Relda

Thank you for your erudite posts, your understanding and reading of theology clearly surpasses that of Sellick's, who researches only to endorse his own dogma. Thankfully most Christians are more open than he.

Sells

Your homework for the weekend it to write 100 times:

""It is only common prejudice that induces us to believe that atheism is a fearful state" - a rather counter intuitive statement for a medieval Christian, but Enlightenment thinker."

And then to meditate upon the above statement.

Relda,
I agree that most pew sitters are indeed practical monotheists in that the Son and the Spirit do not seem to them to be God. But that does not undermine trinitarian theology, it is just a manifestation of the failure of theological education at all levels. However, most Christians understand the Trinity at some level, they know that they pray to the Father, through the Son in the power of the Spirit. When the bible is read the Trinity makes some sense since all three persons are present. I do not deny that we still have problems with the doctrine that are not all left over from Aristotelianism or modernism and that theological work on the trinity is ongoing. But I would insist that the God Christian’s worship is incomprehensible without the doctrine. So much flows from it that theology would be greatly impoverished with its demise. When I spoke of paganism I meant by that , perhaps not judiciously, that Christianity would be reduced to a grovelling before an all powerful God similar to Islam or Deism, except in the latte there is no grovelling, only indifference. The Jews cannot be placed on the same footing as Muslims in this because their understanding of the analysis of history together with the presence of God in the present and his directing them to a new future is basically trinitarian. I have this argument with OT scholars, the doctrine of the Trinity did not spring de novo from the NT but was implicit in the OT as was most NT theology.
Islam, as I understand it, is a response to texts transmitted from God to the prophet. In this way it may be compared to the Mormons and their scriptures, God is not read from human history, the book is the result of supernatural transmission. Even the ten commandments that appear to fit the supernatural transmission of law are prefaced with an historical reference.

It astounds me how people can take a disagreement over detail, or substance, personally rather than as an issue for civilized discussion.

"Tribal" politics, as seen in so many newspaper blogs, and in OLO itself, is lamentable in how posters assume that someone from "the other side" is evil or demented. Stupidity and evil are not party-specific.

In religion you get people who are rude, intolerant and violent - like Islamists not interested in sharing the world, Hindu fundamentalists who monster Muslims and Christians, and a tiny number of egregious fundamentalists from the contemporary "Christian” religious right who have bombed abortion clinics. But speaking for Christianity today, I say there are many, many people who are truly motivated by a desire to use their faith to improve the quality of their own and everyone else's life, through the wholesome social relations it enjoins.

Why do people in this blog whose perceptions or understanding or indeed knowledge are different from Peter Sellick's, find it necessary to be so rude? You know who you are - this is to you: what do you think is his motivation, and what is yours? I said in an earlier posting of mine that I am motivated by a pursuit of the good, the beautiful and the holy. That doesn't drive me to give gratuitous offence to people whose views I don't share.

History and theology are VAST subjects. George Bernard Shaw wrote "What is wrong with priests and popes is that instead of being apostles and saints, they are nothing but empirics who say 'I know' instead of 'I am learning', and pray for credulity and inertia as wise men pray for scepticism and activity." [Preface to The Doctor's Dilemma, ‘The Latest Theories’.] This cuts ALL ways - including to those of you who have done a bit of reading and now see yourselves as experts equipped to pull down others whose understandings you don't share. How about a bit more civilized humility from EVERYONE, hey?

Sells wrote: When I spoke of paganism I meant by that , perhaps not judiciously, that Christianity would be reduced to a grovelling before an all powerful God similar to Islam or Deism, except in the latte there is no grovelling, only indifference. The Jews cannot be placed on the same footing as Muslims in this because their understanding of the analysis of history together with the presence of God in the present and his directing them to a new future is basically trinitarian.

Dear Sells,

In the above you have co-opted Judaism to Christianity. Unlike the multiplicity of creeds in Christianity Judaism has one statement of faith;

“Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one.”

The above statement of faith is completely incompatible with any trinity. Judaism is not basically trinitarian. There is no concept of God incarnate or a Holy Spirit apart from the Deity. The basic statement says it all.

There is also a tradition in the Jewish Bible of not groveling before God but of taking issue with him. Abraham argues with God against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 18: 22-33. In Genesis 4:9 Cain asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper.

Sells wrote that Deists are indifferent to God.

Deists saw God as a Creator but not intervening in human affairs. They also deny the concept of the supernatural. Their God is a magnificent entity who created the earth which He rules by rational laws. Deists believe that men are rational creatures capable of guiding their lives by the light of reason.

I see the God of the Deists in the Bible:

Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? Saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; It is an offering of abomination unto Me; 14 New moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations- I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; Your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean, Put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

The above is something that is possible. To Isaiah the rituals, the assemblies, the sacrifices, the observing of sabbaths and festival are empty in the sight of the LORD. He demands that we treat our fellow human beings well. He also recognises that we cannot always do the right thing even though we try and that we cannot always achieve justice. We can 'learn to do well' and 'seek justice'. If we do that we will sometimes do well and sometimes achieve justice. When we seek justice we should seek it for those denied justice, the oppressed, the fatherless and the widow. Don’t bother with supplications, ritual or prayers. Just act righteously.

Noble sentiments, Glorfindel.

>>...I am motivated by a pursuit of the good, the beautiful and the holy. That doesn't drive me to give gratuitous offence to people whose views I don't share.<<

So I wonder who wrote the following?

"What an ignorant, crapulently postmodernist, Marxist-doggerel article!"

Or this?

"I... despise today’s Socialist Alliance as Totalitarian Left scum."

or, indeed, this?

>>Islam is a boil on the bum of humanity, a perversion of man's search for the spiritual<<

Now I am sure that none of these remarks of yours, that took me nearly two minutes to find, could possibly "give gratuitous offence to people whose views I don't share", could they?

I think you have provided us with a classic moment of foot-in-mouth, Glorfindel, for which I thank you. Perhaps it will help spare us some of your sanctimonious cant in future, yes?

But you do ask an interesting question.

>>what do you think is his motivation, and what is yours?<<

I for one would love to hear some theories on Sells' motivation, since his pieces never fail to fascinate me for that very reason: what on earth does he get out of writing, what I can only describe as "specialist theology", to a generalist audience?

He is mentally incapable of joining with the herd, who ask simple - perhaps simplistic - questions, but he will occasionally react to the most obscure references from fellow-scholars.

The narrowness of his outlook is beyond description. He's like... the religious equivalent of an endodontist.

After specializing in the mechanics of root canal therapy for a few years, an endodontist can't see teeth as such any longer, since the focus is exclusively below the surface. So discussing braces for teenagers' teeth with them is utterly pointless.

As is discussing "religion" with Sells.

It's fascinating. He probably sees it - as it appears you do too - as casting pearls before swine.

Which is possibly why he thinks we occasionally behave like pigs.