It is no more a vaccuum than religion if religion's main objective is absolve us of our guilt and sins.

What if there is no God and religion is a human construct, made for those reasons which you describe in your article. That is, some ancient soul decided that our sins were too great and needed to be reigned in or tempered via a moral framework that was presented as something more than 'of the human' ie. the supernatural. Where does that leave us? You have to consider the possibility merely on the basis of rational thought and science.

Freedom and rights are also human constructs but something we have come to in the face of a worse alternative - that of totalitarianism. Some aspects might not sit well with religious folk such as abortion of which debate normally focusses on issues of rights vs what constitutes a life. Homosexuals and women are not treated well in religious texts suggesting that no God could have ever insisted on such a gross lack of compassion,egalitarianism and instead promoted prejudice.

Recently I was invited to an atheist friendship group and although I declined I can see a common purpose similar to Christian fellowship. People who might wish to meet to discuss ethics, philosphy and issues of the day.

Would humans be any different with or without religion? Humans are flawed and will sometimes sin but other times demonstrate real empathy and compassion or contribute in some other way to improving the wellbeing of others.

The absence of a formal religious framework may not be perfect perhaps but the religious framework is not either, in fact it could be argued that despite good intentions the divisive and over-judgemental nature of religion has the potential to cause greater hardship and provide the impetus for sin than a more human or earthly approach.

These are things worth considering as none of us can say for sure where we would be now without the concept of God that has influenced societies for such a long time.

Would humans be any different with or without religion?
pelican,
that is a great question. Imagine not having the influence of superstition. Then imagine people being without fear. that's how I see people with & without religion. without religion or rather, superstitious brainwashing people might have even less conscience than they have with it. would people have more or less compassion if they hadn't been indoctrinated. the funny thing is that many of the religious people I know are actually the worst yet many who don't give a hoot about it are in general quite honest.
I say let people grow up before lumping them with religion. just don't ruin childhood years with it.

Self-autonomy is not the problem,Peter.
The Church is.
Who should be invested with the right to tell those seeking or demamnding self-autonomy?
The Church? Yeah. That is the old saw. Look where it has got us, Christians and Muslims.
You are asking us to hand back to the Church the authority we wrested from that institution and sure as hell we arent going to trust the Church again.

socratease

individual makes a good point. Were humans inherently evil and selfish before the onset of religious indoctrination? We'll never know but I'm prepared to guess the answer ... and it won't make Peter Sellick and his cohorts happy.

Remember Epicuris on the mystery of God: "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

Christianity does not even have a fully comprehensive model of what we are as human beings, or what a Fully Conscious human being might begin to look like. Christianity (and our entire "culture") effectively conspires to reduce us all to the failed complications of the first three stages of life - there are seven possible stages of life.

We do not even begin to become fully human until we are stably established in the fourth stage of life. Of course very few human beings have ever "achieved" that level of psycho-physical maturity. Yet that is our evolutionary destiny as a single species.

The seven stages are briefly described here:

http://www.aboutadidam.org/growth/seven_stages.html

Christianity is also based on the Taboo Against the Superior. Every aspect of our common culture is pervaded by this taboo.

We "educate"/indoctrinate/brainwash our children into becoming normal dreadfully sane examples of this non-superior human being. In doing so the "sins of the fathers" become incarnated upon/in the beaten flesh-bodies of every new clone/victim.

The dreadful sorry-go-round perpetuates itself unconsciously generation after generation. And thus creates all of the dreadful "news" and dreadful collective destiny of an entirely sub-human mass "culture".

References on the origins & consequences of the TABOO.

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm#idol

The sleep-walking-human-world does not want to awaken

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ancient_walkabout_way_1.html

of course 'our sins are greater than we are', we only need to remember the holocaust and Port Arthur Massacre, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, My Lai, Wounded Knee and Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the whatsits rendition, and our oh ever so modern freedom of 'choice' in which millions of the unborn have been destroyed - abortion.
But if our pride is greater than our reason, atrocities such as these will only continue, for we are all prone to error and sin. So we need to repent and bring a conversion of heart to bear on our evils, because our pride stands in our way. And we cannot forgive our own sins.

As Carl Jung so aptly put it, "Man is many things, but he is not rational."

Peter I think sets up a false dichotomy between the atomistic individualistic sociopath and the person aware of their dependence and limitation on their free will.

I see several problems with his approach.

