Issues With The Talibangelicals

Satire Of Talibangelicals

Here is a picture I first spotted on Exploring Our Matrix: God Hates Figs:
---originally from Street Prophets: Coffee Hour With Pastor Dan.

Here are the verses in total:

Matthew 21:18-20 (New King James Version)

The Fig Tree Withered

18 Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, “Let no fruit grow on you ever again.” Immediately the fig tree withered away.
The Lesson of the Withered Fig Tree

20 And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither away so soon?”

Mark 11:12-14 (New King James Version)

The Fig Tree Withered

12 Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. 13 And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.”
And His disciples heard it.

Jeremiah 29:17 (New King James Version)

17 thus says the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad.

There use to be a website that satirizes Fred Phelps' site called God Hates Figs. Here are some other satirical sites: The Burning Taper: God Hates Figs! God Hates Rags! God Hates Shrimp!---

God Hates Shrimp, God Hates Rags and Fred Phelp's other site: God Hates The World.

Talibangelical Bibliolatry

Here is another picture that says it all about fundamentalists' bibliolatry: ---this picture comes by way of Ray Comfort's Blog. First of all, we are not called in the scriptures to believe in the bible (a manmade invention) but the one of whom the scriptures bear witness to.

John 17:19-21 (New International Version)
19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

Jesus Prays for All Believers
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Secondly, given that fact---Jesus should be the center of all things not a Council of Nicaea sanctioned book which wasn't formalized in Protestant form until the Council of Trent and beyond and that by man's approval not God's.

Tony Jones And The Talibangelicals

See:

Why I'm Often Embarrassed to be a Christian

Wednesday March 11, 2009
Categories: Bible, Blogging, Church, GLBT, same sex marriage
Because Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins can go on TV and, with smiles on their faces, lie about our president, mis-interpret the Bible, and promote their latest farce book. To see what I'm talking about, read "Is Obama Satan's Warm-Up Act?" at Religion Dispatches, then watch the video at the bottom.

Well, at least I was invited, then uninvited, to write for a big preaching website today. Why the disinvitation? Because of my pro-gay marriage blog posts.

Comments (12)
Filed Under: gay issues, glbt, jerry jenkins, left behind, msnbc, news, politics, politics video, rachel maddow, religion dispatches, tim lahaye

And see:

Talking Original Sin with Todd Friel



Monday February 2, 2009
Categories: Theology
I'll be on Todd Friel's "Wretched Radio" program today at 3pm EST to talk about my recent posts on Original Sin. His show is on Sirius Radio and online.

Call in!

UPDATE: Not going on the show today. Todd and I just spoke on the phone. He didn't really want to talk about Original Sin but use that as a jumping off point to justification and soteriology. He made it clear that he thinks I am "knocking on the door" of heresy. He fears for my eternal salvation.

So, we chatted at length and decided not to have the radio interview today. Too much at stake. We're going to reschedule it for a couple of weeks from now.
Comments (34)
Filed Under: doctrine, original sin, theology, todd friel, wretched radio

'Sex' Sermons Cause Stir in Rural Alabama

'Sex' Sermons Cause Stir in Rural Alabama
By JAY REEVES, AP
posted: 2 DAYS 4 HOURS AGOcomments: 1481filed under: National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAA

