up
a link to your topic here

will you deny him..too?
if he dare come?..back to where he ran from?

i wrote him..<<..[im putting..loving pressure..on him..>

you
the three peters!

asking you..3..

..<<to forget big words..
and just to speak..>>..or simply show your listening..[care]

<<..under law..notice to servant..via [peter]
is notice to master..unto..[the two peters]

he should reply..
your informative info
in fact i will repost this at HIS thread
to reveal his duty to truth/clarity/charity..etc

<<I think he was the Bishop of Rome
then..>>see previous post

but mate..i dont know creed stuff
just guided to..what to know/learn or quote

<<..and there were 2 Popes..>>

funny how we again..now
got two popes too>>>

if not listening..with your heart
listen to chris..father

please give answer
sir

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page0

by johannine

anyhow
im over my..4 posts..at your latest thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15467&page=0

but wish..you to..
either..back-up..OR REFUTE*

this posted
here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

i will repeat it here
so you can claim deny-ability..of ever having read it

anyhow

re/quote

Mathew/28/ atheist/commentary
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark12d.htm

<<..Mark was written..
in an environment..where Roman rule..was a constant presence...>>

<<..There are many clear signs that Mark..
*has gone to great lengths..to absolve Romans of the responsibility..for Jesus’ death — even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate..as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant..that everyone knew him to be.>>

my point..
in quoting this..is to point out
that which was..first written..by say Matthew..

ENDING..at 28;7..
<<..[now i have told you]>>

but also notice..the later edit..
post script..by same auther
at 28;10..

..<<..JESUS said;,,edit
<<..go tell my brothers*..>>

GO TELL..my..BROTHERS

now lets examine..
the OTHER word..used..[disciple]

first/used..in 28;12..
by the..elders..meet/with..the priests
to fake/up things..via saul/paul..to seduce it's personal witness..[gospil].. into pauline creed

[the word..THEY used..was disciples..
NOT the word..jesus used.."brothers*..[28;10]

ok

back to the athiest link

<<..Instead of the Romans,
Mark’s author.,.lays the blame with the Jews —
primarily the leaders..but also to the rest of the people..to a certain* degree.>>

most certainly

<<..This would have made things much easier for his audience. Had the Romans discovered a religious movement focused upon a political revolutionary executed for crimes against the state, they would have clamped down much harder than they already were doing.>>

or rather paul/saul..*was doing
hushing up the christ..still living..[in spirit]
watching/karma..as saul..by turning brothers into...disciples

its basic balance
dualism..to allow freewill

see gone west
or 30 years among the dead pdf's

<<..As it was,
a religious movement..
focused upon on obscure Jewish prophet
who broke a few irrelevant Jewish laws thus..could be largely ignored..when there weren’t direct orders..from Rome to increase the pressure.>>

because saul..
[christs mortal-enemy]..
was on..the job*..despoiling matts gospel[witness]

creating creed*..
by creating disciples*..
WHERE clearly..christ..*only had...BRR-other..ie brothers*

no bother brother

Posted by one under god,
Friday, 13 September 2013 9:34:08 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0