First, “free will” may not be totally free, but this does not mean it is totally illusory. Freedom doesn’t have to be absolute and unreferenced to be authentic. We can compensate for deficiencies in our decision making by canvassing the opinions of others; recognising the influence of our own history, predilections and foibles; researching, and even praying, before making important decisions. Maybe we are not captains of our own souls, but we can be navigators.

Second, is a need to distinguish between spiritual/religious and civic/political freedom and autonomy, a distinction Peter seems to deliberately blur in his efforts to conflate religious and political liberalism. The believer may find perfect freedom and fulfilment in the surrender of ego to divine authority. The citizen is unlikely to find similar freedom and fulfilment in surrender of civic rights to political authority.

Third, in his enthusiasm to attack the liberal concept of freedom, he may underplay the importance freedom plays in the bible. Freedom is the central motif of the Hebrew Scriptures, from the liberation of the Egyptian slaves to the freeing of the Babylonian exiles. It is also crucial to the New Testament message, notably in Jesus’ promise that the truth will make us free and Paul’s statements that for freedom Christ has set us free and that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. I’ll admit that the biblical concept of freedom is different from the modern political conception. But they are not completely unrelated.

Don't tell me- Peter Sellick refuses to believe in human congnitive autonomy because righteousness only comes from God and into Christians who read the Bible- did I guess correctly?

"Our sins are stronger than we are, but you blot them out" Psalm 65 vs 3. BCP (American)

So begins the latest offering by Sells.

BCP (American) Which one? Quoting 'ONE BCP but in Three Editions in North America
Which one do you use?' (pbsusa.org/Articles/BCP_THREE_EDITIONS.pdf)

'To speak of The Book of Common Prayer in The Episcopal Church [TEC], and in much of the new
Anglicanism in the U.S.A. since 2000 (e.g., ACN, AMIA, CANA etc.), is to refer to that relatively
new (in terms of Anglican history) and experimental prayer book, that was authorized by the
General Conventions of 1976 and 1979 and which, therefore, carries the date of 1979.
Before 1979, the same Episcopal Church (then known as The Protestant Episcopal Church
of the U.S.A. [PECUSA]) called a very different prayer book by the title, The Book of Common
Prayer. This was dated 1928 because it was finally authorized by the General Convention of
1928. However, this prayer book was not a new and experimental prayer book; but a gentle
revision of The Book of Common Prayer that had been the official prayer book of PECUSA since
1892. And to complete the story of gentle revision, the 1892 edition of The BCP was itself a
revision of the first edition of the American form of The BCP, dated 1789. So the editions of
1789, 1892 and 1928 are three of a kind, while the 1979 belongs to a wholly new genre.'

So which American Book of Common Prayer are you using Sells? And quoting a Prayer? So Sloppy

"If our sins are stronger than we are, we cannot trust our choices. One of the choices we make seems more important than any others, the choice of a mate. We are horrified by the idea of an arranged marriage. But how many of us, at some time in our married life come to the conclusion that we have married the wrong person?"

Well, I could be wrong but my translation of this article is: "My marriage is breaking up and I am looking for someone to blame." Too bad, Peter.

"It is ironic that in an age that compliments itself on its freedom and responsibility that this has led to a lack of freedom and life lived in a maze of ethical dilemmas. "

If I am faced with an ethical dilemma -- which happens surprisingly seldom -- I do the same thing as I do in any other dilemma; gather as much information as I can, rationally evaluate the alternatives, and make the best decision possible with the resources I have at that time. And do you know what? It works!

How is that less effective than sticking a pin in a dartboard called 'Scripture'?

Sells' version of Christianity as periodically displayed on OLO has always been somewhat mystifying to me. This contribution stands out, though, for the apparent urgency of its underlying cri de coeur.

For a start, the quote used to begin the sermon is highly dubious.

According to my Bible (vintage 1953, therefore boring old KJV) Verse 3 of Psalm 65 proceeds thusly:

"Iniquities prevail against me: as for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away."

I have compared this with a number of other versions, and the prevailing tone appears to support the fact that the iniquities are external, and not the internalized "sins" that prompt Sells' pen.

So it would appear that all that guff about our being unable to curb our appetite for sin is entirely manufactured by the author in order to make his point.

If so, what point?

"It seems that exercising our right to choose often comes unstuck. How rational are we when we choose a mate, how rational are we when we are in love?"

Oooo-errr.

The only example - I looked in vain for others - that Sells produces to support his "we make dumb decisions" argument, is that we are as a species totally irrational when it comes to love.

