News-Record.com

A couple of things from the article:

"He tells a story about a chaplain who challenged a group of senators to reconsider their conception of democracy."

And this is why I've long considered having a chaplain in Congress is a dangerous thing. It's bad enough having Western-style Ayatollahs running around in Washington. But potentially giving unlimited access to the very halls of power to people who are nuts is very close to social suicide.

"Brownback pauses. That moment, he declares, changed his life. "This" -- being senator, running for president, waving the flag of a Christian nation -- "is about serving one constituent." He raises a hand and points above him."

No one seems to be bothered by this sort of thing anymore. History teaches many lessons, not the least important of which is that when religion and politics mix, people end up getting burned at the stake.

People talk incessantly about "theocracy" as if it's "rule by God." No... it is rule by people who claim to speak for God. And that is NOT democracy. That is tyranny, and no one should tolerate that.

I concur with eric.

If the people of the USA want to live under a theocracy...MOVE to ISRAEL!

The US was not founded to be a Christian nation, rather a nation where ANYONE could worship in ANY form/fashion chosen!

Brownback is a dangerous person. The linked article should be a forewarning to EVERY RATIONAL THINKING person in the USA!

Shalom

"Brownback is a dangerous person."

He may be dangerous, but I think the real danger comes from the religious nuts that consider themselves "king makers." I'm talking about people like Harald Bredesen, James Kennedy and Rod Parsley. These folks have jumped head first into the effort to destroy democracy by getting people to think in this "one constituent" manner.

They all think that since they have corrupted the system enough that they can get Bush into the White House, they can act with impunity. These people need to be exposed and taught that this country was established and ordained by "We the people," as the constitution plainly states.

Eric, again, you state what I feel. Those "fundamentalist" right-wing-nuts are dangerous as well. And even more dangerous are the people who follow blindly.

These people are doing just like the people of Germany as Adolph Hitler was rising to power. The German people were taught to not question ANYONE in a leadership position, regardless of whatever leadership position was held.

Shalom

"These people are doing just like the people of Germany as Adolph Hitler was rising to power."

I see the similarity as well, but I try to avoid mentioning it. Any mention of that period tends to get people sidetracked into bickering over just who is "like Hitler." As they say, history doesn't repeat itself... but it tends to rhyme an awful lot.

"Shalom"

I prefer to use "Aloha!" Its literal meaning works for everyone, I believe. {;-)

I agree that there should be separation of CHURCH and State, but not religion and State. In ancient Israel there was a clear separation of “powers” between the priesthood and the king-based government. Even the tribes from which the two entities came were discreet. All were supposed to function under God and His divine Law.

There may have been Enlightenment and Deistic influences in the founding documents but the entire American vision sprang either directly or derivatively from a Christian consensus and milieu. The concern, from the writings of the period, was primarily that no one denomination be enshrined as the state church, not that Christian principles should be excluded.

The fact is that God is already ruling and reigning over America and the entire world. So there is already, and always has been, a theocracy. Our goal should be to live, govern and serve in accordance with His divinely revealed principles. All governments should be under God, but not under any particular church. If we do not seek to be under God’s just and benevolent rule, we will see a steady decline in our culture, and eventual disintegration. The moral/ethical truths of the Scriptures are the glue that holds all cultures together – be they Christian, Jewish, Confucian or animist – whether they have the full biblical revelation or not. (Rom. 2: 12 – 16)

The early American nation was a theocracy. God was acknowledged in many and varied ways to be the supreme God of all creation, and there was a conscious attempt to govern and live by His Law and Gospel. It did not attain the full flower of its promise, but was undermined by rebellion and unbelief toward the Creator. We now find ourselves in a caldron of confusion and moral chaos. Theocracy does NOT mean, and should not be, rule by any particular party, person or church; but it does mean that a nation – all nations – should live under God – His Word, His Spirit and His Messiah. The alternative is the hell into which we are now descending. And no political party or movement is the answer.

Nikos, when this is stated, "Theocracy does NOT mean, and should not be, rule by any particular party, person or church; but it does mean that a nation – all nations – should live under God – His Word, His Spirit and His Messiah.", then the foundation is laid for Christian dominion. What should the Jewish people do? What about the Muslims? Buddists? Hindus? That one comment opens an entire scenerio that would cause strife in the US just like that in the Middle East.

So, does that mean that people should take up weapons to arm themselves and prepare to make their Religion the Religion of the land? That is what I read in the above statement. Would you give clarity if I am misreading this?

Shalom

Darryl, I think you are definitely misreading Nikos's comments. However, I have to remember the comment you made above about "fundamentalist right-wing nuts". Also, in the original United States, the large majority were Christians. As Nikos stated, they were trying to prevent any one denomination from controlling the government and were trying to avoid the problems associated with the Catholic and the Anglican churches. If you will return to the primary sources of the history of this nation, you may well be surprised at the bias that you were taught (as was I) in the school system. As I read letters and books written by the people who lived in the past, I am surprised at the stark difference. For example, I am currently reading, Of Plymouth Plantation, by Governor William Bradford. If you read books about Thanksgiving published in the last 25-30 years, you might believe that the pilgrims were thanking the Indians. In the book written by Bradford, you can hardly read a paragraph without reading the word God or Christ. I certainly believe in freedom of religion for all people, even if I disagree with their religion. However, this country was not founded on Islam or Buddhism, but by men who considered themselves Christians and some Deists (like Benjamin Franklin, who said he was unsure about Jesus Christ). I don't know where you get the "taking up arms" idea from what Nikos wrote. I can only surmise that you have a very different philosophy of life and faith. I suppose you would call me a fundamentalist right wing nut, even though I am not in accord with many Republican policies or those of any party for that matter. However, the Holy Bible is my standard for living and I highly recommend it. Apart from Christ, I can do NOTHING. But, with God, all things are possible. By the way, I was very disturbed by what I read about Senator Brownback, who at the very least, seems to be confused about what he actually believes and is involved with the controversial Opus Dei.

