Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Frank Pastore :: Townhall.com Columnist
Outing the Emergents With Three Questions
by Frank Pastore
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Ahhh… The delicious irony of postmodern emergents asking me for evidence to support my arguments from last week’s “Why Al Qaeda Supports The Emergent Church”… when their relativistic worldview proclaims the futility of both evidence and argument.

I hate taking up precious column space to do this, but if I must…

Of the disapproving emails, perhaps the most-representative was this one:

“Where O where does your information and experience of the Emergent Church come from? How disturbing your message is! Inciting one corner of Christ's church against another in the name of peace is not only counter productive but is hurtful to Christ's very message. Seems that the Radical Evangelical Church has had their day. A conservative government backed by conservative Christians has only produced scandal and war. How is this a better alternative, a better way? Radical Christians added to Radical Muslims is only a recipe for disaster. With faith in Christ I listen to, eat with and love my Muslim friend. I do all these things without turning from Christ. I am a Christian Denominational Protestant. I vote, preach, and live in this country. You do not speak for me or my family, or my church, or my country. Despite your charges and meanness I remain your brother in Christ.”

Do you think he’s ever preached Jesus’ “name of peace” message of John 14:6 to his Muslim friend? Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

As far as my “information and experience,” that comes from the following pro-emergent sources: Brian McLaren (homepage), Doug Pagitt (homepage), Tony Jones of emergentvillage.org, Steve Chalke (Wikipedia), and perhaps the best text in support is Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger’s Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker, 2005) (Amazon).

My critical sources were: D. A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Zondervan, 2005) (Amazon) – which is the “must have” of the group, R. Scott Smith’s Truth and the New Kind of Christian (Crossway, 2005) (here), and Millard Erickson, Editor of Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times (Good News Publishing, 2004) (here).

But if you don’t want to read hundreds of pages, or waste money on books you’ll never read again, just visit these three excellent websites and read these documents – it will take you less than an hour.

• Brett Kunkle, “Essential Concerns Regarding the Emerging Church,” at Stand To Reason (www.str.org), specifically here.

• David Kowalski, “Appropriate Response to the Emerging Church Movement” at apologeticsindex.org, specifically here.

• Justin Taylor, “An Emerging Church Primer” at 9marks.org, specifically here.

All of the above – and then some – is where I got my “information on and experience of” the emerging church. Audio files are available on many of the websites, both for and against, and you can find more information than you can digest, in just a few minutes of looking around – which is why I bothered to give you the links. See for yourself.

“Emergent” is a term in need of a qualifier. It’s roots are in the postmodern rebellion against modernity. It’s use by people not in the postmodern camp is intentionally confusing. When a person says they are “emergent,” I’m immediately suspect because of the origin and common use of the term. You should be too. Perhaps “emergent” should be qualified the same way “evangelical” is. Maybe we should ask, “Are you a conservative emergent or a progressive emergent?”

Now that that’s out of the way…

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

Here are three questions to “out” someone either already in or starting to dabble with all this Emergent-PoMo stuff. (“PoMo is inside lingo for “post-modern.”)

1. If Christianity is not objectively true, if the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, if the Cross is not the greatest expression of Divine Love but an example of “divine child abuse,” if one can merit heaven without a having a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, if God doesn’t hate sin, if wrath is not an attribute of God, if there is no personal devil and if a conscious and eternal hell is not real, then… Why be a Christian?

D. A. Carson says, “I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel.” (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p. 186.)

This question on theology is really the only question you’ll need. But, if you have the time, also expose their liberal views toward radical Islam, American exceptionalism, and gay marriage.

2. If radical Islam is not evil, if appeasement and surrender are the best responses to military aggression, if there’s nothing we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, or al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization from murdering innocent civilians, if we can’t prevent another terrorist attack on American soil or anywhere else, and if you believe living as a dhimmi under sharia law and having your grand-daughter forced to wear a berka is no big deal, then… Should we surrender to al Qaeda now so that we can have “Peace For Our Time?”

3. If morality is culturally defined, if the Bible must be “contextualized” by each successive generation, if sins must be understood in cultural context, then… Is homosexuality a sin? Adultery? Fornication? Abortion? Infanticide? How about driving SUV’s? Not buying carbon offsets? Smoking? Capitalism? Low tax rates on “the rich?” Would you support a Protection of Marriage Amendment or a Gay Marriage Amendment?