GOOD HOPE, Ala. (March 11) - It's one thing for a church in a big city like Dallas or Atlanta to tackle the ticklish topic of sex. It blends in with the urban scene.
It's another thing when a small-town congregation puts up billboards with the phrase "Great sex: God's way" on rural highways to promote a sermon series. You can't even legally buy beer in Cullman County, and a preacher is talking about S-E-X on Sunday morning? Daystar Church, whose congregation has grown dramatically under pastor Jerry Lawson, has run up against the sensibilities of a conservative north Alabama community with a monthlong focus on sex.
Sex just isn't an appropriate topic for church, some say, and others are upset over the church's signs, which advertise the sermon series and accompanying Web site.
"It's really stirred up the people here," said Good Hope town clerk Joann Jones.
Evangelist Roland Belew, a self-described fundamentalist and former trucker who now preaches at a truck stop, said the whole idea goes against the teaching of New Testament apostles.
"Paul said preach the Gospel," said Belew. "Talking about sex ain't gonna get nobody to heaven."
The controversy is a bit ironic considering the church's overall point is about as straight-laced as they come: That God intends for sex to be enjoyed solely within a heterosexual marriage, and that anything else — adultery, pornography, homosexuality, even "sexual arousal" outside of marriage — is sin.
Churches have been talking about sex and sexual purity more often. In November, the Rev. Ed Young of the Fellowship Church based in Dallas drew nationwide attention by challenging married couples to have sex for seven straight days in the name of strengthening marriages.
But an expert who tracks evangelical Christianity, Larry Eskridge, said few are addressing the subject as directly as Daystar. "It sounds like an example of one of those church-growth, market-savvy campaigns going out to an area where you wouldn't normally see it," said Eskridge, associate director of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College in Illionis. "I could see where in that particular setting, that could raise some eyebrows."
City Hall has gotten a few complaints about the church's sexy signs from a handful of people like Belew, 71, who preaches in a trailer off Interstate 65.
Even the 22-year-old mayor, Corey Harbison, worries that the "great sex" message will force parents to talk about the birds and the bees with inquisitive young children before either is ready.
"I understand what they're trying to do. I get it," said Harbison. "(But) some people just aren't ready for that. Good Hope is just a good old, country town."
Lawson, the pastor at the center of the debate, said the purpose of his sermons and the billboards was to get Christian parents talking to their kids about sex before they learn too much immorality from TV or playground buddies.
"I think some people are kind of missing the point," said Lawson.
Lawson is the lead pastor at Daystar Church, which is affiliated with the Church of God and draws about 2,000 people on Saturday nights and Sunday to its $5.7 million campus on a hilltop beside I-65. People come from as far away as the northern suburbs of Birmingham, 45 miles to the south.
The church's attendance is slightly larger than the entire population of Good Hope, which has three other churches in its town limits and five others within a stone's throw. The community is a mix of farm homes, middle-class subdivisions, mobile home parks and a few McMansions. Daystar was a country church called Glory Hill Church of God when Lawson arrived nearly nine years ago. The church "relaunched" itself in the pattern of an urban megachurch in 2002 — there's Starbucks coffee in the lobby and video screens everywhere — and took off.
"In the next seven years 100 people became 2,000 people," said Lawson, who sports the hip, young megachurch look — short hair, a goatee and dark clothes, minus a tie.
The church has a second-hand clothes shop for needy neighbors, and Lawson said it sends out 100 volunteers at a time for local work days. Members even are trying to raise $10,000 to put new sod on the baseball field at the local high school.
But it's the "great sex" series — timed to coincide with Valentine's Day — that got people talking about Daystar. More than anything, people noticed the blue billboard along Alabama 69 with the "GreatSexGodsWay.com" Web address beside a drawing of a bride and groom.
Belew worries that vulnerable teenagers will get the idea from the sign that God says it's OK for them to have sex.
"It's a delicate subject. Preach the word of God and people will live right and get right," said Belew, who has a big wooden cross and U.S. flag in his front yard.
The mayor said some longtime residents already were a bit leery of Daystar because it's gotten so big so quickly, drawing members from other cities and dwarfing everything else in town. The focus on sex — particularly the billboards — turned some off even more.
Lawson said his sermons are more than marketing at Daystar, which dreams of opening satellite churches in big cities. The church needs to be out front on the topic of sex when even kids' TV shows depict illicit relationships and homosexuality, he said.
"It comes down to God saying the most healthy place for sex and the only right place for sex is within a marriage — one man, one woman, and one marriage," Lawson said. Ed Scarborough's landscaping company is almost directly beneath one of Daystar's "great sex" billboards. He doesn't go to Lawson's church, and he likes the idea behind the signs and the sermons. But still ....
"For Christian people I think it's portraying the message God sent in the Bible," Scarborough said. "But I do wonder if a non-Christian would get it."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-03-11 07:45:37

Haggard Faces More Troubles

Haggard Faces More Gay Sex Allegations
By ERIC GORSKI, AP
posted: 12 DAYS 9 HOURS AGOcomments: 1663filed under: National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAADENVER (Jan. 23) -

Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard's former church disclosed Friday that the gay sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard — a revelation that comes as Haggard tries to repair his public image.
Brady Boyd, who succeeded Haggard as senior pastor of the 10,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, told The Associated Press that the man came forward to church officials in late 2006 shortly after a Denver male prostitute claimed to have had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with Haggard.
Boyd said an "overwhelming pool of evidence" pointed to an "inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship" that "went on for a long period of time ... it wasn't a one-time act." Boyd said the man was in his early 20s at the time. He said he was certain the man was of legal age when it began.
Reached Friday night, Haggard declined to comment and said all interviews would have to be arranged through a publicist for HBO, which is airing a documentary about him this month.
Boyd said the church reached a legal settlement to pay the man for counseling and college tuition, with one condition being that none of the parties involved discuss the matter publicly.
Boyd said a Colorado Springs TV station reached him Thursday to say the young man was planning to provide a detailed report of his relationship with Haggard to the station. Boyd said the church preferred to keep the matter private, but it was the man's decision to go public.

The disclosure comes as Haggard, 52, is about to give a series of high-profile interviews to promote the cable documentary about his time in exile. He is scheduled to appear on CNN's Larry King Live on Thursday, the date of the documentary's premiere, and already has taped "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
In early 2007, New Life Church disclosed that an investigation uncovered new evidence that Haggard engaged in "sordid conversation" and "improper relationships" — but didn't go into detail. Earlier, a church board member had said there was no evidence that Haggard had sexual relations with anyone but Mike Jones, the former male prostitute.

Haggard confessed to undisclosed "sexual immorality" after Jones' allegations and resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and from New Life Church, where he faced being fired.
Anticipating criticism of the settlement with the former church volunteer, Boyd said Friday that it was in the best interests of all involved. He would not name the volunteer or the settlement amount.
"It wasn't at all a settlement to make him be quiet or not tell his story," Boyd said. "Our desire was to help him. Here was a young man who wanted to get on with his life. We considered it more compassionate assistance — certainly not hush money. I know what's what everyone will want to say because that's the most salacious thing to say, but that's not at all what it was."
He said that "secondarily, it's not great for our church either" that the story be told. Boyd said Haggard knew about the settlement two years ago.
In a letter e-mailed Friday to New Life Church members, Boyd said of the settlement and agreement not to talk: "This decision was made not as an attempt to conceal wrongdoings, but to protect him from those who would seek to exploit him. His actions now suggest that he has changed his mind."