"There may have been Enlightenment and Deistic influences in the founding documents but the entire American vision sprang either directly or derivatively from a Christian consensus and milieu."

So when the US Senate unanimously endorsed the Treaty of Tripoli, which included the statement "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." they weren't being honest?

Also, it seems to me that the First Amendment and the First Commandment are completely opposed. Read both and see what you think.

"The concern, from the writings of the period, was primarily that no one denomination be enshrined as the state church, not that Christian principles should be excluded."

That might be the concern expressed by some founders, but that is not how Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and James Madison (to name a few) put the matter. Freedom of religion must mean all religious stances, including non-religion, or it is hypocrisy.

"The early American nation was a theocracy."

I'll remind you of the preamble to the Constitution under which we are currently living: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution." There is no mention of God there, or anywhere else in the document or any of its amendments. Even the official oath of office for the President dosn't include the words "so help me God." Look it up.

You sound like some sort of culutral imperialist, and I won't have any of it. In my idealistic vision of America, you and I would be equal in standing, and our religious views would have no bearing on the matter. It really sounds as though I and all non-Christians would be destined for the outer darkness if you were in charge.

It would be quite impossible not to include Christian principles in the founding of America, nor can they be excluded. Further readings about the Treaty of Tripoli also include this: "the article in question should be interpreted to mean that the Federal Government was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion (unlike those of the Muslim and thereby lessening the chance for a religious conflict)but it did not repudiate the fact that the America was/is considered a Christian nation. The article may have more to do with diplomatic language than a position paper on state and church seperation. The language and imagery of the Christian concept of God has its roots firmly entrenched in this nation and have been used by Presidents from Washington to the present. Read especially the words of Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.

No Daryl, I am not advocating armed coercion. There is a religion that does, but genuine Apostolic Christianity was spread by didactic persuasion, not by force of arms. If later attempts were made to do otherwise, they were out of sync with Jesus and the Apostles. True Christianity addresses the heart and will, aided by the power of the Holy Spirit. It must be a grass roots-up process, in which the majority of a nation votes to go in this direction. It cannot, by its very nature, be imposed from the top-down and remain pure; as Constantine and history show.
Theocracy, from a NT perspective means that people/nations should willingly submit to God’s Law/Word, seeking to implement, as much as human effort in grace can achieve, God’s moral and spiritual principles in every aspect of life. This is none other than the Kingdom of God that Jesus prayed would come -on earth as it is in heaven-. A truly theocratic nation would openly acknowledge this.
Toby treated the Tripoli thing well. In any event, one statement does not a reality make. It was made for diplomatic purposes, not as a final statement on the relationship of Christianity to the State.
Indeed, Eric, it was -the people- that ratified the Constitution. But the fact still remains that the nation, on a popluar level, was then and remained for a long time a decidedly and professedly Christian nation. But neither this fact, nor the American Constitution, nor Thomas Jefferson and company, validates the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the earth. That is His by God the Father’s authority and His own willingness to suffer and make atonement for humanity’s sins as the perfect Lamb of God. As Revelation 11:15 says, The kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He shall reign forever and ever.
What about other faiths. St. Paul recognized Judaism as the root and basis of the New Covenant (Romans 9 – 11 and elsewhere), but Jewish persons must choose for themselves whether to receive His grace and truth – and never coerced or persecuted. All other religions of the world, some of which you mentioned, Darryl, have elements of truth, but the New testament revelation in Jesus Christ is God’s complete and definitive answer for fallen humanity. Only grace, obtained through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, can heal the sin-sick soul and reunite it to its Creator. This personal transformation is unique and unparalleled in other cults and religions.
You can call my position -cultural imperialism- if you like, but it is not my idea. The Great Commission in Matt. 28: 19& 20 (and many other passages) expresses God’s reason for sending His Son and proffering the Gospel to all mankind: to disciple all nations – to rule and reign spiritually and bring blessings untold for all. Yes, I am well aware that many have twisted and abused biblical truth over the centuries, but the apostolic Gospel has not only survived these distortions and misapplications, but is even now spreading in human hearts across the face of the earth; assuring that His Kingdom will indeed come.

I will refer Nikos and others to Kai Neilsen's "Ethics without God", in which he convincingly argues that those who think we could all easily cede governance and ethical choice to some higher supernatural power are deluding themselves. The very fact that the sources of supposed revelation are in human language (mostly translated with layers and layers of emendation/editing) means someone other than a god set the stage for our own later interpretations. And even if one sincerely believed one was following Scripture to the letter and spirit (?), one has to rely on a deeply ingrained set of personal ethics to evaluate the "rightness" of the act one chooses to perform, and face its consequences, in the current context: a pluralistic U.S. with a changing set of laws dictated not by a god or any of its
minions or scribes, but by democratically elected representatives (or the lobbyists paid by corporations).

he problem with this evolving ethics idea is that it is highly subjective, and subject to mass conflict of ethics. If there is no metaphysical source for human morality it simply devolves into a relativistic, evolutionary survival of the fittest. Why, for example, stop at homosexuality in departing from God’s norm; why not on to child porn or necrophilia. Some have even tried to justify, or excuse, the Islamic terrorists, because violent action is just their way of acting out their extreme grievances. So, just about any action can be termed moral when using this sliding scale of democratically-derived moral and ethical pot pourri.

The God of Scripture and the Judeo-Christian tradition is not just “some higher supernatural power;” He is the living and true God – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who ultimately revealed Himself in Yeshua the Messiah. (As opposed to the jambalaya of Hindu polytheism, or the mystical non-theism of Buddhism or the remote, transcendent Allah of Islam). This ancient tradition is utterly unlike any other ancient religion in its moral/ethical emphasis and excellence; its historical outworking, with a personal God who spoke to Moses and the Prophets - and with a magnificent dedication to preserving the text. (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.)

