i like this response, however i have a few issues with it, which there are most likely counterarguments for, and would welcome a response
firstly, i think that there is always possible to counter anybody's judgment and integrity regardless of their inner peace and the acceptance of personal flaws. as this is the logic of logic, in analytic interpretation of a question there is always two or more ways to go; agree, disagree and the middle way. the same can be said for mans understanding or view on the world. therefore the object of inner peace can always be contested and never be conclusively agreed upon.
using this it would suggest that the idea of 'inner peace/honesty is an impossibility because there is always a different path or opinion to choose.
assuming that god is rational of course
the only way foreseeable way for the above to be irrelevant(at this moment in time for me) is if Jesus refers to God in a Subjective way. For the only way that this conundrum could be overcome is if 'God' is within you, but completely relative to you.
if the idea of complete understanding is based on rational and deductive thought which it must do, and you can only reach conclusions about your pro's and con's through rational thought, otherwise you face being irrational, which in itself is a flaw.
then the idea of inner peace is the confidence in your own rational.
i have literally confused myself so much over this one, if you can understand that then well done to you.
but interestingly this link with rational thought links the ideas of self 'enlightenment' and greater a priori enlightenment