DCJ

All I'm saying is, if God can speak truth through Balaam's ass, no one's immune from being a mouthpiece for the truth once in awhile. Again, you're conflating beliefs with individuals, when I only addressed the former ("some beliefs are unknowingly borrowing capital"). I'll try to be more explicit: By displaying Christ's love to others in times of need (yes, they really, really are) and experiencing its effects, perhaps, by God's grace, they may be receptive to truths their heart feels that their head doesn't quite accept yet. And Christians do? As organizations centered around the principle of showing Christ's love to the world? Of course. Consider the countless hospitals, relief organizations, and charities that are doing it every day...

Just saw this on a blog: Apparently, Mr. Vox thinks it's wrong to impose one's version of moral certainty on others. I wonder if he's certain about that. And if he is, how is what he and his fellow "believers" are doing different from the world religions they are protesting? In the case of actions taken by some Muslims, I think the charge of trying to impose a certain view on others sticks. However, for reasons I offered in a previous post, I don't think that Christians or other religious people seeking to persuade others of their views constitutes their "imposing" their perspective on others as though by force. The truth of the matter is that every worldview gives rise to prescriptions concerning human conduct, including Universism. Its premise that no universal religious truth exists leads to the conclusion that each individual must determine the meaning of existence for him or herself. A corollary of this belief is that it is wrong for me to try to get you to adopt my interpretation of life. But that's the very thing Mr. Vox and his associates are seeking to do every time they attempt to convince others that their philosophy of life is superior to others.

A Christian should never judge on his own authority, but he is bound by God's self-revelation. He can only appeal to the clear teaching of Scripture, history, church fathers, etc, that have defined the parameters of essential Christian doctrine. But my point wasn't to try to discern who was Christian or not, I was merely pointing out that each side thinks the other has a distorted view of reality. The progressive may generously grant that the fundamentalist or conservative is still Christian; nevertheless, he still thinks those views are incorrect, or "wrong". Also keep in mind that the truthfulness of a belief doesn't always correspond with a friendly demeanor. He may not persuade anyone, but it's possible for a loathsome individual to hold correct beliefs. While I praise the influence of Christianity in times of crisis, it sounds like some beliefs are unknowingly borrowing capital from the Christian worldview. Consider the "atheists" and "secular humanists"... While they may hold the ideal of humanity in high esteem, they don't have the best track record ministering to individual humans. Indeed, much of it may fly in the face of what they believe about human evolution. The same could be said of certain flavors of eastern religions, whose teachings on suffering or karma may not adequately address the extreme emotions people feel in times of trials. Being made in the image of God, we are driven to the truth...

I'll briefly continue the derailment... Just take a quick look at the Planned Parenthood home page and tell me if the "propaganda" is really that far off base. There are plenty of other counseling centers out there that genuinely care for the woman and her unborn child (my wife works for one).

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is most assuredly argumentative. What is bad is to see the mite in your brothers eye and not the beam in your own . . . Unfortunately, some of the public faces of evangelicalism (and many within the church as well) fall short of being ambassadors for Christ. But the constant ridicule from the other side is equally appalling. So "conservative fundamentalism" doesn't hold the monopoly on contentiousness. No, what distinguishes it is a set of truth-claims about God, man, Jesus, the nature of the universe, etc. Liberals hold contrary truth-claims that must be backed up with sound reasoning. The ideas stand or fall on their own regardless of the people who hold them, though some attitudes can certainly hinder or promote the acceptance of those ideas by others. After all, the Southern Baptists were quickly on the scene after Katrina. One could argue that it was their belief that James was speaking the words of God when he said, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

I'm not following... did Bush personally perform these abortions?

Isn't conservative fundamentalism disagreeable and therefore "bad"?

Perhaps, but I'd say there's a qualitative difference between (maybe antiquated) instructions on church order, and declaring that a whole class of people is unworthy of eternal life. Plus, it was Paul who said that in Christ there is "neither male nor female." So we have Jesus supposedly saying that women must become men, and Paul saying that all are equal in Christ. My money's with Paul. I think he knew about the real Jesus, who ministered to women and welcomed them into the kingdom of God. If Thomas is wrong this time, how trustworthy can its other unique sayings be?

I thought it was the only way, hence Jesus' plea in Gethsemane: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Sorry for all the posts.)

Try "Revelation - Four Views" by Steve Gregg

Robertson has long since been a has-been of the Republican party and evangelicalism, and I don't know one clear-thinking Christian who thinks highly of him.

Osteen is probably as Republican as they come, but he does tend to peddle the gospel of self-esteem and prosperity.