Besides the external witness of history and the text, there is the inner witness of the Spirit, that bears witness to its veracity. But one has to have the Spirit of God to affirm this. But even without the Holy Spirit, every sane and normal person affirms biblical morality on a daily basis by not killing or stealing, trying ot love others, not cheating on one’s spouse, not lying, etc. Again, if we were left to improvising our own morality, there would be no cohesive moral glue in our own society, or that of the world at large. It would be a massive free-for-all. To think that corrupt and fickle humanoids can devise some kind of noble existential morality requires a view of humanity that can only be described as delusional.

This is why the Law was revealed in its fullness, and in relation to the Creator himself. Whatever bits and pieces of the innate moral sense (Romans 1 & 2) existed in the various cultures of antiquity they were first of all not entire, and secondly disassociated from the One whose divine character they revealed.

Where on earth, Freddy, does your “deeply ingrained set of personal ethics” come from? How can we know they are valid? (subjectivism?) And what if we are all wet and the consequences are negative – even deadly? By all of us submitting to God’s revealed will in the Law and Scriptures, we have a shared morality, which demands justice for the righteous and the oppressed – and keeps us in fellowship and love with our Creator. The whole reason for wanting to throw off God’s moral truth is so that we can do our own thing; be it political, sexual or otherwise contrary to God’s standards. It is rebellion pure and simple. As Joshua declared in Josh. 24:15, As for me and my house we will serve the Lord. If we cannot do so because we love Joshua’s God, then because we fear the awful consequences of disobedience.

But all this sounds alien to our God-hating, do-your-own-thing post-modern mentality. Your moral formula – and that of Neilsen - is fraught with contradictions - and assumptions for which you have offered no reasonable justification. That any moral standards exist at all begs the question; and if they are shared with others they are transcendent and thus, metaphysical. If right and wrong are just natural evolutionary social constructs, why do not all people and cultures agree on them and enter the Promised Land of harmony and goodness? The real questions of reality and ethics are only answerable if one accepts and honors God and His revealed truth. Otherwise, we are left to rummage around in the garbage heap of our paltry subjective moral guesses (Neilsen: - I just do -.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then God is LIVING and evovling in humans today. Therefore, I cannot accept the Bible as a FINAL authority. That would make an infinite God finite. Were that to happen, then the omniscience and omnipotence of God would be in valid.

I do not believe that very many of the "founding fathers" were Christian. I believe they acted with Christian principles. Just because a lot of the early Americans were supposed Christians does not make the nation Christian. That is catamount to saying that if I eat a lot of hamburger that I am a cow! It does not happen. The nation CANNOT be Christian. That is a terrible misnomer perpetuated by Christian fundamentalism.

If one desires to see/read how Thomas Jefferson felt about Jesus Christ, read his re-writing of the Gospels. Be lying down when doing so, one may find one's self in an unconscious state.

Shalom

"[T]he problem with this evolving ethics idea is that it is highly subjective, and subject to mass conflict of ethics. If there is no metaphysical source for human morality it simply devolves into a relativistic, evolutionary survival of the fittest."

Hoo boy. Here we go again. Dude, the history of Christianity is a classic study in moral relativism. And the leaders of the religion have almost invariably been behind the curve from the rest of humanity. Ever since the Renaissance, they have taken stand after stand against the advancement of the human race.

When science discovered that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, science became an enemy. When it was thought that perhaps serfs ought not to be bonded to the land, it ended up in wars, in part because the clergy insisted on supporting the status quo. When it occurred to people that perhaps slavery wasn't a good thing, the Bible was used to justify it... until half a million men died over it.

Honestly, I'm tired to death of hearing about "absolute morality" from folks who ignore the fluid nature of the morality their own religious group has espoused over the 2000 years it's been evolving. Give it a rest. No one who has paid any attention to history will buy it.

"This ancient tradition is utterly unlike any other ancient religion in its moral/ethical emphasis and excellence"

Uh huh. I suggest you read all the "excellent" rules and regs in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy and let us know what is so superior about it. Seems to me things like allowing a man to pay some silver in response to rape, giving detailed instructions regarding slavery and forbidding people to eat beef and dairy products at the same time is hardly the height of moral rectitude.

Darryl, I don’t know where you get your theology, but God is the absolute and self-existent One, who dwells in eternity, is utterly separate from all matter and created things – and is certainly not “evolving in humans today,” as you suggest. The Scriptures are recognized by most all conservative scholars to be “progressive revelation;” that is, a progressive unfolding in history of God’s plan of redemption. By this, they do not mean that God is enmeshed in history or creation, but that God has periodically revealed His great plan in an “age appropriate” fashion, if you will. The world wasn’t ready for the Law until after the Egyptian captivity, the prophets could not have written until the time was right, and Yeshua was revealed “in the fullness of time.” So, although the Bible is God’s revelation in time, and partakes of that reality as unfolding history, it’s embedded absolute truths are absolute and immutable, even if the historical circumstances and state of humanity fall woefully short. God is changeless in His essence and his moral and spiritual truth is clearly revealed from Genesis to Revelation - for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

The case laws and ritual regulations, Eric, were very age appropriate, and were designed to protect and emphasize the holiness of God. After all, Israel was a true theocracy in which Jehovah dwelt in the Shekinah (glory cloud) over the Tabernacle – a cloud by day, and a fiery effulgence by night. The case laws were all based on the Decalogue, which is THE moral standard for all mankind. But Israel, as living society, needed a judicial system based thereon, and God gave it to them. Much of our own case law is based on OT case law, if not on its specifics – lex talionis, for example. Our love and mercy concepts flow from Jesus and his teachings (Sermon on the Mount, etc).