He is, of course, absolutely right. But generalizing from one very specific, extremely human trait, is - however convincing on its own - hardly strong enough to support the entire "sins overwhelm us" argument.

An unusually threadbare piece. So much so, that one's mind naturally starts to speculate, perhaps uncharitably, on what horrible amatory disappointment might have given rise to its creation.

"If we believe that the psalmist tells the truth, that our sins are stronger than we are, then we must rethink the basis of modern anthropology and the ethics that come from it"

As I see it, the psalmist is actually silent on the sins-overwhelming bit, so modern anthropology may sleep soundly in its bed for a while longer.

Sin is active denial of, and dissociation from The Divine Condition.

Sin is the worst cancer in the universe. It is the worst sickness. It is the most horrific disease. Its implications cover the entirety of everyones life. The world is filled with its symptoms and reeks with its torments and potentials, coming from all directions, most of which people cannot even see.

Of course all of humankind suffers from this dis-ease, but christians form their self-identity around being sinners, and have now spread their toxic sin-filled doctrines and "culture" to every square inch of the planet.

Peter a manifestation of the mentality flowing from those who refuse to recognise sin is their inability to see things as they are.

So human behaviour that is insensitive and ignorant and sometimes brutal, i.e unloving, is labelled as racist, sexist, ageist, bullying etc... and that it is not as it should be!

And when things are not as they should be we develop state employed tribunals and advocacies that say " you must not do this or say that.." whilst being very well paid and feeling the glow of rational warmth, if there is such a thing. People are denounced by slogans and this has the effect of making people docile and scared to opine on social issues as they really are. It really is Animal Farm stuff.

This glimpse of the limitations of rational thought encourages me to apply my own intellectual ability to see where fits our wonderful story of a Creator God revealing himself in human life through time. It is a story of promises, blessings and curses but with a reality underpinning them that reveals who and what we are and what we can do, for good and bad. The agency is forgiveness, not condemnation by sloganeering labels.

In a time when the world is subject to dramatic change, and associated opportunity, risk and danger, it is rather pathetic to see progressive thought / politics stuck on gay marriage and abortion rights. It has nothing to say on human flourishing or development that encapsulates the whole person and all persons attaining a balanced life - a life available to all that contains the joy and peace of the Risen Lord. A life to be chosen once there is a desire for it and the divine spark in us kindles.

You are writing good work Peter.

sadly/peter..you base your premise..in error
and quote only a partial quote..thus follow the..wrong conclusion

2..You..who answer prayer,..to you..all people will come.

3 When we were overwhelmed..by sins,..you forgave..our transgressions.

4 Blessed are those..you choose and bring near..to live..in your courts!

We are filled..with the good things..of your house,of your holy temple

or try this..more correct version

<<Iniquities prevail against me:
[as for]..our transgressions,..thou shalt purge them away.>>

now purge..is an active..process
till we repent...AND start redeeming
we are only honouring..good[god]..with our lips
[and remain in inequity]

i explained it more/fully..here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4008&page=0

that covers..how we 'purge'...the WILL to love..sin

also..that line should be read..in conjunction of

Ezekiel 16:63 Then,..when I make atonement..for you for all you have done,..you will remember and be ashamed..and never again open your mouth..because of your humiliation,..declares the Sovereign LORD.'"

you should not..base your opinion..on single sources
http://bible.cc/psalms/65-3.htm

anyhow..i shall finish reading your topic...in time
the heading at least sounds...right

but its we who must work...at atonement...[at-one-meant]
you are not alone...[al-one]

god judges no-one

"Peter a manifestation of the mentality flowing from those who refuse to recognise sin is their inability to see things as they are."

Perhaps you should turn the mirror around.

Which posters so far have not recognised sin or human flaws? The argument is about whether religion has any influence on the prevalence of sin and whether human nature needs the supernatural to provide a meaningful and peaceful co-existence.

By Christian accounts, God created man with sin so he must have been prepared for the consequences of free will and confident that the natural good he bestowed would win over the evil even if we don't get it right all of the time. Just because one person commits an evil act such as Port Arthur, or those who perpetrated the Holocaust etc does not mean every human is capable of such evil. They are aberrations given most people do not go around killing off each other willy nilly.