The letter said the church "received reports of a number of incidents of inappropriate behavior" after Haggard's fall. "In each case, we have tried our very best to do the right thing each time, including disciplinary action when appropriate."
Boyd said the "inappropriate behavior" referred to the man who was the volunteer involved with Haggard. After Haggard's fall, another church staff member resigned after admitting to what was described as "sexual misconduct."
Boyd said the church will not take action against the man if he tells his story in the press.
"We have legal standing to do that, but not the desire to," he said.
Boyd said he had spoken to the man once and came away with the impression that he was speaking out because of the documentary. "I think what caused this young man to be a bit aggravated was Ted being seen as a victim, when he himself had experienced a great deal of hurt," Boyd said. "I seriously doubt this man would have come forward if the documentary had not been made."
A spokeswoman for the documentary, "The Trials of Ted Haggard," declined to comment Friday.
David Clohessy, national director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — which has largely focused on the Catholic sexual abuse scandal but also speaks out on cases involving Protestant clergy — said the new disclosures about Haggard are more disturbing because they involves a church volunteer.
"Technically, legally, they were both adults," Clohessy said. "Psychologically and emotionally, Haggard was dramatically more powerful. ... By definition, any sexual contact between a congregant and minister is inherently abusive and manipulative."
In an AP interview this month before an appearance in front of TV critics in California, Haggard described his sexuality as complex and something that can't be put into "stereotypical boxes."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-01-23 20:39:56

It's Time: Week 8---A Baptist Witness That Dissents On Manichaeistic Fundamentalism

Week 8 was suppose to be about Baptist heritage and Dr. Queen's sermon was of course, but in Sunday School, we had a bombardment of Anti-Baptist Neo-Manichaeistic Fundamentalist Dualism. I've never heard so much rampant Neo-Manichaeism in a church setting in person before except for a few times in small groups, maybe, but wow what antithetical Baptist thinking. Our teacher said one can't follow "secular" humanism and Christianity at the same time implying an us vs. them, absolute black and white, either/or mentality. I would like to know if he'd say that to the Reformers---most of whom followed in part some form of humanism blended with Christianity such as: Erasmus and one of my ancestors, George Buchanan. Anyways, here are some more thoughts on the Neo-Manichaeism of Fundamentalism:
First, here is the Fundamentalist Project's "definition of fundamentalism (which) has nine sections, five
related to the fundamentalist ideology, and four to the groups’ organization":

1) Reactivity to the marginalization of religion. Fundamentalist movements are “concerned first with the erosion of religion and its role in society”, and they therefore protect “some religious content, some set of traditional cosmological beliefs and associated norms of conduct”.#--- (#= This and the following quotations are from Gabriel A. Almond, Emmanuel Sivan and R. Scott Appleby, “Fundamentalism: Genus and Species”, in Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, eds., Fundamentalisms Comprehended, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press., 1995, pp. 399-424)
2) Selectivity. Fundamentalism is not merely defensive of the tradition, but “selects and reshapes aspects” of it, that differentiate fundamentalist ideology from the religious mainstream. Similarly, fundamentalists accept some sides of modernity (particularly its technological and organizational features), but refuse others (mainly the ideological
underpinnings of modernity, such as relativism, secularism, and pluralism), some of which are singled out “for special attention, usually in the form of focused opposition”.
3) Moral manicheism. The fundamentalist worldview considers reality to be “uncompromisingly divided into light [...] and darkness[...]. The world outside the group is therefore contaminated, sinful, doomed; the world inside is a pure and redeemed ‘remnant’”.
4) Absolutism and inerrancy. Fundamentalists share a belief in the inerrancy of their sacred texts, “or its analogues (e.g., papal infallibility, a privileged school of Islamic jurisprudence, etc.)”; with a recognizable approach to sacred sources, which opposes the hermeneutical methods.
5) Millennialism and messianism. In their view, history has a miraculous culmination, when “the good will triumph over evil”; and “the end of days, preceded by trials and tribulations, will be ushered in by the Messiah, the Savior; the Hidden Imam”.
6) Elect, chosen membership. The militants of the fundamentalist groups tend to consider their membership as “‘elect’, chosen, divinely called”.
7) Sharp boundaries. Among fundamentalist movements is widespread the idea of a separation between the faithful and the sinful, with the notion “of a dividing wall and other spatial metaphors”. The separation can be
physical, or “implemented through audiovisual boundaries, through a distinctive vocabulary, and through control over access to the media”.
8) Authoritarian organization. Although membership is voluntary, with frequent trends towards equalitarianism, “the typical form of fundamentalism organization is charismatic, a leader-follower relationship”. The tension between these two features makes movements sometimes fragile. Moreover, “since there can be no loyal opposition, there is a tendency toward fragmentation”.
9) Behavioral requirements. “The member’s time, space, and activity are a group resource, not an individual one”. In order to create “a powerful affective dimension, an imitative, conforming dimension”, groups thus have “distinctive music, [...] rules for dress [...] drinking, sexuality, appropriate speech, and the discipline of children”, with censorship of reading and audio-visual material.

How Right-Wing Conservatives are Manichaeistic:

Although the neo-conservatives are secular (and oftentimes quite liberal in their social outlook) and the religious right is theologically-based, these two currents share a number of ideas:

both currents are Manicheistic, i.e., they see the world in absolute black and white, good and evil;

both currents define the forces of good as being led by the U.S. and Israel and see the forces of evil (once defined as the Soviet Union and now see as "the axis of evil" states supporting terror) as including Arabs and Islam;

both currents are confrontational and uncompromising. They believe that there can be no accommodation made with those representing evil. Both, therefore, seek confrontation and conflict, not a resolution of tensions through negotiations; and

both currents are absolutist, since their ideology will allow only for total victory.