Eric, you said that that you are “tired to death” of hearing about absolute morality from Christians who can’t see that their morality has been evolving over the centuries. I too am tired – of anti-Christians who lug out this straw dog in every argument. However, all committed Christians do deeply regret the moral and ethical lapses of nominally Christian cultures or states in the past, but this is most certainly not because their morality was “evolving” or changing, but, rather, because they were not sufficiently enlightened or mature to perceive what God was requiring of them in their particular historical milieu. The fact is that Christians have been in process, just as the rest of humanity has – moving toward God’s absolute standards of justice and truth, but failing in their human weakness along the way. Man’s failures do not in any way detract from God or His moral requirements.

Look, let’s do give it a rest. Early America was without dispute by reputable historians a truly Christian nation; not perfect or homogeneous, of course, but Christian its essential worldview and moral/ethical consensus. The intelligentsia was certainly affected by certain humanistic and deistic ideas, but, even with their influence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were based on this prevailing consensus. The Constitution was a political document, not a religious one. There was no need for it to be verbally Christian; biblical truth and ethics permeated its very essence. And in the denominationally (and often competitive and suspicious) pluralistic climate of the time, a primarily technical approach was prudent, if not necessary. But the real issue is not whether America was, or is now, a Christian nation, but whether it ought to be now – not so much in terms of stated verbiage, but in its heart and soul – so that God’s love and truth might bless and preserve us, and so that our sins and errors might be addressed and healed. This is the real issue. Soli Deo Gloria!

" ...what God was requiring of them in their particular historical milieu."

Excuse me? Are you saying that God's moral requirements change based on the current "historical" situation? Is that why slavery is no longer acceptable, in spite of the fact that there's not a single word against it in the Bible?

"There was no need for it to be verbally Christian; biblical truth and ethics permeated its very essence."

Nonsense. Freedom of religion is not and never has been part of the Christian "essence." The first Jewish commandment is all about requiring one true religion. The New Testament religion is all about keeping people away from eternal torture at God's hands... by following the correct religion exclusively.

And yes, there was a need for a "Christian nation" to openly document its nature. After all, there were an awful lot of non-Christians living here. Native Americans, Jews, Unitarians, Deists and Freethinkers. If they were to be shut out of the life of this country, as the Christian religion requires, you'd think they should have been told.

Hey, I see that there is some almost complete disagreement between myself and Nikos. I am fine with that.

I know in whom I believe and what I believe. My faith is large enough to accept what I perceive to be the smaller faith of Nikos. I can live with that. My faith allows me to agree to disagree without getting angry and the ensuing aftermath.

Shalom

You guys are all the time accusing Christians of some kind of one-upmanship, but Darryl, your claim to have a bigger faith was transparently condescending – “My faith is large enough to accept what I perceive to be the smaller faith of Nikos.” By this, I think you are saying that all one has to do to have the cosmic mega-faith is to just include any possible faith-position within the bounds of one’s metaphysical big tent. That way, one can be eternally one-up on anyone who takes a bounded position. What people like this end up with is no faith at all, because their parameters are so amorphous and changing that their faith lacks focus and content, leaving them unable to take positions on anything with certainty or confidence.

I was like that for many years in my younger sub-culture days. I was so inclusive and scattered in my spiritual convictions that I was left with a confused and amoeboid worldview. When I was apprehended by God, filled with the Spirit and cleansed by the atoning blood of the Lamb, I was at last able to make sense out of existence, my life – myself. Moral decisions were not always simple and facile, but there were sufficient guidelines and absolutes to finally get a grip on just about any issue that arose. Now that I have a few years of growth and knowledge under my belt I am able to make these moral and life decisions with much greater clarity and assurance – thanks to the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

“Are you saying that God’s moral requirements change based on the current ‘historical’ situation?” Good question, Eric. But I believe you might misconstrued my point. No, I'm simply saying that God is the master counselor, if you will; and has brought people along toward the goal of Messianic moral-ethical-spiritual maturity in ever-ascending modes and systems. The OT cultus and sacrificial system was adapted to the capacity of the ancient Hebrews. The essential moral standards of the Decalogue were, and are, unchanging and immutable, but the historical M.O. had to accommodate man’s stage of perception.

Jesus, throughout his ministry on earth, always conformed to the Jewish Law, even the ceremonial system, but when he began his Messianic teaching ministry he sought to bring his fellow Jews into a higher understanding of the moral law and their relationship with the Father. He said in Matt. 5:17, for instance, “I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill (the Law and the Prophets).” In saying this he was affirming the moral and spiritual authority of the OT Law and Prophets.

As far as slavery is concerned, Eric, there is an abundance of material in the Bible against bondage and slavery - for one, God’s powerful liberation of the Hebrews from both Egyptian slavery and Babylonian captivity. If He had approved of slavery He would have left them in it – right? And Jesus says in the NT, “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed;” thus affirming that liberation is better than slavery. And St. Paul, in his letter to Philemon, pleads on behalf of Onesimus, who is apparently a slave of Philemon, that he free Onesimus and consider him a “brother.”. Slavery was, of course, an ingrained institution in the ancient world, with many different levels and expressions. In fact Paul teaches that we are ALL slaves to sin and self, in need of the great Liberator. Our own culture is enslaving people all the time to drugs, porn and materialism. Physical enslavement of people simply reflects the sin problem in a most grievous and dehumanizing way. That SOME Christians tried to justify Negro slavery in our own country is not only shameful, but totally alien to the Gospel message of hope and freedom. Again, there is no correlation between man’s failures and distortions, and the Word of God itself. The social customs and cultural milieu of the OT often evidenced realities that were not ready to be dealt with (polygamy, servitude, et al.). Divine truth and absolute morality did not change in the least, but its application is sometimes a matter of first things first.

