DCJ

That sounds good...

Ah, true, I totally blew by that distinction. That's because when *I* say the Bible should be interpreted literally, I mean that it should be interpreted according to the author's original intent. The genre could be apocalyptic, historical, wisdom, etc. For example, if I said it was raining cats and dogs, I don't mean pets are falling from the sky, but that it was raining heavily, *literally* raining heavily. Similarly, when Revelation (which is apocalyptic literature) speaks of Christ returning with a sword coming out of his mouth, it means he will literally be returning, but will be speaking truth, referring back to the passage that says, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword." In contrast, the resurrection accounts were presented as eyewitness testimony, and were meant to be conveyed as an actual occurrance.

Sounds about right to me, though I have an issue with one point: This kinda contradicts what he said earlier: Fundamentalist is basically just a pejorative term for evangelical.

The zygote, embryo, and fetus are already human persons and have all the DNA to make that assertion. You didn't come from an adolescent, you were an adolescent. You didn't come from a child, you were a child. You didn't come from an embryo, you were an embryo. It's all part of the stages of being human. I think we can all agree that outlawing partial birth abortions is a reasonable measure and not "extreme". Still, many in Congress voted against the ban, supposedly for the reason you stated. They're afraid that when people start examining the issue with more scrutiny, and go beyond the rhetoric, the "right to choose" argument will start to evaporate. I say put all the arguments on the table, and let the chips fall where they may. Citizens can hold public office with our form of government, so in a sense citizens are the state. At the same time, the state is a separate institution, and God has certainly invested the state with the authority to "take a life": the state is allowed to go to war to defend itself when deemed necessary. For the state to NOT protect its citizens in the face of attack is to indirectly commit "murder" on them. (The criteria of when to go to war is irrelevant to this point.) Interesting... the means we use to attain the society we want don't matter, as long as we get there. If I believe executing all criminals will accomplish that, I suppose that's ok. Of course we all want to live in a just society. But you can't say we need to "figure out how to get there" and then decry one way being chosen over another. That's precisely how we're "figuring it out". We believe that one way is "right" and another way is "wrong".

Better yet, get "The Last Disciple" by Hank Hannegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer. (BTW, the church mostly believed preterism up until about 150 years ago, including the ultra-conservative Reformers.)

BTW, a non-religious statement on the nature of ancient biblical manuscripts isn't necessarily indicative of a religious viewpoint (e.g. being a "fundie"). It would be just as valid if a progressive had said it.

Jesus primarily appealed to man's free will when he talked about giving to the poor, etc. It's up to us to use our God-given free will for good rather than evil. That's the cost of free will. He didn't comment too much on the government since it wasn't his primary audience, and he knew governments would always be around, whether they were tyrannical or benevolent. He didn't talk about slavery much either, but that doesn't mean he didn't have an opinion of it. In telling people to give their personal property to the poor, Jesus affirmed the dignity of the fruits of one's labor. To give something away, you have to own it. To give it away voluntarily is to be virtuous. To tax a person before he has the opportunity to give it away voluntarily is to rob him of the opportunity (and duty) to be virtuous. We still have an obligation to give to the poor regardless of our level of taxation, but shouldn't the government help us out with this? The Democratic party has a fundamentally different view of property rights. Take the income tax. Under our current income tax system, we don't have the rights to our income. We get to keep what ever Congress doesn't want, which changes with every tax bill. With the Democratic party, it seems like every issue is a problem for the government to solve. As long as the "will of the people" approve, no thought is given to property rights or if there is a better non-government solution. This is profoundly different from what the founders wanted and what the language of the Constitution reflects. True, the Republicans aren't much better, but at least they *attempt* to talk about property rights and the free market, and there are a few real conservatives left in the party. If Bush gets his "Ownership Society" off the ground (making the tax system fairer and resolving the Social Security crisis) that will be the greatest thing he does in his second term.