Also, Rich Mullins had this to say about the Manichaeism of Fundamentalism: "Everything is spiritual. Which is another hang-up I have with Protestantism, and even more specifically with Evangelicalism. It’s more like Manicheism than anything else. This dualistic system that says that everything physical is evil, and the only good things are spiritual things. And I go, ‘Wow! John wrote a good bit of what he wrote to counter that kind of thinking.’ And yet, all these Bible-believing, Bible-thumping born-again-ers are going around professing the very thing that John tried to put out." (Brendt Waters, interview with Rich Mullins, conducted in April 1996). See also: A Comparison between Manichean & Christian Views of Evil, Persian philosophy and Manichean Texts. Also, it is interesting how fundies always reduce everything to issues of sexuality and compromising morality---even issues, which aren’t sexual in nature are rooted in sexual rhetoric---ie. Sins of the flesh, flesh-nature, etc.---which is part of the reason Fundamentalism promotes a semi-docetic/Manichaean view of humanity.

Next we were told that "secular humanists" were trying to convince Christians that homophobia is wrong and abortion in any case is right and that we should always stand against homosexuality and abortion in all cases as well as pray for adulterers. First of all, it's anti-Baptist to coerce people in matters of conscience as freedom is one of the most cherished tenets of Baptist distinctives. Secondly, homosexuality is most certainly not wrong, but homophobia is even within a Christian context---see: Homosexuality . Thirdly, abortion is debatable as opinions within a Christian framework have changed over time. Consider Saint Thomas Aquinas who supported and defended abortion in every case---so for all the clamor of the Roman Catholic Church’s support and defense of an Absolute Unchanging Morality---Catholic theological opinions seemed to have changed over the years over this so called “Absolute Unchanging Morality.” (See Aquinas on human ensoulment for a counter argument). Also within an uncontextual literalistic and legalistic vacuum in which Fundamentalists read the bible, abortion is permissible as God decreed abortion as per these verses and God's decrees are eternal in a Traditional understanding of God's attributes:

Numbers 31:17
English Revised Version
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Murder of possible pregnant women= infanticide or feticide)

Hosea 13:16GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The people of Samaria are guilty as charged because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed in war, their children will be smashed to death, and their pregnant women will be ripped open. (abortion)

Psalm 137:9 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Blessed be he that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. (infanticide)---for example.

See also: Why Abortion is Biblical ---my view is here: TheoPoetic Musings: A THEOLOGICAL DECLARATION AND 95 THESES FOR BAPTIST PROGRESSION. It is interesting to note how anti-abortionist Fundamentalists use Deuteronomy 5:16 to condemn abortion but support capital punishment and war. It's interesting how all the issues mentioned yesterday in Sunday School were sexual in nature, but no calls to stand against the capitalist materialism of Right-Wing Conservatives or to stand against war as Jesus and the Early Church did as for example:

Tatians(164)

You wish (to) make war, and you take Apollo as a counsellor of slaughter. You want to carry off a maiden by force, and you select a divinity to be your accomplice. You are ill by your own fault; and, as Agamemnon wished for ten councillors, so you wish to have gods with you. Some woman by drinking water gets into a frenzy, and loses her senses by the fumes of frankincense, and you say that she has the gift of prophecy. Apollo was a prognosticator and a teacher of soothsayers: in the matter of Daphne he deceived himself. An oak, forsooth, is oracular, and birds utter presages! And so you are inferior to animals and plants! It would surely be a fine thing for you to become a divining rod, or to assume the wings of a bird! He who makes you fond of money also foretells your getting rich; he who excites to seditions and wars also predicts victory in war. If you are superior to the passions, you will despise all worldly things. Do not abhor us who have made this attainment, but, repudiating the demons, follow the one God. "All things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made." If there is poison in natural productions, this has supervened through our sinfulness. I am able to show the perfect truth of these things; only do you hearken, and he who believes will understand. I do not want to be a king: I do not wish to be rich: I decline military service: I hate fornication. (Cadoux, pg 103)

Justin Martyr (d. 165)
writings (153‑160?) martyred

And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid. (I Apology, 11) And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning‑hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.

And:
Athenagoras
'Legatio pro Christianis & De Resurrectione (177‑180)

For the robber, or ruler, or tyrant, who has unjustly put to death myriads on myriads, could not by one death make restitution for these deeds; and the man who holds no true opinion concerning God, but lives in all outrage and blasphemy, despises divine things, breaks the laws, commits outrage against boys and women alike, razes cities unjustly, burns houses with their inhabitants, and devastates a country, and at the same time destroys inhabitants of cities and peoples, and even an entire nation‑‑how in a mortal body could he endure a penalty adequate to these crimes, since death prevents the deserved punishment, and the mortal nature does not suffice for any single one of his deeds? It is proved, therefore, that neither in the present life is there a judgment according to men's deserts, nor after death. (The Resurrection of the dead, 19) How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it. (A Plea for the Christians, 35)

Anyways as a Baptist, I should have dissented on the opinions professed in Sunday School yesterday, so here I just did.

Shocker: for once I actually agree with Al Mohler...at least,

In this instance:

When the Christian worldview is abandoned, there is no adequate replacement -- nothing that can ground human dignity in anything other than philosophical quicksand. When plants are said to have rights, human rights are automatically undermined. A biocentric worldview is a recipe for disaster, but it is a logical alternative once the Christian worldview is rejected.---Al Mohler on the Plants Rights Movement.