You misunderstood me, Eric. I said that the essence of Christian ideas permeated the Constitution, not that religious freedom permeated Christianity. This is a tricky issue, because I do believe that God’s revelation of truth and salvation in Jesus Christ is the only solution for a sinful and alienated race (human). And I would desire to see all nations, including our own, willingly and wholeheartedly embrace God’s saving grace and seek to live according to His divine Word. But the nation and the world are not ready for that yet. God will accomplish it according to his timetable. I do not believe that anyone should be FORCED to be a Christian and that all should be free to express their spiritual convictions; but that does not hamper me from trying to advance the cause of Messiah and to see His Kingdom come and His will done - on earth as it is in heaven. With Paul I wish only to be “PERSUADING them concerning Jesus” (Acts 28:23) – NOT forcing or strong-arming anyone. Just as we are doing here.

I believe that God has ordained a pluralistic, free-market religious environment in America; primarily to force the Church to shape up and get off its duff – much as He used the pagan empires in antiquity to chasten and purify Israel. State churches just produce repression of discussion and complacency. The goal is to bring about a godly Christian culture through conversation and persuasion that speaks to, and guides, the State in key moral and spiritual issues, but does not dominate or control it (Nathan and David in the OT)– and vice versa – which is what the Constitution is all about. They are two discreet divine institutions, but should flow as one “under God.” The State w/o the prophetic Church becomes tyrannical and corrupt, and the Church w/o a viable State oversteps its God-ordained bounds.

And I'm not angry - just passionately convinced.
I love you all!

Nikos, thanks for the encouraging words for me. While I disagree with the faith stance you have, I accept it as your faith stance. Is that too difficult to understand?

As stated previously, "I know in whom I believe and what I believe......" I did notlist specifics and feel no need to have to do so. I have no feelings one way or the other on whether one likes/agrees with my faith walk. You see, each person's faith walk is personal. It is not for me to say that mine is better than anyone else's. If my earlier comment was construed as such, that is the problem of the reader, not the writer. Maybe the conscience of the reader is being stirred regarding the judging of the writer.

Regardless of the circumstances, to judge me for what I believe when that belief is not known is terribly wrong and unfounded. Futhermore, to judge me on a supposed faith walk from just a few comments here is yet again terribly wrong. To judge a whole faith walk on a few staements can lead to a slippery slope! And without fully knowing someone, the slide down that slippery slope can be catastrophic.

Shalom

No, it is not hard to understand at all. To be brief, (God help me)if all we have is each peson's inner truth system, we have no common faith or moral matrix; making law and moral standards difficult to put in place, and pulling the rug out from under any real moral/ethical authority This is, in fact, pretty much how we have been operating in our culture for many decades, and the results are approaching disastrous: AIDS, divorce, perversion, deteriorating business ethics, etc.

And I am not judging YOU; merely critiquing your position - as you have just done mine. And that's perfectly OK. That's what blogs, and other public forums are all about. I do respect your right to believe as you wish. If we sat down, I'm sure we would agree on more than these rather narrow and hotly debated subject areas indicate.

Although I agree that one's faith walk is personal, in a sense; there are important issues that lie outside the bounds of our inner feelings and beliefs. It is these issues that shape our world. Well, I'll quit.

"I was like that for many years in my younger sub-culture days. I was so inclusive and scattered in my spiritual convictions that I was left with a confused and amoeboid worldview."

Yeah, I know what you mean. I know folks who are so confused in their worldview that they jump from denomination to denomination. Nothing ever seems right to them. And yet, they want to tell us how to govern the Country. Give me a break! Perhaps they should get their own "ideology" in order before they declare what God wants for the rest of us.

Apparently, if people can't interact in the realm of ideas and have no sound arguments, they resort to ad hominem diatribe, which belongs in the cheap shot IRRELEVANCE category. There are none perfect but God and His infallible Word - that's the issue; not one's personal growth expereinces in seeking the best way to express and develop one's convictions. Better to press on to the best than to dwell in mediocrity.

One's personal ideas about governance are inadequate at best; it is God's Law and God's truth that will preserve order and advance moral excellence - not Democratic or Republican or anyone else's feeble speculations.

Nikos, I believe I have found a fundamental difference between the two of us; "There are none perfect but God and His infallible Word...."

Here I have to politely part ways. I do not believe that the Bible is infallible. Therefore, I can begin to better understand the perspective from which I am dealing comes.

Again, I can respect someone for not believing as I without any recourse towards that one. I can only hope for a similar respect in return.

Just a thought though, if, "it is God's Law and God's truth that will preserve order and advance moral excellence - not Democratic or Republican or anyone else's feeble speculations." this is true, then why do we live in the world in which we do?

If I comprehend what has been written, then there would be no imorality and the world would be in a serene state of bliss. Would you give some insight on this please.

My thoughts are that the D's & R's only try to use faith traditions to get votes; I do not feel that many politicians live a Christian life. And the crowd that are referenced in the topic for this blog are some of the most well known "talkers" of the faith! Yet, when it comes to "walking" the faith, there seems to be another realm to be dealt with.

Shalom

"Apparently, if people can't interact in the realm of ideas and have no sound arguments, they resort to ad hominem diatribe, which belongs in the cheap shot IRRELEVANCE category."

Hit a nerve, huh?

Just as I thought, Janet: no real ideas or cogent arguments.

Thank you for your honest and intelligent answers, Darryl. Even though I disagree with you, I respect your right to differ. You are correct in saying that authority of Scripture is the central issue. If honestly studied without bias, it yields a wealth of spiritual perspective and information. If you hold to positions and lifestyles that are in direct conflict with its morals and principles, naturally you find any way possible to undermine it and reject it. This has been the response of Western humanists and atheists for many centuries.

