Well more than 40 reasons at this page, I think. But, the third vimeo video highlights the topic title.

Good on you, Rey! No doubt that your kids will fare much better when interacting with, well, anything.

X was joking that not much was going on here - true. However, when we wander over to "T", while there's "action", there's also a marked shift in the last year or so.

That site seems to have been taken over by three related groups - Those who deny inerrancy, Roman Catholic/Anglican "high church" types, and the Evolution/local flood/ANE Genesis crowd (there's also those who under the guise of "ecumenism" sweep all important distinctions of doctrine under the table to the point that even the Trinity and the dual-nature of Christ are considered non-essential doctrines.

I wonder why? Briefly, here are some thoughts...

1.) Inerrancy denied - Perhaps this stems from improper teaching in many churches. The doctrine is misunderstood and therefore is rejected in favor of some neo-evangelical theory that has more holes than a swiss-cheese.

2.) RC/Anglicans - Once inerrancy is denied you've created a vacuum of authority which the Church rushes in to fill. And there's no one worse to argue with than a "convert" from Protestantism to RC or EO.

3.) The overly irenic, ecumenical crowd - these are evangelicals who have never really been taught (nor bothered to read a serious work on) doctrine. They also have these concept that since Christianity requires assent to certain propositions, they then ask, what is the minimum number of propositions that a person need believe.

- of course they are other things involved - being in a oppressive, legalistic church, the desire to not be laughed at by the "world", weariness with the constant arguments, etc. In the end I think it all boils down to - has God really said...?"

No question - feel free to add to, challenge, expand, take in a new direction, anything above.

<sigh> (as Ser would write) I just read another article "about" Job. It was from the context of counseling and how counselors should respond to someone who is self-righteous and demanding and just plain rebellious like Job was. As long as I have heard this take on Job, I have wondered where it came from since the Bible never says that. "Job was blameless and upright", it says; "Job spoke right about me" it says; "You have heard of the patience of Job", is in there too. How come the Biblical authors never wrote about his self-righteous demands? They are right there, aren't they? So plain 21st century can read it and see it as a main point of the Book. How did this article deal with the Bible's description of Job? Easy, "even a man as 'blameless and upright' as Job". Irony quotes. Quotation marks which take the biblical pronouncement and damns it with faint lip service. Now that's out of the way, let's talk about demanding from God.

The people whom I have asked about this have given me two responses. The first is to note that Job said upon seeing God that he "repents" and so, apparently that trumps the biblical pronouncement of blamelessness and we are allowed to speculate on what that repenting was for and guess what? Self-righteous demands just fits what I am trying to talk about. QED.

The second is some evoking of total depravity and how dare I claim that a human was not a sinner? I am not. I am asking how something the Bible does not say has become the major lesson of the Book.

Ray commented in another thread about the slippery slope and it made me think; which could be dangerous
Why do people consider a slippery slope argument a logical fallacy?
I can see it being a logical fallacy if the alleged consequent does not follow the action, but that would make it a non sequitur.

On the other hand, why is it fallacious to say to a guy who is at the top of a muddy hill,
Be careful! That hill is as slick as snot on a glass doorknob! (To quote an old coach from jr high school).
Watch out! The bottom is rock hard, and once you get started down that hill, it's hard to stop.

If it's true, why would it be considered fallacious?

Just wondering if I'm missing something.

So I was having a conversation on Saturday about the nature of faith and figured that we hadn't argued about it here yet (have we?).

I guess by way of specifics, I'd like to have you all hash out whether trusting in Christ salvifically is solely a volitional act (maybe that's a more technical way of saying that it's something that you decide to do). Awhile ago I think Char and I argued about how faith "works," and she said something to the effect that it's like breathing—which I think would put it as something more than simply volitional (although it can be volitional, of course).

I'm glad to argue about other things relating to faith, too. But I think this is the crux of what I was discussing on Saturday.

So, this is for links, videos, articles, etc. that aren't reference material (there is a room for that), you don't want to start a long discussion about, fit in with the general aim of the site (to discuss theology and life), aren't just silly (there is a room for that, too), and you think are cool (useful, nice, thoughtful, whatever).

The other Book threads here are very specific. I thought I'd open one up just for the book you're reading now which you like. Maybe book reviews.

Opinions?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/14/oregon-mother-daughter-reportedly-sued-for-writing-bad-reviews-church-online/?test=latestnews

I'm too lazy to search T for all related threads.
Neither do I wish to wade through so many weird responses as were probably given.
I'm simply asking what you believe Scripture teaches the soul is.
If you wish, please wade into tripartite vs dipartite being.

This.

Oh my.

Who would like to recommend my next Puritan to read?
I want something that will challenge me and be used to feed my hungry heart.