First of all, Paul was a self-confessed homosexual. And persecuted by both the Romans and the Jews. And only found sanctuary inside esoteric Christianity. And given belief at that time, would have considered his "normal" desires the fruit of the devil? And normal God-given sexuality some sort of evil?

Every human extant on the planet remains a sexually-oriented human being with sexual desires and functions, right up until the day before he or she dies!

Normal healthy sex is not a sin. neither is normal sexual desire. And our God-given sexual bias is developed in the womb and not as some chosen aberration.

As for spirits/Ghosts, seen some that gave me some comfort and reinforced a belief in life after death.

And to that end, all anyone can do, is try to be a decent caring human and treat all others as we would be treated.

At the conclusion of life, it's what is in your heart that really matters not the mistakes/sins you made through this journey we call life!
Alan B.

Thank you Peter - amazing depth, may the Holy Spirit be with you!
I wonder how many of the readers can actually understand this article, it is worth reading again and again.

Just one reservation: it is improper for such a high-level spiritual article to stoop down into naming and shaming individuals, even if they are/were politicians.

One of Peter Sellicks better articles.

It’s hard to deny we are wedged between the forces of good and evil in our daily lives, a theological view such as this article highlights on the influences of good and evil spirits as a cause, makes sense.

A modern day diagnosis of this phenomena is to seperate people into personality types.
Judas would qualify for an award as a greedy capitalist.

And what particular evil spirit guides our politicians who happily preside over the scorched earth of an out of control housing market bubble, happy to witness the great divide between haves and have nots, widened into a yawning gap which is very suitable to their personal property portfolios.

There is definitely a good reason for the movement of the Holy Spirit In Canberra.

Dan

Speaking of "unclean" spirits self-serving mental fabrications and even radical evil the essay I referred to yesterday is totally saturated with such: http://religiondispatches.org/important-developments-weve-been-missing-about-todays-christian-nationalism

Put in another way there is obviously a complete absence of "love-joy-peace-patience-kindness-generosity- (real) faithfulness- gentleness and (real) self-control" to be found anywhere in the forums that the above essay describes and points to.

Some/many of the key-note speakers are obviously dangerously psychotic. three of the most famous are Reed, Metaxas andD'Souza

Eventually, all the self-serving tribalistic and cultic gods that human beings invent become monsters, diseases, a fantasy of body-parts and everything. Pieces of mind (or unclean) mental constructs are all that moves in "heaven". Even all of human experiencing is merely an iconic procession of (unclean) mental constructs in the room of mind.

To Peter

Seriously?

or maybe I missed something amidst all of of our Pandemic current issues.

Daffy Duck at the grinding wheel with his axe again.
Certainly consistent.

Dan

Well the terms 'spirits' can mostly be replaced with 'ethics' without changing the general direction of the document.

It is something Sellick at least acknowledges to a degree when he says: "Ethics are not so much a question of distinguishing right from wrong, good from evil, but a matter of discerning the spirits that lie in the hearts of men and women."

But ultimately his use of the language around spirits only enables a smoother marrying of biblical messages with ethics, and why not, since that is so much a part of the construction of the bible.

For instance his phrase: "The best political systems in the world can be corrupted from within when the spirit of disinterested public service is displaced by venality and the pursuit of personal power."

Can just as easily be written as: "The best political systems in the world can be corrupted from within 'by unethical behaviour when' disinterested public service is displaced by venality and the pursuit of personal power.

But there is a difference as it can allow for a diffusing of personal responsibility for said unethical behaviour. The Jimmy Swaggarts of this world do it all the time. When he was caught a second time using prostitutes he said: "In my mind I knew it was demon spirits . . . without warning, without stimulation," "Psychology says something has to trigger it . . . but when demon spirits function, they don't have to have any stimulation or triggering devices,".

Israeli Folau's ethics enable him to misquote the Galatians quote Sellick provides to include the word homosexuals. This of course is unethical in most people's eye but was it some 'spirit' in Folau enabling that act? Well no, he was just being unethical.

Perhaps this is not Sellick's intention in this article but enabling buck passing for any form of unethical behaviour should be guarded against.

SR

You confuse ethics with the rule of law surely.

Ethics are as vague and arbitrary as the rules of lock down.

In the regime of lock down, the grey areas are policed by individuals dressed as a policeman.
If you are being questioned by one of them concerning a grey area of lock down rules, his preference will win over your own.
So to with the question of ethics.