Read the full context: Here. For those of you who wish to know what Dr. Mohler is referring to---here are the articles that he was commenting on: The dignity of living beings with regard: Moral consideration of plants for their own sake and Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights.

Another good section of Dr. Mohler's Post is:

In the most important part of the report, the committee identified four alternative worldviews that would lead to very different conclusions. These are:

Theocentrism -- "The basis for this position is the idea of a God who is creator, and therefore the creative ground of all living organisms. What counts for its own sake is God. All organisms count because of their relationship to God."

Ratiocentrism -- "In this position the issue of whether beings count for their own sake depends on their (potential) capacity for reason and their capacity for abstract speech."

Pathocentrism -- This position is based in the sentience of living organisms. They count morally for their own sake if they are sentient and are therefore able to experience something, in some way, as good or bad."

Biocentrism -- "Living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive."

I must say---first of all, I have seen similar articles before and the only good thing to arise out of these ideas is that it gives PETA wackjobs a taste of their own medicine such as: Plant Liberation, Plant Rights Movement En Route to America and The Silent Scream of the Asparagus: Get ready for 'plant rights.' for example. Secondly, plants do feel pain as this is scientifically proven: Scientists Prove Plants Feel Pain, Vegans Face Starvation, How can a plant feel pain without a nervous system? and Plants make their own painkillers for example. I'm all for "good stewardship," but there is such a thing as going/taking this idea too far.

Thirdly, watch this video for a humorous take on the subject:
---Arrogant Worms - Carrot Juice is Murder.

Lastly, it is refreshing to see Al Mohler speak in such strong Christocentric language rather than the normal bibliolatrous language of Fungelicals such as: biblical integrity, biblical worldview, biblical authority, Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Think Biblically, etc. (For my satire on this idolatrous language see: TheoPoetic Musings: HOW TO POOP IN A BIBLICALLY CORRECT WAY). The biblical worldview died shortly before the canonization of the scriptures and we are living in a Post-Biblical world, however, Christians live in a Christocentric world as Christ truly is the center and head of all things for Christians. Also, Matthew 28:18 clearly states that Jesus has "all authority in heaven and on earth"---notice that this verse doesn't say that the bible or anything else has any authority or is our "Final Authority" but that "all authority" belongs to Jesus. However, I believe that the bible is authoritative only in the sense of the Holy Spirit's (who comes from both Christ and the Father) usage of it and the authority that the Holy Spirit imbues to the scriptures---for the text of the scriptures have no power or authority in and of themselves but only through the Holy Spirit do they gain these attributes.
(See also this video: Mark Driscol/Larry Norman).

I've Tried To Keep Politics Off Of Here...

But this is too rich:

Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family has published a letter trying to "scare" Christians into voting for John McCain. It is a fictional letter written by a Christian in 2012, four years after Obama is elected. Frankly, it is one of the most offensive things that I have ever read. I believe that it important for Christians not to be scared or bullied into voting one way or another. I'm tired of hearing people say that McCain is the way Christians need to vote, hearing about how pastors have said it is "unchristian" for people to vote for Obama, and seeing Church signs pushing their parishioners one way or another.

Read more from my friend Christina Whitehouse-Suggs' Livejournal.

Read Dobson's actual letter: Here.

Here is Christina's letter of response:

Dear Dr. Dobson,

I am so very tired of your ranting about politics and theology, claiming that all good Christians agree with your views. Your most recent fictional letter is yet another brick in the fundamentalist wall you continue to build around your narrow-minded kingdom. I'm sure others are saying they are appalled and outraged at your sensationalist tactics, but I'm far past that. For years you have not shown yourself to be concerned with anything that lines up with the message of the risen Christ.

If you truly consider yourself a follower of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels, then you need to write a letter of apology to Senator Obama, as well as the entire Democratic party. Your work of fiction is the most vilifying piece of trash I've read since the Left Behind series. As Christians, we should be active in the political process but never stoop to such low-handed, strong-armed tactics.

Rev. Christina Whitehouse-Suggs

I must say I actually agree with Christina's letter moreso than Dr. Dobson's eventhough I may be a registered Republican (though I don't support either party). However, being thoroughly Baptist---I respect Dobson's right to believe as he chooses, but I believe Dobson went too far here. Especially, since coercive faith is against basic, fundamental and standard Baptist principles or as Roger Williams would say: “forc’t Worshipp stincks in Gods nostrils.”

Write your own response letter: Here.

Todd Friel's Absurd Comments About Brian MacLaren

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Commentary:

At 0:54 Brian says that he is a plethora of denominations as truly Jesus is not limited to our denominational identity---I don't see why Todd thinks that's so wacky.

At 1:45 Brian explains that Jesus and truth aren't limited to Christianity as Jesus is truly Lord of all regardless of their beliefs. (See John 4:1-15 and TheoPoetic Musings: Intensive Gospel Study: John 4)--also, see this video:

---apparently Todd doesn't agree that Jesus is Lord of all. Also in 2:19 Brian believes in the orthodox view of holistic truth---apparently Todd heretical-ly rejects holistic truth.

At 2:46 Todd once again fixated on judging others' beliefs brings up hell---though I can agree with Todd that hell is a real theological concept---we still mustn't judge others beliefs just as Jesus didn't tell the Samaritan woman that she was going to hell for not believing as the Judean Jews did.