The problem is that Biblical truth has been so ravaged by liberal seminaries and secular intellectuals that we are now beginning to reap the dreadful consequences of our unbridled godlessness. Because there are so many Christians of all types, and at all levels of society, you get all kinds of expressions and positions on theological and religious issues. Admittedly, there is a dearth of solid, orthodox scholarship being presented to the public; mostly just the often wacky televangelist stuff. It appears to me that you guys are responding to the worst end of the position spectrum - most unfortunate. I shudder at Brownbeck and so much of the political religiosity that pervades the media. And it is hard to find people who want sound Biblical teaching. All they want is religion and emotionalism of one sort or another.

But God’s glorious plan for mankind is unfolding gradually, but surely. The Fall initiated the historical effects of sin and rebellion against God’s righteousness and love: wars, injustice, hatred and all the rest. Yeshua came to advance the Kingdom, and to insure its ultimate victory and consummation, when indeed there will be the serenity and bliss you mentioned, Darryl. The problem is, we have to do it God’s way. There must be a new humanity within, before there can be renewal and peace without.

My prayer is that our own nation will come to know the true Messianic blessing and peace before we descend further into the depravity that sin and unbelief inevitably bring. The way is often uncertain and difficult for all of us: but, as Jesus said: “Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be given to you, knock and the door shall be opened to you.” In all of my trials and challenges, God and His Word have been my rock and North Star, leading me on. Mistakes are platforms for success, wrong turns are God’s path to learning – but only if we are in tune with the One who leads us into all truth. “All things work together for good for them that are called and love the Lord.” Romans 8:28. Soli Deo Gloria!

Blessings and Shalom.

"My prayer is that our own nation will come to know the true Messianic blessing and peace before we descend further into the depravity that sin and unbelief inevitably bring."

One little note here. I'm an unbeliever, and I seriously doubt that if you ever got to know me, you'd be able to describe me as "depraved." Course, there are many differing definitions of that word. You might consider my attending basketball games and reading science fiction books to be "depraved." Oh well...

No way, Eric. I'm a Treckie myself and love sports. To be depraved one must be wallowing in the muck of immoral and degenerate behavior. The Prodigal Son was depraved when he was eating with the pigs. The idea is to see it for what it is, as he did, repent and return to a loving Father.

I was referring to the nation as a whole - or to a major part of the nation; such as the entertainment industry, abortion mills, sexual immorality, etc. All of the above are a disgrace to our nation, and a poison in its soul.

Nikos, orthodoxy can be a bad thing as well as a good thing. That concept alone has done more harm to Christiendom than anything else humanly possible.

Who is to determine what is correct/incorrect orthodoxy? How is that to be determined? I know of NO sure-fire way for this to happen without some form of conflict ensuing. This is even true in some of the most pacifist groups still in existence.

I believe the "biblical truth" referenced has been one of the many hang-ups of the Orthodoxy movement. Holding to "traditional standards," which is the definition of orthodoxy, can more times than not, be detrimental. Life, society, etc., are continually evolving. Were this not true, the venue by which we are dialoguing would not be here. Sometimes the evolutionary process is not good/best, yet, it leads to something better in the end. Therefore, orthodoxy may not be as easily embraced as one might believe/think.

Shalom

Yes, Darryl, there are problems sorting out orthodoxy, and the process has resulted in conflict at times, but that has been the case since Cain and Abel, Moses and the Golden Calf folks and Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees. But the God-ordained truth always won out in these confrontations, and will always do so, because the Holy One will always sustain divine truth, dispite man’s lapses and errors. The Reformation, for instance, was a divine corrective to the drastic deviations and corruptions of the medieval Roman establishment, and set forth the important doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The magisterial reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, did not mean by this that individuals could derive any doctrine they wished through their own study of Scripture; but that the sacred writings of the OT and NT were the basis of all tradition, practice and teaching. Thus, they upheld the Ecumenical Creeds, wrote biblical confessions, and respected the Church Fathers and early Councils. But Scripture remained for them the supreme arbiter of all sound doctrine. All else is shifting sand.

That is why, as a Reformed Christian, I always base my thinking and faith on God’s infallible Word. Orthodoxy is not just “traditional standards,” but is that kernel of Word-based doctrine (teaching, dogma) that has been held fast by the Church since its inception (Apostolic and post Apostolic). Varying application of doctrine is necessary in adapting to times and cultures, but nothing believed or done must contradict the clear teaching of Scripture. One church may see baptism as for believing adults only, and another for infants as well; but the core doctrine of baptism is sustained, though with somewhat different application. But no true church can reject the divinity of Christ, or claim that adultery or stealing is right.

The “evolutionary process” you referred to, according to your usage, seems to be that non-theistic unfolding of scenario universe which creates values and morals as it proceeds. But if we look at our strife-torn, drug-infested, sex-preoccupied, AIDS-spreading, hate-filled, etc. world, that premise is seriously questionable. It would take a monumental faith to believe that we are heading upward, in my opinion.

The biblical picture is that earth-life was once paradisiacal (Garden of Eden), but that sin entered the scene through the original pair and began the whole historical process of death and corruption that inevitably results from separation from God and His ways of life (truth). Although I hold to old earth creationism and the adaptation of life forms, evolution falls woefully short of being a valid explanation of origins and radical speciation, and provides absolutely no basis for holding to any particular moral or ethical standard whatsoever: hence, our current moral chaos and descent into tawdry art and degenerative behavior. Who says such and such is right? Or, what difference does it make? Standards change, and it will al work out in the evolutionary end. See my point?