There was a question in the other forum asking how a Christian could vote Republican. As one who did so, I figured I could offer my thoughts (in the Debate forum, so I won't pollute the other one Three issues were brought up that I recall: abortion, gay marriage, and poverty. When deciding how to deal with these issues, you not only have to ask how you "fix" them, but who should do it. i.e. is it the role of the private sector or the public sector. Take those three issues. Since abortion is the taking of a human life, that falls under the responsibility of the government since the government is charged with protecting the live's of its citizens. (That doesn't mean that there aren't things that society can do to minimize abortions.) Since the institution of marriage preceedes the state, the state doesn't have the authority to fundamentally change it. With regards to poverty, the government can't fix it since the government has no money. All the government can do is take money from one person (who earned it), and give it to someone else (who didn't earn it). The only way to lift people out of poverty is through wealth creation, i.e. capitalism, the free market. When government interferes with this voluntary exchange of goods (as it does with wealth transfer), it harms everyone, including the poor. So the only role the government (public sector) should have in this is to stay out of the way of the private sector while protecting people's property rights. Hence, poverty is a problem to be solved by the market and society, not government. And Jesus would most certainly NOT advocate socialist ideas. He never advocated the state taking money from one person and giving it to another. This violates the 8th commandment, thou shalt not steal. Being forced to give your money to the poor (via the government) is not virtuous. Virtue results from voluntary actions, which is what Jesus demands. Not coercion. Jesus would see that capitalism not only gives us wealth creation, but gives us the ability to freely exchange goods with one another, as well as give to the poor, which is what Jesus called for.

Actually, the thousands of early manuscripts we have, when you correct for spelling errors and transposition, etc, compare remarkably well with the Bibles we have today. While we don't have the actual autographs, we can be sure that our Bible is almost exactly what the authors wrote.

It's not about belonging to a group, it's about having the right beliefs. The required belief is summarized nicely by Paul in one sentence (with context): 1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes ... 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” So it's about belief, not group identity. The fact that many Protestants and many Catholics and others believe this just shows that this belief is part of their doctrine.

You believe that people can be saved after they die by accepting Jesus, correct? How is this post-death "members-only" salvation different from a pre-death "members-only" salvation?

The "hating your father and mother" in order to be a disciple was meant to show that "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." It could not literally be hatred because that would violate the 5th commandment. By equating lust with adultery, he was showing it was a grave sin. Actually he did, also in the Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." This is also an erroneous doctine taught in the Word of Faith movement. The offense is against God, not the person. Since God can see our thoughts, an outward display of righteousness won't conceal our depraved thoughts.

See, it's this kind of extremist, hate-filled rhetoric that makes dialog impossible. Try this instead: The so-called "fundamentalist" movement of the early 1900s was an attempt to preserve the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith from the tide of anti-Christian Enlightenment thought that was sweeping Western civilization. Their beliefs were mostly in line with the Reformers, as well as with major Christian doctrines held throughout the centuries. You could say that the same thing is happening now: certain groups are trying to re-define Christian orthodoxy that has been held for centuries. So, in regards to this thread's title, which side is doing the hijacking?

A little bit of self-examination will show that we are indeed fallen. It's not that we're incapable of choosing good, it's just much easier for us to choose evil. Spend a normal day making mental notes of the "good" or "bad" things you do throughout the day. I'll bet your evil deeds far outnumber your good deeds. It's very difficult to do good (showing love toward that stranger), but doing evil comes naturally (lustful thoughts, cursing that person on the highway...) A look at the last century also destroys the modernist myth of the goodness of man and the moral evolution of humanity. Any of us in a position of supreme power would be capable of unspeakable evil. Even King David, the "man after God's own heart," thought nothing of having Bathsheba's husband killed simply because David wanted her for himself. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say...