Bottom line: I’ve never come across an emergent that is a political and social conservative, let alone a theological conservative. This whole movement isn’t about reaching the world for Christ. It’s about advancing a liberal social and political agenda in the name of Christianity. Don’t fall for it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Pastore's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Mr. Pastore
Keep 'em coming and don't let the naysayers get you down.

Jesus warned four times as much about false teachings in latter times as He did about any other indicators, and the wise disciple will be on the lookout for the manifestations of the serpent's attempt to allure the church, not just the dragon's attempts to persecute her.

"Woe to those who are at ease in Zion...they will be the first to go into captivity." Amos 6

Jesus is dead...
Emergent Christianity or not, Jesus is dead and he's not coming back. Get over it, Frank. Paul was wrong about a lot of other things too.

Religious triumphalism is the problem, not emergent or liberal churches, and not secularism and not atheism.

The FACT is, that every knee will not bow, and every tongue will NOT confess that Jesus is lord. Sorry. In the short term, one would do better to pray to Allah or bet on Islam.

In the long term, ALL triumphalist religion, including Christianity (orthodox or emergent, Mormon or non-Mormon, Catholic or Protestant), is doomed for catastrophic disappointment and failure.

Jesus would turn over in his grave if he ever found out what Christianity did to his Jewish person, Jewish hopes, Jewish scriptures and Jewish god, and how it perverted it all into the Christ Myth about him.

Christians quibbling and bashing are straining at gnats. Just as well argue whether or not the tortoise really did beat the hare. Meanwhile the clock is ticking and our Christian evangelical Current Occupant, the worst and dumbest president and CiC in the history of the republic, and believing that Jesus will show up to the rescue, keeps on digging a deeper hole.

Shalom

Shelama
Ah yes, just like the typical libtard you are, you claim Jesus is dead, encourage people to pray to Allah, call our President the dumbest and worst ever--ignoring the fact that Jimmy Carter already has that gracious title sealed--and you basically blame Christianity for every problem. Listen, if you want to bow down to Allah five times a day on your custom made prayer rug, feel free to do so, and good luck with that. But me and mine will go with Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior.

PS. Make sure you face East when you pray :)

Shelama
Oh... never mind.

Evil Republican
Enjoying the company of those seven spirits, are you? (cf.Luke 11:26)

A suggestion for you: If you have decided to forgo faith and refuse to return, then forgo it. But don't compound your problem by trying to unsettle the faith of others while feeding the swine.

You'reNotTheBossOfMe
The whole Emergent Church movement is just one more manifestation of the Sixties Hippie mantra You're Not The Boss Of Me. That is, these mugs are still screaming and flailing against their parents and anybody who tries to make them face reality and take responsibility.

Long ago I was told that a person who has undergone a traumatic, life-shattering experience freezes at that point in his development until he can deal with that experience and move on. Jacques Villeneuve, the eternal 10 year old, is Exhibit "A". Only this year, 25 years after his father's sudden violent death, has he finally started speaking of his fther and his reaction to that death in any meaningful way. In the same way the Sixties Hippies are still refusing to face and grapple with the undeniable fact that time has marched on and they have not.

If you want to really scare one of these people, find a photo of him or her (especially her) from the Sixties and take a picture of her now -- and put the two of them side by side on a large banner and hold it up for everyone to see. The shock of realizing the Sixties ended 37 years ago may save their lives.

Religious wars.
I don't know why religion has to be a part of the politicals wars in America? Why can't the pastors, priests, rabbis, immans, bishops, and popes battle for the hearts and minds of mankind without entering the political wars? Pastore, oh righteous one, politics is a secular acivity. Render under government and politics that which is secular.

