Mark R.
You have added significantly to the debate by pointing out the circularity of choice as a good in itself. I have read somewhere that this kind of liberalism can be described as “the view from nowhere”. I like your theological approach that insists that as far as gods are concerned nature abhors a vacuum. As much as I appreciate your comments, and those of Bushbred and Crabby, a note of warning. Feeding the trolls is most often counterproductive. While insisting on rationality they are the most irrational. They rejoice in misinterpretation in order to get some private point of theirs own across. Their arguments are more reflex (of the simplest kind, perhaps spinal) than reflective. Feeding them only encourages them and fills up the space in which a real dialogue may happen. My policy is to scan them quickly to see if there is anything of substance that would begin a real debate. Otherwise they are best left alone.
Peter Sellick

Sells doesn't want debate, he begins his latest sermon by loading the dice:

“It is of the nature of evil that it is always presented as the good.”

Therefore, anyone who presents a different POV as good is, evil.

Sells allows no variety of discourse, when he states:

“So when someone wants to convince us of something they invariably dress it up to look like the good.”

Ironically and hypocritically as Sells does so himself by portraying a belief in the divine as the only ‘good’.

He admonishes non-believers as sexually disordered (if unplanned pregnancy results) or nihilistic when choosing between beliefs be it atheism, Buddhism, capitalism or Unitarianism - the act of choice is the evil for Sells. Monotheism is the only ‘good’ he opines.

Interlaced within his argument are genuine subversions of choice such as Workchoices: “When the Howard Government labels new industrial relations laws, which swing power in the workplace massively towards the employers………… we know we are in the area of propaganda. For many, the only choice involved is to shed benefits or lose the job.”

This is mere window dressing. His own message is that he requires everyone to believe as he does. Absence of choice is no more a ‘good’ than unfettered choice.

Freedom to choose involves maturity, responsibility and ethics. Sells’ absence of choice involves subjugation – there is no need to grow as a mature being if all one has to do is blindly follow.

Finally, Sells, insults the intelligence of many with his latest post – dismissing those who question his motives and who disagree as mere trolls. I can only conclude that Sells is bereft of any valid argument to counter those who hold differing perspectives.

Across all of his articles, when he cannot offer rational debate – he dismisses all. This is the final insult and therefore, not remotely ‘good’.

Peter

Are you saying that the Christian life is a response to the call of being chosen? And that within that response, with all of its undulations - faithfulness and failings - that choice is more a process of discernment of the "chosen for what?". First to be in relationship with God, and then whatever specific, across the whole spectrum of one's skills, talents and life's circumstances?

Peter. A theological question. Who are the many who are called; and who are the few chosen? Is it fair on the unchosen?

By the way, as a foot soldier, I appreciate the responses to others from Mark R, DFXK, Bushbred and co, as they articulate thought that would not otherwise have been shared.

Individuals had little to no choice in either 1984 or Brave New World.

To be honest, suggesting these books are recent is to ignore when they were written and the projection of the international political environment in which they were perceived and the 50-60 yeqars which has elapsed from when they were written.

Both books described authoritarian social structures where the individuals who populated them were given very few and limited options (especially in 1984).

The notions of massive nations based on continents could well parallel the distribution of religions across the globe.

Wikipedia describes Nineteen Eighty-Four is a “political novel that George Orwell wrote in opposition to totalitarianism.”

Certainly there are a lot of similarities between the supreme leader, “Big Brother” and Stalin as well as all the trappings of a repressive and invasive state. Such a “big brother” could equally be a Pope or Arch Bishop, dispensing power, without care or responsibility - like the Spanish Inquisition, to suit the doctrine of a religion, just as much as Stalin dispensed his awful power, to the significant detriment of the population which supported him.

Individual choice is only possible when accompanied with individual responsibility. Such responsibility reflects the nature of man as a moral being. We do not need institutions demanding to tell us how we must live by their particular dogma. We have developed, as individuals, beyond the grasp for power which is enshrined into every religious order and the sooner we dispense with them and their self-perceived (but redundant) roles in our lives, the better

Johnj

yes, I can see how my view may have sounded like that little 'splinter' group which throws stones at all the others and claims to be 'The only True' whatever.

Not quite.

My intention is to show that 'The Church' consists primarily of that body of believers in all the traditions who have been truly born again. Those for whom Christ is Lord and their denomination simply a historical accident. Some people move from denomination to denomination, its no problem. The problem comes when a large Church like the RC who (if you dig deep enough) will suggest dogmatically that they ARE the only true tradition, and dispensers of truth.

I hope that clarifies my position.

All I do, is compare what I see with the New Testament, it not rocket science.

The Anglicans have a unique historical connection, and when one understands this, it becomes clear why they would probably regard themselves as deserving a preferred position in any place of Empire background, but certainly less dogmatic than the RC. Anglicans were too closely tied to the throne and politics and English History for my liking, but I have no drama sharing in worship and fellowship in an Anglican Church with other members of my Christian family.

P.S. TRIVIA because we have often debated Creation/Evolution/ID in connection with Sells posts, I'd like to mention this surprising news soundbite. Turkey-Secular Academics are wringing their hands over the claim that they are 'LOSING' the battle to keep 'Creation' out of the education system ! Amazing stuff :) Creationists are giving out free DVD's and Brochures demonstrating the flaws in Evolution in Malls etc.

We are each of us conflicted between our fundamental instinct for survival and the knowledge of our indisputable mortality.

Religion offers salvation and proclaims that there is a way of avoiding the unavoidable and living forever, basking in the everlasting glory of god. Any lingering uncertainty is warned of an eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell forever and ever and ever.

But of course there is always the freedom to choose…heaven or hell. However, it is written:

You did not choose me, but I chose you… (Jn 15:16); For he chose us in him before the creation of the world… (Eph 1:4); from the beginning God chose you to be saved …through belief in the truth (2Th 2:13); All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world (Rev 13:8); Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 21:27).

Is it by the grace of the Christian God that non-Christian freedom is condemned as the rankest slavery?

What freedom do the children of Christian parents have in the development of their own worldviews, when they are taught that God is the truth, ad infinitum?

I personally have not been chosen by any god. Neither do I believe in hell nor life after death. Nor does it mean that I marry and choose not to have children, seek ever more thrilling experiences with the aid of drugs and travel agents and adultery, etc. It especially does not mean that I do not believe.

I believe that people believe different things and I respect their right to those different beliefs. It is unfortunate and disrespectful that Christianity does not.