.

Good and evil seem an odd couple. Good is an ethical term whereas evil is distinctly religious. Perhaps “good and bad”, “right and wrong”, for ethical parallelism and “virtue (or righteousness) and evil” for religious parallelism – which would seem more to the author’s propos.

The word "theology" comes from two Greek words, “theos” meaning “God” and “logos” meaning “word, reason” (Gaffiot,1934).

So-called “systematic theology” is an attempt by a certain number of Christian intellectuals to apply scientific method to their religious beliefs and practices in order to develop their Christian doctrine and dogma – apparently with little success.

A contemporary proponent of systematic theology, not mentioned by Peter Sellick, is an Irish intellectual and former atheist, Alister McGrath who wrote a set of three books on “Scientific Theology”. He, himself, admitted that the end result left much to be desired :

« The process of unfolding what seemed like a bright idea back in 1976 has proved to be far more difficult than I had imagined, and its execution less satisfactory than I had hoped. Initially, it seemed to me that the vast spaciousness offered by these three volumes would be more than adequate to deal with the issues I knew had to be addressed in articulating a coherent and plausible vision of 'a scientific theology'. ... [however] What I had hoped might be extensive discussions of central methodolgical questions have ended up being rather shallow; what I had hoped to be close readings of seminal texts seem to have turned out to be little more than superficial engagements...I have certainly not achieved real closure on the issues which it aimed to address » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Theology
.

Karl Barth whom Peter Sellick apparently holds in high esteem was a Swiss intellectual who opposed any attempt to closely relate theology and philosophy. His approach in that respect was predominantly Christocentric.

He was considered more "kerygmatic", than "apologetic", kerygmatic meaning that Jesus’ message appealed to the humanity of individuals, rather than to their reason – their affectivity rather than their rationality.

How "scientific is that ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth

.

Dear Dan,

No doubt the stories of Enoch ('Chanoch' in the original text), probably from Persian sources, were popular and well-known amongst the Jews, but the Rabbis in the Talmud warned against reading them and so has eventually the Catholic Church. Was it for no good reason?

The reason is that this book is antithetical to monotheism as it questions God's absolute authority and unlimitedness.

The fall of man can be explained in simpler ways without the need to recourse to angels.

Alan B,

<<I believe Dan is right, that we are indeed fallen angels,,,,>>

Instead of believing Dan, why don't you obtain your understanding from Scripture? We are human beings, created in the image of God. Adam corrupted that and we would have done the same (Gen 1-3; Rom 5).

<<Personally, I believe it [heaven] is some sort of reunification with a larger whole that is one unified field of energy, but still many individual conscious self-aware personalities. Experiencing unbelievable all consuming euphoria and overwhelming pure love>>.

When you invent 'I believe' personally, you are off into presupposition land.

<<Heaven, therefore, is probably not a place, but rather a state of being?>>

Even though your statement ends with a question mark, there is no need to hypothesise like this. Jesus was clear: 'My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?' (John 14:2). Heaven is definitely a place, so says the Messiah.

<<But instead, quote chapter and verse to justify any position however awful, inherently evil, depraved indefensible or untenable?>>

I agree, Alan, that some horrible things have been done with a label of Christianity or singing Christian songs. I do not endorse any of these.

This I know; '"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"--and I (the apostle Paul) am the worst of them all' (1 Tim 1:15).

We can point fingers at Hitler, Goebbels, church child abuse, etc (and we should), but when God examines me, His conclusion is, 'The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is? But I, the Lord, search all hearts and examine secret motives. I give all people their due rewards,according to what their actions deserve' (Jeremiah 17:9-10).

We are all not fallen angels but wicked human beings, from the inside out. That's God's assessment, not my invention.

Allan B,

<<I think we know good from evil if never ever having read a bible or holy scripture.>>

Without God's moral absolutes in Scripture (e.g. 10 commandments), each person does what he/she believes is right. Lenin chose the Gulag, many men rape women and children, etc.

<<Good as we know and understand it has its foundations on love.>>

Yep, sexual love of children, erotic love of porn and prostitution.

<<The Christian Bible and the lessons as espoused by the Rabbi Jesus, was very-very different from the one reinvented, revised and massively edited by the cronies of Constantine ... at the first synod, around 350 AD? >>

Are you an historical theologian and professor of bibliology who knows the development of the Bible to write that kind of postmodern deconstruction?

<<And relied on mainly four, non-eyewitness, plagiarised and systematically embellished gospels, for its Alleged authority? >>

Are you talking about the 4 Gospels? Luke's Gospel differs from your deconstruction where he obtained his information from those who handed down eye-witness accounts (Luke 1:1-4).

You don't like the idea of the sacramental confessional. Neither do I. However, Jesus' exhorted us to seek Him for forgiveness: 'forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us' (Matt 6:11). This is not an appeal to father confessor but to Jesus himself.

<<Then do something real inside your political organisations to clean out the evil at its very heart. The time for covering it up/excusing/justifying it? Is well and truly over!>>

Do you really mean that? It was you who stated: <<Evil produced at all levels by similar if converse levels of hate?>>

What is your cure for getting rid of the evil in the human person, political establishment and terrorists?

'You keep accusing me of being corrupt and having other bad qualities'

no David f I am just agreeing with Jesus assesment. He includes me in the same boat.

'There you go again saying things that aren't true'

what things might they be Individual? You butt in on a conversation, get your facts wrong and then make accusations with no evidence. You really are in need of a moral conscience. Instead of sitting on the fence with your 'biblical' belief I suggest you embrace the truth.

David f 'You keep accusing me of being corrupt and having other bad qualities'

runner, “no David f I am just agreeing with Jesus assesment. He includes me in the same boat.”

Dear runner,

I have no evidence that you are corrupt, and you have no evidence that I am corrupt. I prefer to use my reason than go by the word of Jesus. I do not believe in what you believe. That does not mean I am corrupt nor does it mean that you are corrupt. One is corrupt if one takes bribes or is corrupt in other ways. Corruption is defined by corrupt action – not by the assumption that one is corrupt because some religious mumbojumbo says we are all corrupt. I have never committed a corrupt act as far as I can remember. As far as I know you are an honorable person. If you have never acted in a corrupt manner you are not corrupt, and to take on that guilt is sick.