Put another way: What you've established (at least for me) is that the concept of progressive Christianity is deeply entrenched in the culture from which your writings emerge. What you have observed is real, but your perspective of it (I suspect) is your own. We don't want to commit the genetic fallacy. We all have experiences and perspectives within a particular culture, but that doesn't prevent us from finding truth. The question is then: who is right? I submit that the Jewish "culture" in many ways was more aligned with God's will than our own culture, since God had been specifically revealing Himself to the Jewish people for millenia and "grooming" them for the arrival of the Messiah. Since the concept of original sin is prevalent in their Scriptures which they regarded as holy and God-given, I believe they had a more accurate assessment of humanity's condition than our "enlightened" selves do now. Paul, a good Jew, also believed in original sin. He was also accepted by the Apostles (who had themselves been witnesses to everything Jesus taught and did) as a legitimate Apostle based on his encounter with Christ and subsequent writings. Therefore, I'm much more inclined to believe those with first- or second-hand knowledge of the "Source" (Jesus), rather than experiences or beliefs 2000 years later that have been influenced by various religions and philosophies.

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the 3 Persons of the Godhead experienced a perfect relationship before the universe was created. Why do you think so? I think only supernaturalism (dualism) and monism are diametrically opposed. Do Christianity, Judaism and Islam require a supernatural worldview? If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes. Christianity/Judaism/Islam (basically Western tradition) has always made an ontological distinction between creature and Creator. The creature/Creator relationship is viewed as being between distinct persons rather than an "amalgam" of the two.

I know this is beyond obvious, but monism (and related Eastern thought) and Judaism/Christianity are diametrically opposed belief systems. Maybe the attempt to harmonize the two worldviews is an effort to find the "true" religion; but in so doing, you end up stripping out the essentials of each side and you're left with little more than a religion of civic virtue.

No one is advocating checking their brain at the church door. We agree that God's Word should not contradict itself, but interpretations might. Therefore, we need to study the Scriptures so we can find the truth. To quickly offer answers to some of your examples: God's moral will is that none of His image-bearers perishes. However, because of Jesus' extensive teachings on hell, we know that unfortunately many people will stubbornly reject God's grace. The passage in Galations refers to our unity in Christ in terms of salvation; it says nothing of the different roles in church government or in the family. If there truly were no difference at all between male and female, Ephesians 5 would not be necessary where it talks about the man loving his wife, and the wife obeying the husband. In that same passage, the church is taught to be the bride of Christ, who is the head of the church. So right there we have the church being subordinate to Christ, even though in Galations the church is equal to Christ. In regards to Billy Graham's interpretation of salvation, like I said in another thread, there's no evidence that points to post-mortem salvation. We're all responsible for the light of general revelation we receive on this side of the grave.

Some of the earlier church fathers believed Jesus' death on the cross was a ransom paid to the devil. Regardless, they all believed that a debt had to be paid (to God or the devil) on account of man's sins. The Jewish culture wasn't interested in legends and myths. When the authors of the Apostle's Creed say "Virgin Mary," they really mean a virgin named Mary.

That is an interesting question you ask, and one that has probably been asked for hundreds of years (or thousands, depending on how you read Romans 9). We should not let our sense of fairness cloud our search for the truth. Instead, we should seek the truth as revealed in Scripture, using that as our foundation upon which to approach difficult questions, and thus try to see things from God's perspective.

I suppose Mr. Adams would rather have people with an atheistic worldview running the country. As if Christians should only be involved in matters of the church, and shun politics, law, economics, education, etc. How naive to think that these institutions would get along just fine without Christian influence.

"The fear of the LORD [respect for a holy God] is the beginning of knowledge." Proverbs 1:7 Billy Graham wasn't the only person to use "fear tactics." There was also this guy named Jesus: Luke 13:1-5

The Bible is largely silent in terms of anything resembling post-mortem salvation. Rather, many of Jesus' parables and other New Testament teachings imply that our eternal destiny is determined by how we respond to "God's loving invitation and grace" on this side of the grave.

Over 99% of the Bible we have today agrees with the earliest manuscripts we have, and the other 1% doesn't affect major doctrines. It doesn't matter that we don't have the autographs, because manuscript copies were not made linearly, but exponentially. Thus, the assertion that there was a massive re-write by the church to change the text to its liking is pure fiction. Difficulty in interpreting certain passages is just that: interpretation difficulties. And the only threat "higher criticism" has to offer is revealing the anti-supernatural a priori bias of its proponents.

Actually, the 40 million was voluntarily given by donors, whereas the 35 million is taxpayer money.