In God We Trust
Shelam needs to remember this Great Country of ours has 85% of it's population believing in God. If this person wants to worship to the East on a rug she/he is able to do this because we tolerate respectfully the right to do so.
However, if you feel the life would be best served with this backward way, then why don't you return to a country that lives it?
Are you wanting the free life and your way as well? Doesn't work that way!!

context
The purpose of my scriptures is to give my life context, and not the other way around. People desire for God to change the world but in reality we have been entrusted with it and it is our responsibility to take care of it. Besides if God did perform a miracle most of us would be too blind to see his hands at work.

secular politics?
one is "religious" or "anti-religious"; both have faiths as expressed in these personal beliefs. secular IS a religion, just like Christianity, and it is so disingeneuous to argue otherwise.
take religion out of politics? HA. How inane a concept. politics is people. people have religious faiths. should you be expected to remove your right arm and cleave out your heart upon entering a voting booth? forget it. a belief is a belief, whether held as "gospel" from an modern urban myth or ancient text. the entire premise of "separation of church and state" as presented by Liberals, and their judicial stooges is ridiculous and was never the intent of the Founders of the USA. if you oppose abortion it is your right regardless of what you belief is based upon, just like if you embrace abortion it is your right regardless of what you base your belief upon, and so it is with everything else.
it is NOT the "religious", persee, that the US left loaths, no, it is the fact that some religious have banned together at the voting booths to uphold their beliefs in opposition to those of the hardcore Liberals of the US that enrages, yes, ENRAGES the lefties.

frank
--when their relativistic worldview proclaims the futility of both evidence and argument.--

You and your church and the islamic fundamentalists are an example of this. You cannot argue faith with reality. A deep delusion and faith appears to be immune to fact and reality.

Charlie
--secular IS a religion, just like Christianity--

Prove this statement. Also, there are many christian and jewish secularists who agree with the separation of church and government.

--and it is so disingeneuous to argue otherwise.
take religion out of politics--

We've already taken religion out of politics. Look at the 1st amendment of the constitution. It contradicts the first 3 commandments. Also, we cannot rape and murder like the bible espouses. Women are considered equals and are allowed to educate themselves, work, and interact in public debates.

Charlie
--was never the intent of the Founders of the USA--

US Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


James Madison
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Memorial and Remonstrance

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.



Outing "Bible-believing" Christians
I can do it in one question:

Do you believe, as God said in Leviticus, that gays and adulterers should be put to death?

If not, by what authority do you reject God's commandments?

Phylo out.

Phylo Se Fiser
John 8:7


shelama
I am assuming you are a female and if so,how's that burqa fitting you these days? Isn't it great not to have to worry about the fit of jeans and such? If you are a male, how's the hash and remember, no liquor.
As far as I can see, shelama, we still have the right to choose or not choose a religion.

Emergent church
I've studied much about the Emergent church, being a Christian apologist, and find they are dabbling in heresy and have left truth behind. Excellent article! For those anti-Christians and their diatribes here, give it up. You will indeed learn the truth at the end. Christ will return, you can count on that.

dullhammer
God says one thing; Jesus says another. How do you resolve this contradiction? Was God wrong when he first said it? Is Jesus correcting Him?

And if only people who haven't sinned can punish others, then who will do the punishing? Or do you think that Jesus meant that no one should punish anyone else?

Evil
It's not enough that you judge us, that you also feel competent to judge God?

Interesting amount of hubris there, my man.

Evil
"You have to be tipsy to believe in such nonsense."

I simply find it interesting that the process whereby a former believers, such as yourself, instead of being able to return to their state of casual indifference, consistently become callous blasphemers, paralleling the process laid out in Scripture.

How do YOU account for this consistency, in your secularized worldview devoid of transcendence?



RE: Evil Republican
We see what we want to see, Sir. You are important in this life. You count. You're absolutely replaceable just like the rest of us, but you count. Just ask God. (I double-dog dare you, just ask and He'll tell you something). He thinks you rock.

As for Rad's statement: God's not in control of earth, I think what was meant is that, Biblically speaking, God handed over control (dominion) of this world to Adam and Eve, who promptly handed those keys of control over to satan. Now, since you don't believe in things you can't see, it only makes sense that you don't believe in "Faith". We have been born into a bloody battle -- good vs. evil and there is an enemy set against us. I've seen the ravages of war -- battle of US troops and the spiritual battle that leaves people spiritually wounded and maimed and crippled. You say you can't see this and therefore blame God for His "inaction". I say He's waiting for us to dream with Him, to partner with Him, and to ask for His help. Where do you think all of this opposition is coming from? God is Good, the devil is bad. We have choice. Again I'll use the analogy of a grand king who falls in love with a simple maiden. He can't come to her in all his finery or how will he know if she really loves him, or is simply afraid of the ramifications of NOT choosing him. So he chooses to come humbly and allow her the CHOICE to love with her whole heart. He pursues her and woos her and lavishes all the love in his heart on her -- even the tough kind. I don't know about you, but I am so thankful for my friends who love me enough to tell me the hard things. That's just me, though.

