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.