Your reference to your own chestnut of evil Israel Folau’s condemnation of homosexuality and his reference to biblical text to support his view, does illustrate exactly the flaw in the interpretation of ethics.

Every-man guides his own ship through those troubled waters, using his own tried and tested morals. For a Christian it’s his Bible for example.

The argument of ethical guide lines always gravitates to the question of which set of ethics will predominate.
Secular ethics are not be conformed to by a true believing Christian such as Folau
And neither should they be forced onto him by secular dogma.

And the method now used to achieve the silencing of the “other”, is the pasting of law over the top of the guidelines called ethics. Censorship: usurping of free speech, rolling individual ethical views into a dominating requirement.

The most complained about by your liberal followers was the Christian guiding principles, once being the prized part of Western culture for centuries.

Hitler is not far away from the ethics department at your local University, as we discover almost daily with such events as the persecution of Israel Folau, for his stridency and protection of his personal Christian views.

Dan.

SteeleRedux,
Thank you for your considered comment, rare on these pages. I prioritise "spirit" over ethics because ethics robs us of our freedom of action. Ethics is a bit like eating of the knowledge of good and evil that resulted in us being turfed out of the Garden of Eden. It is obvious to me that systems of ethics are artificial constructions based on our idea of the good. In Jesus' day it was unethical to touch a pepper, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors and to ignore the food laws. Our society is obsessed with the ethical to the extent that certain ideas or speech is forbidden. You would say that we have become too ethical for our own good.

Behaviour comes out of being, not ethical calculation. Being is the result of the spirit that lives within us. We find ourselves acting in certain ways without thought.

Peter

Dear Sells,

Sorry but no.

There are three things in consideration here; ethics, morals and sinning.

Granted there is overlap across all three but there are explicit differences.

Sinning is easy to describe in this context, it is offending or disobeying a deity.

Morals are framed around agreed societal or universal norms.

Both of these have in the past permitted slavery which is most potently illustrated by the fact that the man who penned 'Amazing Grace' continued participating in the slave trade for another three years.

Ethics are far more personal assessment of what is right and wrong. The Quakers arriving at the decision to work to end slavery came from deeply ethical men rather than any presumed edict from on high.

Another way of putting it is acting ethically is do something in accordance with personal values, acting morally is to have regard for community values and not acting sinfully is to have due regard for God's wishes.

The most fundamental of the three is ethics because it speak to the core of a person's beliefs about right and wrong. It is derived in a large part from lived experiences and so is the most truly human of them and therefore the most precious.

For you to be describing them as artificial strips them of that agency and is in my opinion wrong.

The prohibition about eating with prostitutes in Jesus' day was derived from agreed 'communal' morals and a wish not to offend God. It was Jesus' ethics which shone through and ultimately triumphed. Ethical behaviour has the ability to change history, Ghandi's non-violence is a case in point.

Think about who we generally give the most regard to, persons who are either determined to act appropriately out of a deep fear of their god, or act out of deep concern for the regard of the community, or a deeply held set of personal ethics?

I'm afraid in my opinion spirits have little place in this.

Dear diver dan,

You charge: “Your reference to your own chestnut of evil Israel Folau’s condemnation of homosexuality and his reference to biblical text to support his view, does illustrate exactly the flaw in the interpretation of ethics.”

You have completely missed the point. If Folau had not included homosexuality in his presentation of that particular scripture but correctly quoted one the two places it is discussed in the bible then I wouldn't have had an argument about his ethics, As he is a god fearing man and a part time preacher I find in inconceivable that this wasn't deliberate on his part and thus unethical. Why don't you agree?

SR

What’s in a word?
We could argue till the cows come home on this. I get the point of your argument.

I’ve finished now, reading a thousand pages of Watchman Nee’s “the spiritual man”.
Effectively, he attempts to correct misunderstandings of scripture among his followers, by priming their conscience towards a more pure interpretation of Christian concepts.

The key here is conscience. A conscience can be rather easily manipulated towards a certain line of thought as being legitimate. An adjustable moral path.
But there is a centre line, or a median line to which a reference can be made towards legitimacy of that path.
For Christians, it’s the interpretation of scripture which defines the morality of the individual believer. No two Christians have the same exact moral standard.
The welfare of the spiritual man is the key driver for morality imperatives.

Ethics slides around (using your duality argument), in a similar way, but the path of ethics, as it is attached to the carnal man, (from the view of the moralist), has but a flimsy anchor, not so morality, with its attachment to a religious view of the spiritual man.