I know who I am and I know I have to fight for to keep my heart in this world. Unlike many God-bashing posters, I have hope and am ready to talk about it with anyone who asks.

Dullhammer: have you ever noticed that there is truth, then there is something that is MORE true once you get more facts, or see the instant replay from another angle? That could be part of the God/Jesus saying "opposite" things.

P.S. Military Man, I'm with you.

Evil Repub?
Surely not! Are you Dissenter57, risen again??

E. Republican Filters
E. Republican,

You have a powerful mind and the power to create great things with it. You've already created a conclusion and what you see is a manifestation of your conclusion. i.e., Your filters don't allow you to see a move of God. You say God can visit you anytime -- how many times has He already visited and you refused to see? I'm just asking because I've been in that place myself. I should be DEAD, but God showed up not once but several times to protect my sorry butt -- Even when I didn't believe in Him. It takes a humble heart to see God, and a willingness to see. For some of us to be willing we have to come to the end of ourselves, and that's never pretty.

Faith
Evil republican, you are so - well- evil! Nuff said.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that comes to God must believe that He is and is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. Faith is the victory that overcomes the world. By faith the worlds were brought into existence.

There's lots more. As to "emergent church", well a snake by any other name is just as deadly.

Shalom

From the secular right...
Good questions from Mr. Pastore. Here are some good answers from this secular Republican Hayekian:

"1. If Christianity is not objectively true, if the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, if the Cross is not the greatest expression of Divine Love but an example of “divine child abuse,” if one can merit heaven without a having a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, if God doesn’t hate sin, if wrath is not an attribute of God, if there is no personal devil and if a conscious and eternal hell is not real, then… Why be a Christian?"

Since science has disproven a number of Biblical contentions about Reality and that these are actually mythic stories, since it's highly unlikely that any of the miracles described in the Bible happened, since the man denotated as Jesus either didn't exist or was a perfectly ordinary carpenter/rabbi, and since I don't have any god beliefs (or devil beliefs for that matter), and don't believe in any kind of afterlife, it WOULD be utterly silly of me to be a Christian.

Wouldn't it?

"2. If radical Islam is not evil, if appeasement and surrender are the best responses to military aggression, if there’s nothing we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, or al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization from murdering innocent civilians, if we can’t prevent another terrorist attack on American soil or anywhere else, and if you believe living as a dhimmi under sharia law and having your grand-daughter forced to wear a berka is no big deal, then… Should we surrender to al Qaeda now so that we can have “Peace For Our Time?”

Heck NO! Islamofascism IS evil, appeasement and surrender ARE evil, we CAN stop Islamofascist aggression and nuclear armament anytime we grow a spine, we CAN prevent attacks on America by KILLING OUR ENEMIES pre-emptively, Dhimmitude IS evil. No need for religious beliefs in order to face Reality.

"3. If morality is culturally defined, if the Bible must be “contextualized” by each successive generation, if sins must be understood in cultural context, then… Is homosexuality a sin? Adultery? Fornication? Abortion? Infanticide? How about driving SUV’s? Not buying carbon offsets? Smoking? Capitalism? Low tax rates on “the rich?” Would you support a Protection of Marriage Amendment or a Gay Marriage Amendment?"

Morality is defined biologically*** AND culturally. We don't need to mess with the Bible; we can dump it and embrace the real source of our moral nature. Sin is a Christian concept: failure to achieve another Christian concept--perfection. Neither exists. However, moral behavior and immoral behavior DO exist. (There is a large class of behaviors involving taste and preference or practicality that have nothing to do with morality. These don't concern us here.) All you have to do to distinguish between them is to ask "Does this behavior harm me or others?" If so, knock it off. If not, go ahead. You can't palm off your judgments on your church or your elected representative. YOU must decide.

