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?