Anyway, orthodoxy cannot be enunciated by quirky politicos like Brownbeck, who apparently has bought into the deviations of Rome and the expediencies of politics; but, rather, is sound and reasonable truth derived intelligently and scholarly from the Divine Word, corroborated by trustworthy saints and creedal statements over the centuries. Without absolute and unchanging biblical truth-standards we are left to the highly questionable “morals” of the dog-eat-dog evolutionary process, and a cold, empty and morally silent universe, resounding only with the confused cacophony of vain human bleatings and boastings. Personally I prefer the sweet communion I enjoy with my Creator, and the supreme pleasure of worshiping Him; giving Him all the glory and honor for His magnificent creation and unspeakable gift of eternal life in Messiah. Shalom

Nikos reading your posts gives me a smile each time that I read one!

Ah, those "infalliable word" people are so remarkable. Remember not to: eat any shell fish; no meat from a split hoofed animal; and for the sake of righteousness, DO NOT wear any mixed fabric clothing; and if married do not forget your spouse's monthly time! It would be terrible for you to have to go through such a cleansing.

Shalom

The issue at hand might come back eventually. Should we be in the business of trumpeting our religious faith as a way to replace democratic debate, open to all with our without a denomination? Sure, people are entitled to say they follow this or that creed, as much as it may be merely self-obfuscation for other motives. The "heart and soul" of a nation is a metaphor, clearly, and Wittgenstein would label it sheer nonsense.

What Nikos and others with this agenda really want is power. And the continual (and awfully wordy) rationalizations, replete though they may be with academic language can't hide the fact when politicos use their code-words and signs to rally the troops. It is a dangerous precedent, and has led to many nations going up in sectarian flames.

Thank Thomas (Jefferson) we have the rational basis for enlightened (though messy) secular government.

And if the religio-polticians get the power, what then? If I even granted Nikos some sense to his absolutist argument (I disagree, though), the real issues arise once poltical decisions are to be exercised as law-making by HUMAN BEINGS. This begs and raises as many questions as Nikos claims Neilsen (whom he has not read, I assume) does. Because humans are fallible and all attempts to discern ethical courses of action are fraught with human error and bias, not to mention animal instinct, the real decisions to implement Nikos' vaunted divine order of god will only lead back to either dictatorship or democracy, where the issues are decided by humans, not god.

Sorry about the wordiness. I get carried away. Every society or community operates according to some law system, or prevailing set of values. It is unavoidable if the social order is to cohere and be able to function in all areas. The question is what values? What Law? My assertion is that there is indeed a divine Being who is not just a "force" or impersonal absolute, but has consciousness and will, though far beyond our own.

The atheistic, non-Christian regiemes of the past reveal the folly of sinful, power-driven man apart from the grace and mercy of God. But the corruption of sin has tainted ALL human governments. Yes, of course it's about power. Every American election is. A god-honoring government would reflect both the righteous justice of God as well as His mercy and grace. That is the very best we can hope for in a sinful cosmos.

You are over-reacting, Freddy. The reasoned Chrsitian conservative movement greatly respects our system of government, and we believe that ideas and standards and laws must be the product of the will of the people. We are just a large segment of the people and have as much right as anyone to legislate and govern in accordance with our firmly held values. If they are biblical and Christian, so be it. Abortion was legalized. If enough people persuade act and vote it can, by God's grace, be de-legalized. That's America. We have endured baby slaughter for several decades now, and it is our RUGHT to seek change. What's the problem?

I appreciate the direct address, Nikos. Thank you.

The "law" (small "l") on which this nation is run is a set of constitutional doctrines, not an "Ur-Law" (capital "L") sent down from "on high", translated from Hebrew or Greek. The precedents reach back to Greeks, alright, but not just those Paul wrote to; our sense of individuality and the might of reason comes from pagan philosophers. Many of whom were actually closet atheists (or way out there ones). Throw in some Mithraic and Zoroastrian MidEastern rulers, acknowledged Jewish and Christian influence, English civil law (Cromwell was no happy churchgoer) and later echoes of the Napoleonic code. Eric, I am sure can revise and extend this list.

The problem, Nikos, begins with the rationale given for wresting power in a kind of executive coup, as this administration has attempted "under God", as Pres. Bush believes he is a sort of divinely-chosen(rather than Supreme Court-appointed) leader, as Sen. Brownshirt does (sorry, shirt and back are so close, can't resist). Claiming a god as one's backer (brownbacker?) is a nice trick, as it clouds people's judgments. Luckily, most of this is easily-decrypted code spoken to signify the "proper" laundry list of directives. Such claims rally the less-informed troops with emotional buzzwords. So be it. I demur to your acceptance of this state of affairs, Nikos. I would not ever ask to legislate against a politician's right to manipulate his already-on-board supporters.

I also make it a policy to demur on the topic of abortion, but I will point out that "de-legalize" is semantic cowardice. What the Christian political Right wants is to criminalize a woman's difficult decision to end a pregnancy, even in many cases when her doctor has found it necessary for her safety.

But back to the issue of how polticians justify their rhetoric. Actually, since it is rhetoric which leads to action in politics, we can't ignore the rationale, even if it gets a majority (which I argue the Christian Right is NOT) its desired outcomes in legislation. The words and thoughts underlying why specific laws pass do have a strong impact, whether or not Christian language is directly reflected in the legalese of federal or other government mandates. Officers enforcing the laws and perhaps jurists ruling on their implementation can either be unduly swayed personally/emotionally (often irrationally) or covertly by the political fallout of what I earlier identified as Wittgenstein's linguistic theory of "nonsense". This sets up a de facto Christian slant on what I argue should be religiously neutral decisions and actions. I would further point out the true motivations are probably not guided solely by the mores put forth by the admirable sage(s) who are credited with many of the better philosophies expressed by "Jesus". More likely, again, those are rationalized cover for more human, often base bit sometimes understandable desires and fears. All this self-deception is dangerous.