Some of the behaviors Mr. Pastore lists are highly contentious among Americans. Some people love these behaviors; others loathe them. Since they are in dispute, some of us hope we can look beyond ourselves, or even beyond the human race for THE ANSWER. That hope is in vain. Even if a trustworthy deity had the answer at hand, YOU would STILL have to decide to accept it. No ducking human responsibility for judgment here.


***Here are the results of a recent study of morality affected by damage to the brain:

"Morality Hardwired Into Our Brains

The ability to empathize with our fellow man is a basic part of the human brain, says a recent study, and those with brain damage in that area are much more likely to make decisions that hurt others when confronted with life-or-death situations.

The study found that people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that processes feelings of empathy, compassion, shame, and guilt, have a diminished ability to feel social emotions even though their capacity for logical reasoning remains intact.
Researchers from several universities, including Harvard and the University of Southern California, asked three groups of people — those whose ventromedial prefrontal cortexes were damaged by strokes or tumors, those with brain damage to other areas of the brain that regulate other emotions, and people without brain damage — to resolve imaginary situations.

There was no difference among the response of the groups to situations that had no moral context, such as whether to turn a tractor in a certain direction to harvest more vegetables. There was also no difference between the groups in evaluating situations that caused no harm to someone else, such as whether or not they would cheat on their income taxes. Likewise, there was no difference in making decisions that would harm one person while benefiting another, such as killing an unwanted newborn.

But when confronted with a situation where one person’s life would be sacrificed in order to save others, such tossing one person from a bridge in order to save five other people, those with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex were three times as likely to sacrifice one person to save others as those with normal brains or those with damage in other areas of their brains.

The study indicates that people have an innate aversion to hurting others. “Part of our moral behavior is grounded . . . in a specific part of our brains,” said Dr. Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California and one of the study’s authors."

Sorry, I lost the link.

Phylo
As for the OLD Testament Leviticus verse, Jesus Christ, who appears in the NEW Testament trumps OT anytime. So, as far as putting gays and adulterers to death, it's a moot point, on the basis of Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament Mosiac law. God incarnate as Jesus left us only one commandment, to love as he loved. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Frank Pastore
Frank, you say "Of the disapproving emails...."

How disingenuous. Your last column was discussed for over a week. Why didn't you respond on line? Join in, engage in discussion, defend your opinion interactively? Instead of publishing another personal pontification?

Frank, you ask "1. If Christianity is not objectively true.... Why be a Christian?"

As a skeptical conservative, I can't answer for you or any other believer. But I can address the opening implication of your question. My guess is 90% of the responses to your polemic so far are Christians of one personal sort or another. Each one has a different concept of what it means to be a Christian. Evidence for belief comes typically in personal testimony. And why not, Christianity is a religion of personal salvation. But that makes it not objective but subjective. Nothing against your personal beliefs, I can respect that, but let's not make something personal universal or absolute.

Frank, you ask "If radical Islam is not evil...Should we surrender to al Qaeda now so that we can have 'Peace For Our Time?'”

Here your initial implication is correct, but which emergents are suggesting surrender, you need to name names, cite references.

Frank, you ask "If morality is culturally defined...."

Here you never arrive at a question, but let's again address the opening implication. Last week you claimed "If the world is to be saved from Muslim conquest, it will be America who does it. And if America is to be saved, only conservatism can do it. And if conservatism is to be saved, it will be those Bible-believing patriots who do it–those conservative, evangelical Christians who are the bedrock of the American way of life."

Frank, evangelical Christians might make up 0.5% of the population. That's not just cultural, that's subcultural. Combine that with personal subjectivity and you've got a prime example of moral relativism.

Why we Americans have...
Why we Americans have separation of church and state:

Because everywhere (especially in European states) church and state were blended, disasters happened. Combining combustibles such as the State's monopoly of the most deadly military force with people's highly charged metaphysical beliefs--well, the fuse is lit and the explosion not far off. Think about the millions (MILLIONS) of people who died during the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries.

America's Founders were determined that it WOULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE. They succeeded.

