en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/668130 Comments by RustyOsborne http://spiritualdiscourse.com/2010/08/excuse-me-your-exclusion-is-showing/#IDComment102822670 I think many people respond to Islam this way because they cannot separate their concept of America apart from Christianity. In their effort to reclaim America as a "Christian Nation," many people think that this is right action to take. That being said, seems a little naive to think that this project has no undertones of Muslim agenda. I am uncomfortable with comparing our relationship with Muslims to other believers (1 John 4 is clearly speaking to a group of Christians), but yes they are created in God's image and he loves him. Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:13:03 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/2010/08/excuse-me-your-exclusion-is-showing/#IDComment102822670 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/266#IDComment48650367 Bring it on, I am thankful! Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:18:41 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/266#IDComment48650367 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/259#IDComment46436619 I am familiar with the book, but have not currently read it. Sorry I cannot engage more. Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:03:41 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/259#IDComment46436619 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/250#IDComment46182037 Being overweight, in and of itself, is not a sin. There are medical conditions and medications that produce the same affect as overeating. This is one of the major reasons people need to be careful at casting stones at overweight people. However, overeating as a result of turning to food for comfort, joy, pleasure and ultimately satisfaction in life is easily comparable to drunkenness and drug addiction. For some it is simply an issue of idolatry. Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:21:44 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/250#IDComment46182037 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/237#IDComment45880955 I am glad I didn't read that far before writing this post. Sat, 5 Dec 2009 03:13:39 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/237#IDComment45880955 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/213#IDComment44705376 The inescapable question is always which one is the "trump card" when the two don't seem to match? Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:50:55 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/213#IDComment44705376 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/207#IDComment44703011 Somehow that is not surprising. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:40:23 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/207#IDComment44703011 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/207#IDComment44586422 You surely have a better perspective on the album than I do having not listened to it. I do think it is interesting that this seems almost entirely antithetical to a song he wrote on his earlier album She Must and Shall Go Free. His song "The Church" reads: I have come with one purpose to capture for myself a bride by my life she is lovely by my death she’s justified I have always been her husband though many lovers she has known so with water i will wash her and by my word alone so when you hear the sound of the water you will know you’re not alone (chorus) ‘cause i haven’t come for only you but for my people to pursue you cannot care for me with no regard for her if you love me you will love the church i have long pursued her as a harlot and a whore but she will feast upon me she will drink and thirst no more so when you taste my flesh and my blood you will know you’re not alone (chorus) there is none that can replace her though there are many who will try and though some may be her bridesmaids they can never be my bride Now, I recognize that artist are free (and maybe prone) to change their minds. But starting with his first solo release and continuing on through Blackbird, Webb seems to be frustrated with the church. He writes like an agitated family member who both loves and hates his escapable Christian relatives. All this to say, I would (and could) be surprised if the intent of the record was to free Christians from the church. Do you think this current album could be a more direct and radical step toward reforming the community that is uncomfortably his home? Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:56:16 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/207#IDComment44586422 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/207#IDComment44501627 Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to listen to this album yet, but I have read several reviews. I think the title of the album is incredibly profound and wonderfully witty. Stockholm syndrome is the phenomenon of a captive falling in love with his or her captor. It doesn't take much contemplation to see how this applies to the church. The ironic thing is that Webb has a tendency to move toward "worldly" communication to describe his distaste for the churches love affair with the world. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:51:12 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/207#IDComment44501627 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/173#IDComment43495514 You raise a good point. I think sometimes Christians shoot themselves in the foot with such battles. It is funny how "religious" people can get very upset over a phrase that is relatively devoid of any religious significance. The word "God" in America today can mean anything from the triune God of the Bible to a pantheistic force that sees incredibly drawn toward Oprah. I personally am not willing to fight over such ambiguity, and I don't think these battles reflect the focus and agenda of the Bible. I do believe that America was founded by many men and women who were faithfully committed to the authority of the Bible. I think our constitution reflects a very basic biblical ethic. However, the nature of democracy, and a republic such as ours, is that government is a mirror of the people. Too often Christians scream at the reflection in the mirror, yet do little to change the face in front of it. Many are surprised when our government moves in directions that appear to go against the Bible, but why is there surprise when every major denomination in the country reports staggering losses in membership and attendance. I think Christians in America should exercise their right to vote and voice their political opinions. However, only when Americans come to a saving knowledge of the gospel and understand the Bible and God as their authority will any real change happen on a national political level. I would delight to see our federal government reflect more accurately a biblical ethic, but I don't know if it will ever happen because of conservative Christian lobbyists. Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:39:30 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/173#IDComment43495514 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/186#IDComment43198718 1 Peter is a letter written to Christians who were in the midst of suffering and great trials. Peter writes to encourage them that though they suffer for a while, they will be exalted in the end. Peter builds this argument off of the life and ministry of Jesus. In this life suffering precedes glory. Peter also reminds the church that she is the new people of God in Jesus Christ and that Jesus died as the substitute for sinners giving the promise of new life. Consequently, Christians should live in light of these valuable truths reflecting the submission of Christ to one another and leaders. For any who are struggling to understand what it means to be in the world but not of it, I think 1 Peter would be helpful reading. Peter continually reminds his readers that they are not citizens of this world, but gives them plenty of guidance in what living in this world looks like for followers of Christ. 1 Peter is a short letter but has much to say about theology. It is packed full of powerful statements about the atonement, salvation, and future glory. And I guess in the end, it is God's word revealed through the apostle Peter and in that respect you can't go wrong. Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:33:31 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/186#IDComment43198718 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/180#IDComment43061434 I really like it. He communicates the real struggles of living in the world in a way that is honest and upfront. He never really answers his own questions "How much of this was 'meant to be'? and how much the work of the Devil?" But, he I think he rightly questions people's abilities to even discern answers to the question based on their participation in the whole mess. The whole song reminds of a recent book entitled This Beautiful Mess. I think he profoundly points out in the end that people can point fingers at the corruption and decay in the world, but in the end they will find the finger pointing back at them. Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:26:57 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/180#IDComment43061434 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42892869 John makes a strong connection with Satan and the serpent in Rev. 12: 9 and 20:2 when he speaks of the dragon "that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan." As for death, the only tree that they were forbidden to take from was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was no prohibition against eating of the tree of life until they had disobeyed. The couple was removed from the garden after the fall so that they would not eat from the tree of life and live forever separated from God in a fallen and sinful condition. Romans 5:12ff. make a clear connection between the entrance of sin and the reality of death. Paul argues that the power of death was so strong that it reigned from Adam to Moses even when sin was not counted because of the lack of the Law. So even before people could transgress God's law sin and death were the order of the day. God has appointed it that there are two representatives for mankind, the first Adam or the second Adam who is Christ. The first representative introduced the problem of sin, while the second solves it. Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:26:17 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42892869 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42804785 Perhaps, I'm not very dogmatic on the issue. Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:40:04 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42804785 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42640269 I agree that evil appears to exist before the creation of man and women, I would say in the form of Satan. So, evil did not originate in the garden, it just manifested itself in creation for the first time. Yes, Adam and Eve had the ability to choose unrighteousness from the beginning, but the desire arose through the interaction with the serpent. I think Bazan highly underestimates how much sin is an effrontery to a holy God. The sin that took place in the garden set up a pattern of rebellion against God that makes quite a bit of sense of our present state when it is multiplied out generation after generation. Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:08:57 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42640269 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42627631 To try to answer #2 first, much in the way that you were speaking of the Trinity, I believe it is helpful to speak of God having two wills. In some ways this is based on Deut. 29:29, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the thing that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Let's call the "secret things" God's will of decree, i.e. everything that has and ever will happen. And we can call the "revealed things" God's will of desire, i.e. what God desires from all humanity. We could also call the "revealed things" the Bible, in that we know what God desires from us because he has revealed it to us in Scripture. Now, we have to distinguish these two because they often do not line up in a fallen world. God desires all people to "be holy as I am holy," yet even Christians fail in obtaining this task. God desires me to be kind and courteous toward my wife, but unfortunately it does not always happen. However, just because God's will of desire is violated does not mean that his will of decree has been abdicated. For, in his sovereignty he can use human sin and rebellion to accomplish his purposes (greatest example-the cross). God, as the giver of free grace, can choose to withhold such grace whenever he wants. When God withholds evil-restraining grace, sin is the result. Therefore, God can be sovereign over sin without being it's cause. As to God's will of desire, the problem with humanity is that we do not have the same will as God. What do not always desire what he wants from us--thus sin. The goal of sanctification and the Christian life is to bring our desires into conformity with his. As for God's will of decree, I cannot speak to exact details of how it works. Deuteronomy calls it "the secret things." In essence, it asking God, "Why do you make things happen the way they do?" "What will you do tomorrow?" There are two steady lines running through the Bible, one teaching God's sovereignty and the other affirming man's responsibility for his actions. I heartily affirm both, but cannot deny that there remains an element of tension in the exact details. To answer question #1, the fall in the Garden when Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God's word. What is your answer to the question of where evil came from? Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:16:31 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/168#IDComment42627631 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/158#IDComment42358837 So, God is sovereign over everything but the human will? The reason I ask is because I think it is pretty important to understand how to pastorally counsel people in the midst of tragedy. Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:24:46 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/158#IDComment42358837 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/163#IDComment42281370 The Chopra-Lanza article seems to have some major observations about the world right. But, it is an interesting twist that sounds kind of like science meets postmodernism. It's science idealized by the individuals perception. Consequently, the observer becomes the center of the particle-universe because "particles do not exist with definite physical properties until they are observed." The scientist creates by observing...an interesting way of making the individual divine. Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:49:38 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/163#IDComment42281370 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/163#IDComment42279554 Continued: The reality is there is as much objectivity in science as there is in theology. Scientists may put on goggles in their labs but they cannot cover up their preconcieved ideas about their own studies, the natural world and the divine. It is as hard to find "objective" science of the origins of the universe as it is global warming or the affect of transfats in the human body. Science is certainly not to be done away with, but a believe a little more humility is in order. Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:21:52 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/163#IDComment42279554 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/163#IDComment42279537 I think this post is pretty interesting, yet somewhat contradictory. Ms. Santa Maria claims "Science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive," yet in the next sentence she says,"When individuals start quibbling about the supernatural, science goes out the window." So, science and religion can co-exist as long as religion does not talk to the supernatural? How does that work? As to her final comments about scientists' so-called objectivity toward new found evidence, her presuppositionally rule out any evidence that could possibly affect her conclusions. If any research that makes a comment about the "divine" is instantly ruled as "not-scientific," the game rules are already set to where science will never lose. Is that objectivity? Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:21:31 +0000 http://spiritualdiscourse.com/archives/163#IDComment42279537