At 3:33 once again Todd speaks nonsense---dominioninism and Kingdom theology are not one in the same. Kingdom theology is putting the Lord's Prayer in action. Todd and his cohorts at Way Of The Master are dominionists trying to coerce people into buying into their conservative political views such as their anti-evolution/anti-abortion in all cases ideologies by setting guilt traps---see http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/10/14/october-14-2008-hour-2/ for example. Brian is not a dominionist and he is correct Jesus spoke more about life here on earth rather than an afterlife.

Todd at 3:36-4:10 misconstrues the Gospel as being about 3 propositions only, which he says scripture states---but he is wrong of course---scripture states that Jesus alone is the Gospel. Preaching, repentance and faith are means to viewing the Gospel (Jesus) but not the only means---Todd left out love, service, prayer, etc. Also---Luke 4.18-19, quoting from Isaiah 61 states:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”

Brian in 4:12-5:56 raises the issue of redemptive violence in the act of crucifixion which is a valid assessment---even if I don't entirely agree with his conclusions as Jesus willing sacrificed Himself in the face of evil and the world's violence. Todd however arrogantly chastises Brian by saying atonement by blood is the only way which eventhough I believe in blood atonement---I believe people are free to question the necessity of such a violent act of forgiveness. However, Todd's beef is not that but Brian's support of the Christus Victor view of the atonement (which is what the Early Church believed and is supported by scripture ie. I Corinthians 15: 53-58) rather than the Penal Substitutionary view of atonement, which Todd idolizes, because John Calvin first formulated the theory in it's present day form (by reading in legal terms into the bible---because Calvin was trained first as a lawyer before becoming a Magisterial Reformer).

In 6:46-7:31, Todd as usual appealing to Charles Spurgeon (who believed in the Calvinist heresy of individual predestination) to try to somehow prove that Brian is a heretic. It's interesting considering Todd's heretical fungelical teachings such as: that all sins are sins of the flesh fighting against the spirit/the flesh is evil, which is nothing short of Neo-Manichaeism and semi-Docetism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are your thoughts?

Israel Considering Saudi Peace Deal

Israel Considering Saudi Peace Deal
By ARON HELLER, AP
posted: 23 HOURS 28 MINUTES AGOcomments: 252filed under: World News(Oct. 19) -

Israeli leaders are seriously considering a dormant Saudi plan offering a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world in exchange for lands captured during the 1967 war, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Sunday.
Barak said it may be time to pursue an overall peace deal for the region because individual negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians have made little progress.

Barak said he has discussed the Saudi plan with Prime Minister-designate Tzipi Livni, who is in the process of forming a new government, and that Israel is considering a response. Barak, who leads the Labor party, is expected to play a senior role in the next government.
Livni's office refused to comment on her talks with Barak.
Saudi Arabia first proposed the peace initiative in 2002, offering pan-Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands captured in 1967 — the West Bank, Gaza Strip, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The 22-member Arab League endorsed the plan last year.
Israel has said the plan is a good basis for discussion, but expressed some reservations.
"There is definitely room to introduce a comprehensive Israeli plan to counter the Saudi plan that would be the basis for a discussion on overall regional peace," Barak told Israel's Army Radio.
He noted the "deep, joint interest" with moderate Arab leaders in containing Iran's nuclear ambitions and limiting the influence of the radical Islamic Hezbollah movement in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Analyst Ghassan Khatib, a former minister in the Palestinian Cabinet, said interest in the plan was "a little bit late" but welcome.

"I strongly believe that the Arab initiative is the best approach to peace between the Arabs and the Israelis," he said. "It fulfills all the legitimate objectives of Israel and those of the Palestinians and at the same time it has this regional dimension and it reflects one of the rare issues on which Arabs have consensus."
While Israel's outgoing prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has welcomed the Saudi plan, he and other leaders want to keep small parts of the territories captured in 1967. Israel also objects to language that appears to endorse a large-scale return of Palestinian refugees to lands inside Israel. Israel says a massive influx of Palestinians would destroy the country's Jewish character.
Yuval Steinitz, an Israeli lawmaker from the conservative opposition Likud Party and a member of parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that for Israel, the Saudi plan is a nonstarter and called Barak's remarks "an empty political gesture."
"It doesn't recognize Israel's right to defensible borders ... (and) demands Palestinian refugees settle in the Jewish state as well as the Palestinian state, which is totally unacceptable," he said.
Israel's ceremonial president, Shimon Peres, proposed putting Israel's various peace talks on one track last month at the United Nations, calling on Saudi King Abdullah to "further his initiative." He has since been pushing the idea in meetings with Israeli, Arab and Western officials, his office said.
While Peres has no formal role in Israeli foreign policy, he is a Nobel peace laureate and well respected in the international community.

In Sunday's interview, Barak said he was in full agreement with Peres.
"I had the impression that there is indeed an openness to explore any path, including this one," he said of his talks with Livni.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted that pursuing the Saudi peace initiative did not necessarily undermine the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians and he encouraged Israel to pursue this track.
"I think Israel should have done this since 2002. It is the most strategic initiative that came from the Arab world since 1948," he said. "I urge them to revisit this initiative and to go with it because it will shorten the way to peace."
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Sunday that he would meet with Olmert on Oct. 27. The two leaders have been meeting regularly this year, to assess progress in peace talks.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-10-19 13:38:29

Perhaps this will be a step forward for progress in the Middle East. Peace is achievable if both parties are willing to set aside their differences and start pursuing commonalities. I can already hear Fungelical Zionists like Tim LaHaye impede this progress with conspiracy theories about a One World Government/Religion and a literal Anti-Christ figure (instead of figurative anti-christs as the only references to any type of anti-Christ are in I and II John, one of which is in a plural case) though.