Do not misuse the word...
Do not misuse the word "religion." Words are high abstractions of Reality. We use them to distinguish differences.

Religion is a Roman word. It means to bind the community to its god. In the case of the Romans, their city deity was Jupiter, Best and Greatest (how they addressed him in their rites).

We maintain that meaning to this day. Any religion must have two components, or it is not a religion: 1. a belief in a god, gods, or some supernatural force. 2. public rites binding the community of believers.

Secularism fails the definition on both counts. Secularism is a disbelief in all things supernatural and a belief in natural things, events and processes tied together through cause and effect relationships.

Hence, it is not and cannot be a religion.

TheLeftIsEvil
Sin is (simply) a Christian "concept"?

Sin is the only consistent REALITY in all of human endeavors. It defines human existence and human history. All of it. History is quite simply the record of man being ruled by it or involved in great efforts to overcome it.

The honest observer is left, absent the Biblical record, with a loss for accounting for it in his explanation of life. Only the Bible accounts for it with an explanation that is credible and only the Bible refers to a demonstrable and logical remedy for it: that of Christ's atoning sacrifice on Calvary.

All other explanations either seek to dismiss it or deny it, or, failing that, recommend corrections which, illogically, arise from the same flawed source as that which is infected.


TheLeftIsEvil
*SIGH* The extent of your misinformation is extensive.

The concept of "separation of church and state" was instituted to protect the church; not the state.

Emergent Processes Part 1
Hayekians believe in emergent processes. Here's one: Legal precedent.

Emergent Processes Within the History of the Law

“One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, today is doctrine.”

--The Letters of Junius


Emergent Processes Part 2
Here's another:

Physical Evolution

The apparent organization of matter we observe today in the universe “was formed as a consequence of the growth of primordial fluctuations. The primordial fluctuations caused gas to be attracted to areas of denser material, hierarchically forming superclusters, clusters, galaxies, star clusters and stars. One consequence of this model is that the location of galaxies indicates areas of higher density of the early universe. Hence the distribution of galaxies is closely related to the physics of the early universe.” (Wikipedia)

As the process unfolded, new emergent characteristics appeared. Physical Evolution is a bottom-up process, not the top-down process described in the Bible.

Hi Bipsy
Do you agree or disagree with my definition of sin: "Sin is a Christian concept: failure to achieve another Christian concept--perfection." ?

I acknowledged later in my post that morality and immorality exist. I differentiated immorality from the above definition of sin.

I don't believe perfection exists or can exist. I defined sin as a failure to achieve perfection. Therefore (according to my own syllogism) sin cannot exist.

Church & State
Separation of church and state protects the State, the Church, and the People from the ravages that occur when the first two are combined.

Our modern day exemplar of this, Iran, should be enough to convince any American if the Religious Wars of the 16th and 17th century weren't enough to do so.

Emergent Processes Part 3
Biological Evolution

“The word stems from the Latin term evolutio meaning "unfolding" and prior to the late 1800s was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." By the 20th century, the dominant concept associated with the word "evolution" was biological evolution, which had originally been known as "transmutation." (Wikipedia)

“Unfolding” is a good synonym of “emergence.” The unplanned, contingent, opportunistic shaping and reshaping of the genetic code, hence, of organisms, is the prime example of emergent phenomenon in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Hayekianism is profoundly shaped by the evolutionary concept of natural selection (the survival of the most fecund variations) as developed by Darwin. It is also shaped by the concepts of co-evolution of different species through “predator-prey arms races,” evolution of male and female through “sexual arms races,” co-evolution of parasite/host relationships, and synergy between very different organisms such as flowers and insects. Perhaps the most profound concept of co-evolution is the manner in which life itself is shaped and shaped by its environment, for instance the manner in which prokaryotic cells released free oxygen into the oceans and the atmosphere.

Christianity Vs. Islam
Which is true?