Thomas is actually one of my "heroes" of the Bible. When told about Jesus' resurrection, Thomas says he won't believe until he physically puts his fingers into the holes of Jesus' crucified hands. He won't make a blind leap of faith; he wants evidence. And when he gets that evidence, his response is the most moving of all: "My Lord, and my God!" Or, maybe the early church rejected it because it just wasn't representative of their beliefs? On a side note, it's interesting that progressives generally look fondly on a book that strikes me as misogynistic, e.g. GoT 114:

This is a common misconception about economics. Whenever two parties freely enter into a transaction, they both profit. One party values the other's product over his own money, and the other party values the other's money over his product. Florida farmers need Pennsylvania steel more than their own oranges, and vice versa, so that after the transaction, both sides are better off. That's why free trade is so important, especially for developing countries.

Paul's understanding, too: "The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord." (1 Cor. 7:32-35)

Xian, I don't see atonement theology as quite the dichotomy that you've presented.. (I don't think historic Christianity would affirm it if it was.) Atonement theology speaks of a covenant made between the persons of the Trinity "before the foundation of the world." The Father willingly sends the Son, and the Son willingly fulfills his mission. There is no discord, only perfect love and unity. Consider Jesus' prayer for his disciples and all future believers: "May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." The Father and Son are also in perfect agreement concerning the necessity of judgement, evidenced when Jesus says: "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." Aletheia, believers in atonement theology also feel close to God, as you said, because "God chose to become fully human." The author of Hebrews expresses it well: "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses." And yet, he goes on: "but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin." This is the beauty of the atonement, the simple Gospel message.. God not only "dwelt among us," but offered himself in the place of sinners. I don't know what could evoke more love and closeness to God.

I thought Jehovah's Witnesses embrace a version of Arianism (#2), given their interpretation of verses like John 1:3 (NASB): All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. They mistakenly interpret "apart from him" to mean "except for him," implying that Jesus was the first created being. Which is why the NIV clears it up: Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Who or what is God? What kind of relationship? When you try to answer these questions, you necessarily bring doctrine into the conversation. (In fact, Borg's statement above is his doctrine of faith.)

It's part of the continuing erosion of property rights in this country. First, an arbitrary percentage of our earnings can be confiscated for the "greater good". Now, our very homes can be taken away. Property rights are one of the foundations of a free society and must be protected.

I was taken aback a little by that as well... but, I just attribute it to Lucas' increasing senility.

That is an interesting question, but I don't think it requires abondoning the historicity of the resurrection. I'm sure there's a baby somewhere in that bathwater. First, since heaven (where God "is") precedes the universe, it is most likely in some other dimension, so I don't think it follows that a physical Jesus couldn't exist there. I certainly wouldn't want to make drastic theological assumptions based on that alone. Second, you are right that an ascension requires a resurrection. And the New Testament authors argued for the veracity of the resurrection probably more than anything else. Paul spends a great deal of time spelling this out in 1 Cor. 15. In fact he says that if Christ has not been raised, then we of all men are most to be pitied, and we are still in our sins. Quite simply he believed there is no Gospel without the resurrection. And Luke, who had "carefully investigated everything" in order to give an "orderly account" forTheophilus, presents the ascension in historical language. He speaks of Jesus being taken up "before their very eyes", and they were "looking intently up" as he went. Thirdly, the ascension is important for doctrinal and pastoral purposes. The disciples were told that Jesus would return just as he had left, when there will be a final resurrection of all people. Christians look forward to that day when he will make all things right. But for now, Paul says that we ourselves have been lifted up and "seated at the right hand of the Father". It's in this way that we are able to follow Jesus: in his death (to sin), burial, and resurrection (new life), and we are positionally ascended to the Father, even while we are still located on the world for now.

It doesn't surprise me that Augustine said something like that, since he was, well, a Calvinist, i.e. an Augustinian. heh. But I wouldn't go so far as to say like some Calvinists that God actively willed the Fall, thereby making Christ's atonement necessary. Which is what this kind of sounds like. Why did Adam choose to sin? I don't know... If you take the classical version of free will, there was some desire in him to choose evil. So when God made him "good", it wasn't immutable perfection, but perfectly able to choose good or evil. (But then you get back to classical free will which says you only choose good or evil because there's some desire in you to do one or the other, i.e. there's no neutral will.) Somehow, Adam's being created with a will to do good or evil was better than being created with a will only to do good, like God himself. People usually come back on this by saying God didn't want robots, but Jesus wasn't a robot, and loved the Father perfectly, and was able to always choose not to sin.

Insightful article by Mattingly...

You are right that there can be more than one meaning in certain biblical narratives. But specifically with the resurrection, you seem to be rejecting one of those meanings: the historical reading. What is the appropriate way we should interpret the epistles, in which the various authors seem to speak frequently of the physical, risen Jesus? They also seem to imply a double meaning: the historical one ("Jesus rose from the dead..."), and the spiritual meaning that always follows ("therefore, we have a sure hope...").

I was thinking about this the other day... with issues like abortion, stem cell research, and cloning, you can go to the Bible and see that humans are valuable because they were made in God's image. (This isn't an idea confined to the Bible; we know intuitively that we are valuable.) With the value of humans as one of our fundamental assumptions, we can more easily approach these complex issues. That's just one example of how the Bible can inform our worldview, even with the issues of our day.