That goes for Christian, atheist, gay, straight, lefty, conservative, children, adults, pastors, secularists….

You cannot judge a group by individuals, but by the tenets it promotes. Role models must be chosen carefully.

Be careful not to generalise about groups, based on the actions or words of individuals within it.

Yes, terribly sorry about that Mriana. I got sidetracked once again. I’ll put it at the top of my list.

Thanks.

One I’m still patiently waiting for an answer. Either that or his opinion on those I appreciate as theologians was his answer. I don’t think so though. I think he would have address some of the points if it were.

Yes, terribly sorry about that Mriana. I got sidetracked once again. I’ll put it at the top of my list.

Like Mike I agree that there are parts of the OT that make me uncomfortable. I do not understand them all, and while I may try to make excuse for them I don’t honestly believe all of my own excuses. In the end I have to say that I believe in Jesus, and he seemed to be a follower of the OT, although he turned it on its head in a lot of ways. I am comfortable with that, and that is how I will choose to live.

To my way of thinking, if Mike is going to engage with us, he ought to be prepared for tough questions and sometimes a little uncomfortable probing.

Well, the tone of the posts and the quotes etc makes it hard to ask him the tough questions, but believe me, I’ve asked him some pretty tough questions. One I’m still patiently waiting for an answer. Either that or his opinion on those I appreciate as theologians was his answer. I don’t think so though. I think he would have address some of the points if it were.

We can engage in a quote-fest all day long. For you own edification I would suggest reading Vladimir Lossky on the Eastern Orthodox view of Christ’s saving work. The substitutional and juridical views are not emphasized in the East as much as in the West, nonetheless they are present, and I would argue that the scriptures I cited are incomprehensible without seeing Christ as the Lamb of God and the crucifixion as the final blood sacrifice foreshadowed by the O.T. rituals. It is not the only, but it is the first component of Christ’s salvific work according to the very Hebraic New Testament. The Eastern Fathers almost immediately began to diverge from the Jewish overtones of Christian theology, and the highly developed mystical theology that evolved in the East reflects this. Nonetheless, Eastern Orthodoxy deals rightly with the Scriptures.

And now for something completely different:

Darryl, I’ve found that many of the articles in Wiki around things such as “scientism” and “evolutionary psychology” are clearly written dishonestly by proponents of those cults. You’ve got to be careful with Wiki.

Um… Pastor Mike, with all due respect and I’m sure you know this given you said “for lack of better authority”, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Darryl on the other hand doesn’t appear to realize this.

Mriana and olvlzl, no ism, no ist,

Please pay closer attention to my comments. My response to Mike when he cited Wikipedia was this:

I don’t know that I would make Wikipedia the arbiter on this matter. But, since you’re quoting it, Wikipedia also says . . .

I only quoted from this source because I was being cheeky. It is not my first choice for authority either.

And finally, a word about the tone of our conversations:

I think a few people have gotten the wrong idea about my comments and questions for Mike C. First of all, I have no axe to grind with anyone including Mike. Mike is a bright fellow; he’s friendly (like Hemant); I assume he’s doing some good in the world—his heart is in the right place; and he enjoys a lively exchange of viewpoints with atheists. To my way of thinking, if Mike is going to engage with us, he ought to be prepared for tough questions and sometimes a little uncomfortable probing. I think that some of the comments on this blog have stepped over the line into the nasty zone (including some of mine—for which I have apologized), but after all, it’s a blog. Blogging in the heat of the moment does have its drawbacks. I realize that some of you are sensitive to this kind of thing, and you think it hurts the atheist cause. You may be correct. Then again, a lively mix of views and styles is probably a good thing, all in all. Please excuse my occasional weakness for a good spar—nobody’s perfect. Consider that by inquiring, probing, and at times arguing, all sides are refining their thoughts and putting to the test ideas that would otherwise go unexamined. One thing seems to be clear, Mike is not afraid of criticism or attacks on his faith; neither is he afraid of his doubts, if he were, he would not be freely putting himself on the chopping block every day.

The mass has ended; go in peace.

CARR
I don’t take it as factual either when it says there is a ‘god’ who ‘created’.

It comes in the genre of something somebody made up and wrote down, and should be read in that genre.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that it wasn’t just made up???

CARR
The Gospel of Luke was written as history, but it is bad history.

It has no mention of sources, it is anoymous , and has no discussion of how the author sifted truth from fiction (if he did)

It’s main source is the Gospel of Mark – just the sort of anonymous work real historians reject out of hand.

Luke also used the Old Testament as one of his sources of ‘history’.

As Acts says, Christians ‘searched the scriptures’ for facts about Jesus.

See http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm for details.