Curiously enough, I do agree with this..
"Although many aspects of modernism cannot blend with Christian faith, the correspondence theory of truth and referential theory of language harmonize with the presuppositions of Scripture. God intended real, objective meaning in the Bible. Scripture has no real value to us beyond subjective moments of “inspiration” if we do not believe its narratives and propositions connect with reality or that each author’s original intent is the ground and goal of our interpretation. Contemporary, biblical scholars who adopt these elements of “modern” epistemology, embracing the correspondence and referential theories and incorporating them into their hermeneutics, are not thereby embracing a wholesale adherence to all of the beliefs of secular modernism. Although Emerging Church leaders accuse Evangelicals of being culture-bound to modernism, Evangelicalism has in many ways been a countercultural movement rejecting, for example, modernism’s strict empiricism that disallows miracles or revelation. Only classic, theological liberals have accommodated modernism in all of its views."

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/290-emerging-church

Joseph Campbell was bitterly critical of Christianity for grounding its belief system in the ancient and outmoded mythos of the Old Testament. He was both right and wrong.

1. He was right: The Star Trek and Star Wars generations treat the toy universe depicted in the Bible as a joke. How could we Baby Boomers who saw Armstrong and Aldrin trod the surface of the Sea of Tranquility EVER take Dante or the Bible seriously? How can the younger generations, who watched robots rove the surface of Mars believe? IF we take American scientific and technological triumphs seriously, and if we take their implications for the nature of the universe seriously, we can't take the Bible serious. Ever.

2. He was wrong: If you really, really want to believe that a savior is necessary and possible, you HAVE TO believe in the Old Testament myth of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden and the Serpent and the Temptation and the Fall. Because if you don't, the claims about Jesus make no sense at all. Campbell thought creative (perhaps Emergent Churches) theologizing could get around this structural theological problem. I don't.

The Evil Republican, Shelama and Friends
I have the historic record of Jesus.

I have his words.

I have his deeds.

I have the eyewitness accounts of them.

What do you have, other than whatever you decide is true? You have nothing with which to support your statements.

Emergent Processes Part 4
Language

“At some stage of human evolution, one or more systems of verbal communication emerged from proto-linguistic or non-linguistic means of communication. Chimpanzees and humans split from a common ancestor 4 million years ago. Since then all other hominids, who may have given clues as to how language developed, have gone extinct. Eurocentric scholars of the 19th century once believed the other languages of the world represented more primitive stages in the development of language and that Indo-European languages were the most advanced form of language. Today linguists agree that there are no primitive languages. All current human populations speak languages that are of equal complexity. While existing languages differ in the size and subjects covered in their several lexicons, all human languages possess the grammar and syntax needed, and can invent, translate, or borrow the vocabulary needed to express the full range of their speakers' concepts. [1] [2]” (Wikipedia)

Unlike the above examples of emergent phenomenon, cultural evolution can be experienced by individual human beings who can knowingly participate in it. Hayekianism is primarily concerned with this form of evolution.

Language changes constantly, noticeably. Words and phrases drop from popular favor and usage. New words and phrases gain favor and usage. Have you noticed the recent usage “back in the day”? I noticed it a few months ago. We used to say when remembering something from our childhood, “back in the old days.” Language itself emerged from our ancient ancestors’ usages of grunts and sing-song and hisses and well-timed silences. No one primal genius invented it. Similarly, changes in language emerge from the freely engaged in interactions of modern-day humans. No one contemporary genius catalyzes it. We all play the game.

Separation
Bipsy Quee says "The concept of 'separation of church and state' was instituted to protect the church; not the state."

TheLeftIsEvil says "Separation of church and state protects the State, the Church, and the People from the ravages that occur when the first two are combined."

Sort of like corporatism, the colusion of government and business.

But I would argue it protects the people's liberty of conscience, their right to worship as conscience dictates.

“The church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the church of the Christians under the New Testament in the antitype were both separate from the world; and when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness.”
-- Roger Williams, "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," 1644

"Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience."
-- James Madison, explaining to Congress during the House Debate what the First Amendment means to him, 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789)

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Danbury Baptists, 1802




TheLeftIsEvil, have you mentioned free market capitalism as an emergent process yet?