See also: Obsession "Stars" Have Lectured at U.S. Military Colleges; U.S. Navy Uses Film, Tim LaHaye says Allah is not God, Fundaresentalism, Did Tim LaHaye Just Call Israelis "Not-To-Be-Trusted Yids?", http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/ivp.html, Christian Zionism---an even handed overview, Professor Mark Chmiel on Christian Zionism and Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism.

The Imperialistic Beatitudes

A revision of the Beatitudes that Imperialistic Christians like John MacArthur, Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson, etc. would love---

Since no one has done so yet, I have taken the liberty to revise the Beatitudes as the Warmonger’s Beatitudes:

Blessed are the defense contractors: for theirs is the taxpayers’ money.
Blessed are they that kill: for they shall not comfort.
Blessed are the soldiers: for they shall bomb the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after blood: for they shall shed it.
Blessed are the vengeful: for they shall not show mercy.
Blessed are the war lovers in heart: for they shall see combat.
Blessed are the warmongers, for they shall be called the children of Mars.
Blessed are they which persecute for the state’s sake: for theirs is a government contract.
Blessed are ye when ye shall revile foreigners, and persecute them, and say all manner of evil against them falsely, for the state’s sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in the military: for so persecuted the military foreigners which were before you. (More...)

Also linked: Here.

Historical criticism today: a word to evangelicals

Here's an interesting article from The Fire and the Rose Blogspot:

"Saturday, September 06, 2008
Historical criticism today: a word to evangelicals
Slandering historical biblical criticism (HBC) is all the rage nowadays. Alternative methods of interpreting Scripture—e.g., inter alia, canonical, literary, linguistic, poststructural, and political readings—have all but displaced HBC. When HBC is taught, it is almost always with a caveat, such as: “this was how I was instructed when I was a student,” or “this is an important part of the history of biblical interpretation,” or “you have to know this first before we can advance to more nuanced readings.”

But just because the field of biblical scholarship has moved past the old hegemony of HBC does not validate the conservative claim that HBC is a rejection of Scripture, was misguided from the start, is evidence of the liberal attack on orthodoxy, or some other nonsense like that. HBC provides a part of the picture, a part that we must not lose: viz., the historical-cultural origins of the biblical text. HBC is the basis for a key Christian axiom: the text of the Bible is a human document and is thus not in itself the Word of God. Only Jesus Christ is, by nature, the Word of God. All other words must become the Word of God by means of the actualizing power of the Holy Spirit..."

Read more at: http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2008/09/historical-criticism-today-word-to.html

Fundie Nuts Vs. Harry Emerson Fosdick

Steven J. said on Ray Comfort's Blog ...

(Shiver)Curtis quoted John MacArthur saying:

"The result is that over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as “old-earth creationism,” which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing world-views. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account."-------Fundie Nut

Valid Response: Please note that an old Earth is not part of evolutionary theory: that the Earth was much older than 10,000 years was realized before evolutionary theory was proposed, and was not inspired by the need of evolution for large amounts of time to work with. Old-earth creationists are, after all, creationists.

The biblical creation account mentions the canopy of the sky, with "windows" in it (these are opened to let in the rain for Noah's Flood). This view of the sky as a solid artifact is repeated throughout the Old Testament, from further references to the "windows of heaven" in Malachi to Isaiah's reference to the sky being set up like a tent over the (presumably flat disk of the) Earth. John MacArthur, to be more consistent, should complain about all those ministers who explain away, rather than honestly exegete, the biblical passages that teach a geocentric, flat-earth cosmology. Or, conversely, he could take the approach of "Verandoug" and recognize that he has allowed his interpretation of the Bible to be shaped by scientific discoveries, and be less disdainful of those who carry this process further than he does, to acknowledge that the Earth is, in fact, immensely older than the human species (which is itself older than 10,000 or so years). I suppose it is too much to ask him to go so far as to allow his interpretation of Genesis 1 to be shaped by the evidence in favor of common ancestry of humans and other species, but he could make a start down the road to self-consistency and respect for evidence.

June 27, 2008 12:28 AM

---------------------------------------------------

Harry Emerson Fosdick long ago said:

The Real Situation

When, therefore, Mr. Bryan says, "Neither Darwin nor his supporters have been able to find a fact in the universe to support their hypothesis," it would be difficult to imagine a statement more obviously and demonstrably mistaken. The real situation is that every fact on which investigation has been able to lay its hands helps to confirm the hypothesis of evolution. There is no known fact which stands out against it. Each newly discovered fact fits into an appropriate place in it. So far as the general outlines of it are concerned, the Copernican astronomy itself is hardly established more solidly.