It’s why a theist State is preferable to a Secular State. A theist State is highly stable.
Which system would you prefer to be ruled by, a confused State with no guiding principles, or a stable State, with clear moral guidelines?

What would Socrates have to say on the subject?

Dan

Dear Diver Dan,

It was the act rather than the word itself. Perhaps I have an inordinately low tolerance for people doing this, particularly when it is used to decry a group in society.

When a person reads the scriptures unencumbered by the moral overlays the various denominations have placed over them they are a revelation.

To have Abraham, who by any reading is a deeply unethical man in so many regards, challenging his God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah it up-ends so much. Here is a pretty venal character normally doing some rather outrageous things to look after himself, but then risking the wrath of God to have him act differently.

God is forced to hide from Abraham his intentions. What a sublime example of someone finding an ethical voice, and ultimately being elevated above his God in that particular exchange.

So when you say: “the path of ethics, as it is attached to the carnal man, (from the view of the moralist), has but a flimsy anchor, not so morality, with its attachment to a religious view of the spiritual man.” I again go to slavery.

Jesus enjoining the slave to obey his master is still a good example. People have deemed slavery to be against their ethics, something not portrayed in the scriptures.

You ask “Which system would you prefer to be ruled by, a confused State with no guiding principles, or a stable State, with clear moral guidelines?”

I want a state which can move past fixed religious moral guidelines, to give women the vote, to accept the earth moves around the sun, and to legalise same sex marriages.

What distinguishes your ideal state from the Taliban?

As to Socrates I do like his quote: “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”

SR

Keeping strictly to the script, Abraham pleaded to God to spare Sodom and Gomorra, for the sake of the righteous inhabitants. In the end though, there only appeared Lot and his family eligible.

But the key question in this story is, will God destroy the righteous along with the evil doers in his wrath, against sinful behaviour?
It’s pretty obvious that the next step in the destruction from a natural disaster wipes out all and sundry. That’s simply physics at work. Any human, righteous or otherwise can only live so many seconds without breath under a tsunami.

But of course the omnipotent God, can choose that moment of mass death to seperate the righteous for salvation, while casting the evil into hell. So that effectively covers that base.

Now SR, you stretch the bow long now, by conflating the rights of homosexuals to engage in whatever turns them on, to that of women’s rights.
Do you really believe I’d fall for that one?

Women have a role to play which is clearly defined in scripture. The righteous are obligated to follow the rules. That’s morality at work, not persecution against women.

And finally, there is no distinction between morality and ethics in philosophical debate. They are one and the same.
It’s really quite crude of you the way you conflate facts SR, I’d expect better!

Dan

Dear diver dan,

I'm not sure further discussion will be all that fruitful and I'm certainly not about eroding any faith you might have.

However I do have a question.

Given the following scripture from Genesis 18:

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?"

Why do you think God was wary of Abraham's judgement?

SR

True. This could go on forever.
I’m a traditional Christian. The product of the “give me the first seven years” childhood.
But I’m an unashamed traditionalist, and will no doubt happily die as one.

But on a more interesting note of edification. I’ve lifted this extract from an intriguing book by Jno Cook’s book “recovering the lost world”.
Which gives astronomical explanation for space phenomena depicted in ancient texts.
Not only Jewish text.

http://saturniancosmology.org/polar.php

Lifted:

*...A series of approaches between Venus and Earth started in the year 1492 BC, with the second some 50 years later in 1442 BC (originally thought to be 52 years, and 1440 BC). Venus, on an inner orbital path, aligned with the Earth and Sun. This approach was apparently much closer (about 10 million miles) than the previous contact of 800 years earlier (about 20 million miles). Following a massive compressive slam in the Pacific Ocean below the equator by a few degrees at most, an arc from Venus to Earth was delivered laterally, traveling (perhaps) a number of times around the globe...*

Dan

Dear diver dan,

So the answer to my question is?

SR.

Your question is not one to be asked.
If you bracket V17 and V18 together, it forms a statement...not a question.

Gods plan was to begin with Abraham at this time, the development of the twelve tribes of Israel. Prior to this point in time, there was no Jewish nation.
The preceding verses were the conception story of how this event was to begin.

There were only three people from the doomed cities worthy of escape. Lot and his two daughters.

This development was to be a work of God from the righteous seed of Abraham onwards. Gods plan for the development of a just and righteous nation in his name etc.

What I thought might interest you more, was the physics behind the event. There is good evidence of when and how this phenomenal event occurred. Read it.

Dan