Schaeffer condemned theocracy and found civil disobedience frightening? OMG, that's crazy!! Lizza and Knight need to realize that they are the ones on the crazy train, not Michele Bachmann. It certainly is crazy what drinking that liberal Kool-aid does to the human mind.
Discuss whether you see a way around exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism that might still keep integrity of each particular religion in place. Discuss how religious language might or might not play a role in your conclusion.
Exclusivism (the doctrine that only one religion is “true”) is the foundation of many religions. If Scripture is correct, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Whatever a person believes passionately will come out of his or her mouth. People who believe that their belief system has the only means to salvation; if they believe that souls depend on the truth of that system, that belief will be shared with others. They can fully respect the dignity of other people, and understand the depth of the beliefs of others; they want to share the truth so that all will come to salvation. One can “witness” or “evangelize” by simply stating one’s belief, while allowing others to share their own beliefs in the same way.
Inclusivism may be compatible with exclusivism, in that (in Christianity, for example) inclusivism maintains that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation, but salvation (through Christ) can be obtained without a specific belief in Christ for salvation, but through the “general revelation” of nature. People who embrace inclusivism have an understanding that people who have never heard the gospel of Christ, may (through general revelation) may come to a saving faith without ever hearing of Christ).
Pluralism maintains that all religions are equally valid and that any religion may bring a person to salvation. This cannot be compatible with exclusivism (within a person) but may coincide with inclusivism. Once cannot simultaneously believe that there is only one means of salvation and believe that there are many ways to salvation.
Within a group of people, discussions can take place that allow sharing and debates of beliefs. These discussions can get passionate and even heated at times, and they depend on the ability of others to present their convictions and listen to other people and maintain respect and civility for the other people, even if they do not respect the other religion. If respect and civility are not present, the “doctrine of ‘just shut up’” might come into play.
John Piper once said, “Words don’t mean things…definitions mean things.” In order to answer the question, “Is religion necessary?” we must first define “religion”. Some definitions say that “religion” is “the service and worship of God or the supernatural” (Merriam-Webster) or “the belief in a god or gods and the activities that are connected with this belief” (google dictionary). Others define “religion” as "a set of symbolic forms and acts that relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence” (Robert Bellah,professor at the University of California, Berkley).
Huston Smith noted that the oldest artifacts found by archaeologists have religious significance. In ages past, before more recent scientific advances, the world around us must have seemed far beyond human comprehension…and yet creation got here somehow…and so did we.
All (or nearly all) cultures around the world, past and present, have had some sense of “religion”. Even today, many cultures do not have a mandated religion, yet most people have access to at least one belief system called “religion”. Whether the worshippers wanted salvation from the physical world around them or whether they wanted access to an afterlife, it seems that human beings are programmed to seek something (or someone) larger than themselves.
Well of course! If there are too many books on the conservative best seller lists...give them their own list! (That way they're not competing with the liberals...)
In a Nov. 9 entry on The Huffington Post that laments Fox News host Glenn Beck pulling a feat not done before - holding the number one spot on The New York Times' four lists: hardcover fiction, hardcover non-fiction, paperback non-fiction and children's - they suggest a separate category altogether, not for political non-fiction, but conservative non-fiction.
tags: conservative, books, Huffington Post, politics
How many people died at Fort Hood? Fourteen...A grim reminder of the ones who are forgotten...
Coworkers told police that Hamid's actions were out of the ordinary and that he had worked at the kiosk for years. (...) Through an interpreter, Hamid requested a public defender and was scheduled to appear in court at 9 a.m. Thursday where he is expected to enter a plea.
What's up with that? He's been working at a mall in California for YEARS...and needs an interpreter to ask for an attorney?
President Barack Obama recently told ABC News' Jake Tapper that he shares Pelosi’s belief that jail time is an appropriate punishment for not buying health insurance.
And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it’s not affordable, then there’s going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don’t have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don’t think, is helping those without health insurance.