If humans are perceived purely in terms of 'sin' as some religious folk are apt, it does not explain the great good that people do with or without the presence of God.

peter..i have read..your article..
but/cant find..a..punch line..to reply to

there are points..of course
that..i feel..are off..the mark

<"..We have rights..because..we have done-away..with..any idea of community..justice..or duty..to others.">

this is..of course debatable..

what are drug..or speed laws..[homo..or abortion...or euthinasia...regulations..

but community..moralists..seeking..some form of..communal punishment
either seeing it..as their duty..or ours

or..<"..But what if..our sins..are stronger..than us?">

well thats comparing..apples with grapes
[who has the right*]..to judge anyone...

what is sin?
by who's measure..?

there are stronger...and lessor sins

[one of the worst...is adultery...im not talking about cheating on the misses...but..the*church...missrepresenting...jesus's teachings]

take the deciete..of jesus...dying..so we..can sin..[being some sacrificial...goat..[lamb...for us to sin...and be forgiven]

jesus saw no sin

then..the lie of a day of judgment
there is no judgment-day...[jesus return..confirmed that]

and while were at it...his returning...was for..'these days'
[this..{his}..generation..'shall not pass'..etc]..

to have people be decieved..he is comming back
as some wrathfilled god..to judge us..is absurd

he was man..[born of woman]
he died...and returned...

said to even..a thief..on a cross..beside him.

''this day..you shall be in heaven'
[or words to that affect]

so revealing..then proving..
there is no future..RESERECTION..'day'

yet those..[the rock]..upon who..this malformed body of christianity..is built...[that drink wine....calling it..'his blood'

hang his mortal remains..on the walls
saying..behold..he died so/you can sin

its all just too absurd...
little wonder..its rejected..in this day and age

its dogma...

[jesus came to heal..'the fathers divided house']
not to..build..a new religeon..

he came to reveal..so much more*
but whats the use..its the blind leading the blind

<<This is not..about petty morality..or even about compulsion
but what things..are closest to our heart.>>.nails it

those..loving to sin..shall*..sin
regardless if we..'forgive' them

write..rev 22;11..on..our heart

till we WANT*to..actually try..to do better
its just not going to happen

let the tares..grow with the wheat..

our life choices..determine...our own*harvest...
at our..*own passing-over..[as i have tried to explain]

<<Modern liberalism..tells us that..it is up to each individual..to choose..>>..and thus is..the truth

<<and that..we have no right..to make judgments.>>
lest we be judged..*by the same measure

god dont judge
its best..we learn that..here/now

simply love..good....by loving neighbour

Pelican

Human flaws are to sin what "I made a mistake" is to wrong doing. Fancy words that avoid wrongness of act and offload it to the whim of physco - socio behaviour. As such it avoids the seeking of forgiveness.

God created man and saw his creation as "very good". Adam (mankind) was free to act and in his freedom he acted in sin. And it is so in every human being born across the span of human existence on earth.

Goodness is in man, as God exclaimed after his creation that all he made "was very good". The human evil (sin) in his behaviour occurs in the absence of the good in the act. Hence goodness, being of man, is in all men and women so is not limited to the people of God. Their inheritance in a living faith in the God of Promises, in the here and now, is a joy and peace of heart amidst the turmoil of an active life in service. That is where you see the saintliness of people like Sr Mary McKillop.

cheers

Rhian
I have just returned to my desk to find your considered and helpful comment. The piece was adapted from a sermon and I was worried that it was too polemical. Of course freedom is primary in Scripture, but it has a different source to that of the freedom we celebrate in secular society that has no basis. The issue of freedom as regards secular power is quite different from the personal kind that was the focus of my article. The Christian obeys the laws of the country until they obviously run counter to the freedom of the gospel.
Peter Sellick

boxgum
"Hence goodness, being of man, is in all men and women so is not limited to the people of God."

It is nice to read a post from a religious person that acknowledges that goodness is not limited to the faithful but is inherently of the human.

:)

Pelican, Peter didnt mean that. You are giving him more credit than is his due. He's be disappointed to learn that you think what you do. People of his ilk really believe that only God-lovers and "Yeah"-sayers are the good ones. Something an atheist can never be. Try him again and clear up this little misunderstanding

socratease

socratease
My comment was in response to boxgum. I am aware of Peter's lack of faith in the 'goodness' of non-believers but like you, I don't share his scepticism.

About sin, the Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him) has said,

"By the One who holds my soul! If you don't sin, God would erase you and create a people who sin and then ask for forgiveness, so that God could shower forgiveness upon them."

We are perfectly human.