My reply, however, is particularly concerned with the theological aspects of Mr. Bryan's statement. There seems to be no doubt about what his position is. He proposes to take his science from the Bible. He proposes certainly, to take no science that is contradicted by the Bible. He says, "Is it not strange that a Christian will accept Darwinism as a substitute for the Bible when the Bible not only does not support Darwin's hypothesis, but directly and expressly contradicts it?" What other interpretation of such a statement is possible except this: that the Bible is for Mr. Bryan an authoritative textbook in biology--and if in biology, why not in astronomy, cosmogony, chemistry, or any other science, art, concern of man whatever? One who is acquainted with the history of theological thought gasps as he reads this. At the close of the sixteenth century a Protestant theologian set down the importance of the book of Genesis as he understood it. He said that the text of Genesis "must be received strictly"; that "it contains all knowledge, human and divine"; that "twenty-eight articles of the Augsburg Confession are to be found in it"; that "it is an arsenal of arguments against all sects and sorts of atheists, pagans, Jews, Turks, Tartars, Papists, Calvinists, Socinians, and Baptists"; that it is "the source of all science and arts, including law, medicine, philosophy, and rhetoric," "the source and essence of all histories and of all professions, trades, and works," "an exhibition of all virtues and vices," and "the origin of all consolation."

Luther and Bryan

One has supposed that the days when such wild anachronisms could pass muster as good theology were past, but Mr. Bryan is regalvanizing into life that same outmoded idea of what the Bible is, and proposes in the twentieth century that we shall use Genesis, which reflects the prescientific view of the Hebrew people centuries before Christ, as an authoritative textbook in science, beyond whose conclusions we dare not go.

Why, then, should Mr. Bryan complain because his attitude toward evolution is compared repeatedly, as he says it is, with the attitude of the theological opponents of Copernicus and Galileo? On his own statement, the parallelism is complete. Martin Luther attacked Copernicus with the same appeal which Mr. Bryan uses. He appealed to the Bible. He said: "People gave ear to an upstart astrology who strove to show that the earth revolves , not the heavens or the firmament, and the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, whic of all systems is, of course, the very best, This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy,but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

Nor was Martin Luther wrong if the Bible is indeed an authoritative textbook in science. The denial of the Copernican astronomy with its moving earth can unquestionable be found in the Bible if one starts out to use the Bible that way--"The world also is established, that in cannot be moved" (Psalm 91:I); "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever" (Psalm 104:5). Moreover, in those bygone days, the people who were then using Mr. Bryan's method of argument did quote these passages as proof, and Father Inchofer felt so confident that he cried, "The opinion of the earth's motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation should be tolerated sooner that the argument to prove that the earth moves."

The Hebrew Universe

Indeed, as everybody knows who has seriously studied the Bible, that book represents in its cosmology and cosmogony the view of the physical universe which everywhere obtained in the ancient Semitic world. The earth was flat and was founded on an underlying sea (Psalm 136:6; Psalm 24:1-2; Genesis 7:11); it was stationary; the heavens, like an upturned bowl, "strong as a molten mirror" (Job 37:18; Genesis I:6-8;Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 104:2), rested on the earth beneath (Amos 9:6); Job 26:11); the sun, moon, stars moved within this firmament of special purpose to illumine man (Genesis 1:14-19); there was a sea above the sky, "the waters which were above the firmament." (Genesis 1:7; Psalm 148:4) and through "the windows of heaven" the rain came down (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23); beneath the earth was mysterious Sheol where dwelt the shadowy dead (Isaiah 14:9-11); and all this had been made in six days, each of which had had a morning and an evening, a short and measurable time before (Genesis I).

Are we to understand that this is Mr. Bryan's science, that we must teach this science in our schools, that we are stopped by divine revelation from ever going beyond this science? Yet this is exactly what Mr. Bryan would force us to do if with intellectualconsistency he should carry out the implications of his appeal to the Bible against the scientific hypothesis of evolution in biology.

---Courtesy of: http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/fosdick2.html

A little more on John MacArthur

John MacArthur Responsible For A Suicide
----------------------------------------

MacArthur has been a central figure in several controversies, the most notable of which was the first time an evangelical church had ever been sued for malpractice. Kenneth Nally, a 24-year old seminary student, committed suicide in 1979. The following year, MacArthur and several members of the staff were brought to court to determine the legality of counseling people from the Bible rather than modern psychology, although Nally had been receiving psychological help elsewhere as well. After seven years of court rulings, challenges and appeals, the California Supreme Court found that the "evidence presented by plaintiff [was] insufficient to permit a jury to find in his favor."[2]

----

http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-macarthur-and-kenneth-nally.html

------Such a fine case of a bible literalist. If it were up to bible literalists, people with mild cerebral palsy such as myself wouldn't be allowed in church or even considered Christian, because the bible is clear, when taken literally: “No man who has any blemish or defect may come near my altar: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or is a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. For he has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. Because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary.” Leviticus 21:18-24 ---see this hate site for further details---which sounds all too much like a Nazi hate program.

----------------------
John MacArthur Says That The American Revolution Was A Sin

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/AmRevGodly.htm

---but what do you expect from a nutcase who thinks Christians should've obeyed Hitler, Stalin, Sadaam et. al.

-----------------------------
See also: Spurgeon's Profanity for something different.

John MacArthur Denies Barth, Bonhoeffer And Niemoller's Work

http://undoislam.com/obey_hitler or http://www.rhettsmith.com/?p=813

------------
Weird stuff.

John MacArthur Is A Nutcase

This is old news: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200706070004

Hear the sermon, in question here:

Parts 2 and 3 are here and here, but you can access them in the above video as well.


For the transcript see: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/jm-233910.htm

-------But I would like to counter with this protest song that perhaps Pastor MacArthur has never heard:
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html ----------

It's arrogant to assume that God is on the side of any nation---let alone abandons that said nation, because of genetic causes of sexual expressions that God Himself created.