"This process of spontaneous evolution is not restricted to explaining the growth of the economic order but can also account for the development of language, money, culture, law, social conventions and even morals and ethics. Although the spontaneous order develops through individuals pursuing their own interest, the individuals still behave by following commonly held rules rather than by acting in a random fashion, and these rules are themselves the product of evolution."
--Friedrich von Hayek


Emergent Processes Part 5
Technological development

This is probably the most intensively studied phenomenon in archaeology. The taming of fire for defense against other animals, for cooking (the new beginning of the digestive process for tough to eat meat), for metal working (begun at least 8,000 years ago—probably earlier), detonated the explosive growth of every succeeding emergent technology. Again, as in language, everybody played—as maker, user, and innovator—and no one planned the massive changes in human life that resulted.

Unintended consequences (both positive and negative) of our short-term innovative work are some of the most important concepts dealt with in Hayekianism. The emergent societal qualities appearing as our innovations succeeded in allowing our ancestors to raise and feed growing numbers of children to adulthood, and thus interact with more and more people as the generations went by, and thus deal with all the problems this ancient population boom introduced, are what drove the agricultural revolution, the city revolution, the empire revolution, the nation-state revolution, the industrial revolution, and the information revolution.

Phylo Se Fiser
So often TH uses Sundays to publish issues of this sort. Problem is, I'm kinda busy on Sunday.

Glad you are dealing with a biblical question. That is different from my last conversations with you. If no one else gives a good answer I will attempt more follow up. Later.

Who decides
Good from evil?

You TheLeftIsEvil ?
----------


TheLeftIsEvil writes: Sunday, July, 29, 2007 11:30 AM
Church & State
Separation of church and state protects the State, the Church, and the People from the ravages that occur when the first two are combined.

Our modern day exemplar of this, Iran, should be enough to convince any American if the Religious Wars of the 16th and 17th century weren't enough to do so.

------

I have seen you come on threads such as this to cast condemnation around for any bible believer, which according to your backslidden views is evil.

Brings us to the fundamental truth of life.

Every individual on earth decides for himself (alone) what he views as good and what is evil.
Yet all will face the one Judge who is unchanging and has judged good from evil already.

The very truth the bible points to in Genesis.

I do not know which devil possessed you to hate the bible so much but I am content to leave the judgment of good and evil up to the Creator.

Knowing He has the best view of all.
Now I expect you will see my post as evil, proving the contest is as real today as it was for Adam and Eve.
Bible is Inspired by the Creator and it makes evil men fear it.




Hi LoneStar
"TheLeftIsEvil, have you mentioned free market capitalism as an emergent process yet?"

Nope. That'll be the 6th and last, but best one.

"But I would argue it [separation of church & state] protects the people's liberty of conscience, their right to worship as conscience dictates."

No argument here. I find it curious and heartening how often in the development of American Civilization, those political accommodations we made which we consider very practical and useful also turn out to be expressions of our deepest ideals, in the sense that it allows and encourages individual Americans to do and to be what they most dearly want. "Freedom is our holy word."

Talent Scout
"I have seen you come on threads such as this to cast condemnation around for any bible believer, which according to your backslidden views is evil."

Condemnation and disagreement are two different things. Learn about the fine art of argumentation.

"Every individual on earth decides for himself (alone) what he views as good and what is evil.
Yet all will face the one Judge who is unchanging and has judged good from evil already."

This is an assumption based on the New Testament. I already described some of the problems I have with the Bible as a self-proclaimed source of facts.

"The very truth the bible points to in Genesis."

For some reason I can't explain, the Bible seems to promote circular reasoning. A source cannot proudly promote itself as the source of "proof" for its own veracity.

"I do not know which devil possessed you to hate the bible so much but I am content to leave the judgment of good and evil up to the Creator."

I don't hate the Bible, although I must admit there are parts of it that annoy me. The genocidal commands in certain books of the Old Testament are more than annoying.

"Now I expect you will see my post as evil, proving the contest is as real today as it was for Adam and Eve.
Bible is Inspired by the Creator and it makes evil men fear it."

Not evil. Just incoherent.

Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Islamofascism, and the American Left--THEY are evil. Hence my on-line name.

VERY Well Said!
Kudos Mr. Pastore!

Absolutes
>I have the eyewitness accounts of them.<

No, you have hearsay, which may or may not be based on fact. That's why it's called faith, not truth.


>all will face the one Judge who is unchanging and has judged good from evil already.<

A personal opinion, not

>The very truth the bible points to in Genesis.<