Evangelical Christian organizations that hold to a complementarian view of gender roles, such as The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), have expressed concern over a possible connection between an egalitarian view of male/female gender roles and homosexuality. For example, in the list of central concerns stated in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood-perhaps the most thorough defense of complementarianism-the authors declare, "We are concerned not merely with the behavior roles of men and women, but also with the underlying nature of manhood and womanhood themselves.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” --BHO, 2008
I have a confession to make. I am not fond of women’s ministry programs. Don’t get me wrong, I love my sisters in Christ and enjoy fellowshipping with them. But programs that involve some type of teaching, such as workshops or conferences, generally don’t appeal to me. Why? In my experience, gatherings to hear teaching have been little more than encouragement sessions to make us feel better about being “God’s women”. Unfortunately, I find the same thing on women’s blogs, even ones that have been advertised as a place for serious thinkers. There are a few exceptions, but generally, I find them lacking in rich theological substance.
This first one is important...we will begin to see religious freedoms eroded, shipped away at or litigated away. This is not a "Christian" issue, but it is one that Christians should stand behind, for the sake of the freedom for all.
Barack Obama's sitting at a bar when a man comes up to him and says: "Wanna hear a Barack Obama joke?" Obama: "Er, hold on there, buddy — I am Barack Obama." "Oh. all right then, I'll tell it in Spanish."
More here. (the page linked here is clean. I take no responsibility for where it goes from here - and I didn't go past here)
I am Reformed, but not rabidly so. I believe the Solas and I am pretty sure about TULIP (really sure about the "T"). I think that you could say that I'm "Calvinistic" in sotierology, but not in ecclesiology.
Since yesterday was 499 and we have a year until #500, it seems like a good idea to put a little bit of focus on Calvin and other Reformers.
Passions run high over religion...they always have and most likely always will. We can attempt to look at history and theology as best we can.
I grew up Arminian (or at least mostly) and my entire family is in Arminian churches now. My brother-in-law is a pastor and (on my husband's side) my sister-in-law is an elder. Most of my adult life has been spent in Arminian churches. I had been looking at the Calvinism v. Arminian debate for a while...then one day I was talking with my kids and asked them if they remember where and when they were saved.
My son knew. Where he was, who was with him.
My daughter..."Mom, do you mean the first time, or all the rest of the times?"
That was when I started looking for a "Calvinistic" church.
Yes...the "in peace" is necessary, to protect from accusations that freedom to practice a religion in peace leaves the idea open for abuse and violence. ANY idea is open for abuse; that's a fact of life in a fallen world. That does not mean the idea is bad...it means people are bad.
That said, if a person chooses to practice their religion in the way that they believe most honors God and if that way is not proven to be inherently harmful to others, they should be allowed to practice in peace.
we have a student in our class (I'll call her Maria - NOT her real name) who is a Jehovah's Witness. Today is Maria's birthday. And yet...even though Maria tells us that "we don't celebrate birthdays", our lead teacher had us bake a cake in cooking class and the students sang happy birthday (led by another staff). As a Christian, I have a real issue with a public school employee directly choosing to introduce into a specific student's school day an action that is in direct contradiction to a parent's religious conviction.
* there are times when the entire class participates in a "thing" that is contrary to a religious conviction - this is the opposite of what I am talking about. At Christmas time we went to Meijer Garden to see Christmas trees. Maria stayed home rather than participate in an event for the entire class. Today, Maria was the reason for the celebration. I have had people of other religions in classes before and they are pretty understanding of the class as a whole - students have eaten birthday cake and Christmas candy, yet not taken part in the "party scene".
A run down on situations I have run into:
Valentine's - some do, some don't. A student who has parents who teach them that giving valentine's is glorifying humans rather than God should not be pressured to give valentine's
Going out for pizza - last year I had a Muslim student; just try taking a class out for pizza and finding a place that can assure us that pork has never touched either the pizza or the equipment it was prepared with.
Christmas - we have a young man who REALLY wants to be in choir. He loves to sing, but the main feature of the school choir is a Christmas concert.
sex ed - we have an "opt-out" clause that allows a parent to review the curriculum and opt their student out of sex ed that teaches that which the parent does not want taught.
Harry Potter (and like that). There were two second grade students at a school that I worked at several years ago whose parents wanted them to leave the classroom when Harry Potter was being read. The teacher not only refused to design an alternate lesson plan (which could have been as simple as having them go with another class to P.E.), she also made it clear to the class what was happening, opening up the boys for ridicule.
If a school cannot make a case that NOT celebrating a birthday, NOT eating pork is harmful, NOT singing in the Christmas concert is harmful, NOT reading Harry Potter is harmful...then leave the students alone.