Peter,

wasn't Barth's point that what God chooses to let us know of Him is found neither in history nor reason, neither the creation nor abstraction, but paradoxically in the tension between the two?

Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.

There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It’s easy.

Nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together, now!)
All you need is love. (everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

peter, what you are essentialy argueing for is the a disolving of the seperation between church and state, are you not? and not only that, a return to a system of government both national and international (you mentioned the failings of universality at the UN), based on a litteral interpretaion of biblical law, (i assume this because you stated that the church as accomodated universal modernity through an abstraction of the biblical texts).

well i have the perfect solution for you, its called IRAN and sharia law.

before Boaz jumps all over this im not suggesting that the content or application of the laws would be the same, just the concept of a litteral and absolute(particular if you will) application of biblical text as law.

it strikes me that the trend towards universalism is a product of a global(or at least western) trend towards democracy, i.e your 'individual entity' the voter. it would follow that the 'particular' societies and governments of the past and present are all theocratic dictatorships, of which iran is a classic example.

however worthwhile the message of that bearded carpenter is as soon as you attemp to implement it as some form of government (let alone as some replacement for the UN) all you achieve is a ruleing priest class, popes, monks, mullahs its all the same, accountable only to a god.

you describe elections as 'particular', is that because you see only the 'narrowness, sigularity and limited course' as the only option for the voters?

sounds kinda like those elections in iraq where saddam was elected by a near perfect majority.

Mr Sellick,
What constantly confounds me is why the most active & commited Christians seem to believe there can be no morals or ‘good values’ outside the Christian doctrine.
The world is full of good people who are non-christian or secular. These people I judge through my own, learned ‘system of values’. I define ‘good’ as ‘non-violent’ , benevolent, learned, acting with forethought and for the good of themselves & mankind. With minimum contradiction. With truth & strength. Without the need to dominate others. Values at the core of most religions.
I am a humanist. I think John Lennon was too.

ITS NOT EASY... 'Jump Jump Jump' :) nah.. chill... I am not an advocate for the "Christian State", and certainly not using the Biblical Text as 'law'....

For one thing, the "Law" of the old testament, was really mean't to be the 'vehicle' of obedience in the heartfelt sense. They expressed their covenant relationship to God through obedience, but.. God had some very firm words for those who thought it was just about the 'outward'...

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:5-7).

Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the "Law" in his own sacrifice.
The calling of mankind today is into fellowship with God through Christ, not in the establishment of an earthly kingdom or empire.

I keep harping on this, because no one seems to be 'getting' it, and the repeated charge is that we want 'theocratic Christian rule'... I'll repeat again :) "Salt to preserve... Light to illuminate"..neither of them 'to force' .. the heart cannot be forced.

Swilks

We do not argue that there are no 'good' values apart from reference to God. We argue that there is no 'foundation' for them which can cause them to be regarded as 'universal'. Without a divine reference point, we are left with 'opinion'.

Neither are we 'superior'.. we are sinners saved by undeserved grace.

Paul, "I am the chief of sinners, for I persecuted the Church of God"

We live at the foot of the cross, depending on Grace alone.

If we suggested that we are superior, we would be the first rejected by God.

Mr. Sellick
A puzzle for you. What is meant by the term "God is righteous?" Does it mean that everything that God does is defined as morally right merely because He defines it as such? Then morality is meaningless. God could flip a coin & whatever comes up is right for today - relativity at its extreme.

Or does it mean there is a right & wrong outside of God. A morality which God must adhere to in order to be considered moral [which of course He always does]. Then an athiest or agnostic would merely say "no problems. I'll follow that sort of morality too. I still don't need religion or God to lead a moral life."

Sorry but I found your article simplistic in the extreme. Religion does not automatically equal morality. Not even by adherents stiving to obey what they believe are it's commands. Ever heard of Torquemada? A very devout & mystically inclined monk who had a nasty habit of torturing people - for the good of their own souls of course. His excuse was that by allowing these people a foretaste of hell he was persuading them to turn from their sins & turn back to God. There's a good example of BAD particularity in action. How would you suggest we avoid it? Certainly not by adhering ever more closely to a particularity in religion. After all that's what Torquemada did in the first place.