Myself, I see no reason why a pragmatically fallibilist mentality cannot allow believers in supernatural realities AND atheists to happily coexist; to wit, a dynamic tension of equilibrium can result, if both sides admit that BEFORE THE LAW and in matters of statecraft, the belief or disbelief in gods is not germane. Such private attitudes should be set aside to make decisions based on reasoned (if necessarily rhetorical) debate and representational vote, regardless of "rationale" and instead factoring the greatest good while safeguarding the rights of all minorities (including dissenting non-religionists). Only thereby can we short-circuit to some extent the all-too-human weaknesses of our thinking and justifications.

I realize I am now the wordy one. I appreciate your patience.

Great response, Freddy. I respect your candor and well-read replies. And I am NOT trying to be condescending. I really do. Also, great to know there are other verbose bloggers. I am trying not to go on and on now, because smaller, bite-size arguments seem to treat the material better.

All your references to other law-sources simply reflect what I said earlier. There is an innate sense of right and wrong throughout human societies, which strongly implies some kind of universality. Admittedly they vary, sometimes greatly, but overall there is a discernable aversion to stealing, murder, false witnessing and adultery – although varying versions of the marriage model do alter this somewhat. Coveting is more inward than the others. The Sinai revelation was simply Jehovah drawing all of this together into a consistent whole, with the First Table indicating from whence all Law emanates, and why it has binding authority over all human beings. From these seminal legal constructs all of the case and ceremonial laws were derived – especially applied to the circumstances of the ancient Jewish theocracy and the provisional sacrificial system then authorized by God. But the core principles are timeless and universal.

Our American law system can be just only to the extent that it coincides, in essential principles, with the biblical Decalogue, which is based upon the Genesis model of man having been created in the image and likeness of his Creator. This impacts all thinking about human worth and beauty – even those being formed in the womb, which by the way, do not belong to women but to God as supreme Creator. Atheistic humanism is fixated on my own “rights.” Scripturally, we are only stewards of the gifts of God as children are said to be “an heritage from the Lord.” Whenever man severs his link with God and His Law/Word he ends up with law that flies in the face of God’s moral and ethical absolutes, and codifies all manner of debauchery (same sex marriage) and evil (abortion). We think it’s just fine in the short run, but down the road it all comes unraveled and sinks into the most abject depravity and misery. But without a biblical weltanschauung, this can’t be fully comprehended.

No credible scholar could ever deny that we owe our legal system primarily to the Bible, and whatever historical legal precedents were inline with it – not perfectly, of course, or across the board; but enough to support our (Christian) assertions. But this is less true today because of our rejection of biblical authority. Rationally, without absolute truth and moral authority we have no right to assert anything as more right or moral than another. If there is no universal standard we MUST default to everyone deciding for him or her-self what is best or right – the results of which should be obvious. The sad state of American criminal and moral affairs (that reject God’s moral Law) speaks louder than any sermon or blog entry could ever. Well, verbosity triumphed again. Sorry.

Nikos, I wonder if you are familiar with the concept of "final vocabularies", put forth by Richard Rorty? While you have an admirable command of philosophical vocabulary (Weltenschuuang), I think Rorty may be right in saying sometimes, no amount of discussion will bridge a gap between people who have very different chosen or learned ways of using particular words. Your language is so rife with what I can only hear as empty signifiers, pointing (for any objectively empirical understanding) to non-existent presupposed entities and powers, I have no way to fully engage you beyond endless impasse. The notion of a Creator is so unprovable as to beg its own explanantion through exactly the kind of empty pointing I mention. But that is because I, too, have a final vocabulary, which makes no sense to you, either. Hence, we are doomed to forever speak mutually empty words across a chasm as wide as any natural canyon or gulf. At least I can honestly say, I don't hate anyone with your particular final vocabulary (and it is particular, even peculiar, to you entirely, as mine is to me...no one will wholly understand either of us. My wife seems to at least come close in my case).

It is equally logical to presume, if I grant to you (for argument's sake) a "universal morality" (not as likely as you'd presume...the majority of human societies, for instance, have been blithely polygamous, and coveting this and that expected if not encouraged. American consumerist capitalism is based on it) taht this regular recurrence descends from primate behaviour and evolutionary adaptation as from some "god gene" or some amorphous pre-Mosaic general rule-giver. "universal" in my vocabulary means either: about the cosmos, or "a highly likely ratio of recurrence, eventually explainable (by materialist or psychological/sociological causes) ". It may even be a mistake, and be a mere coincidence, of whatever magnitude. We see the patterns of "morals" upheld or vindicated we choose to see. The inconvenient instances are left out or called deviant, aberrant, or some such.

Rorty: "Truth then, in the end, is imagining a successful strategy for addressing the tension between the needs of the individual and the problems of satisfying those needs in his or her biological and social environment." Sounds reasonable at first glance, but it contains the seeds of its own demise. Also sounds like an analysis of a sophisticated amoeba colony from a biology textbook.

If truth is merely a pragmatic adaptation to human needs, it must be relativistic in nature, which opens the Pandora's Box of moral chaos. The terrorist is merely trying to meet his need for dominance or justice; so whatever he does is HIS truth but it is certainly not truth for his victims.

Truth is either relativistic OR absolute. The absolute premise upon which most of Rorty's strategy for human meaning rests, stems from the imperative of social justice, his sumum bomun; which is rife with all kinds of shoulds and oughts and shoudn't haves: morals, values, etc.

Having an ultimate operating truth is unavoidable. It will either be God's formula for universal good and justice, or something man has deduced and postulated from his auto-divinized intellect.

My position, as a biblical Christian, is that only God's moral/ethical system will issue forth in complete and comprehensive good; for it is not adjustable and relative, but consistent, reliable and unchanging. Just because we have troulbe with it because of our sinful disposition, neither affects it, nor lessens its ultimate benevolence and veracity.

This also reflects the primitive notion of survival of the fittest, inherant in non-theistic evolution.

Truth is contingent. Which may amount to something you consider "relativistic", but it will not SEEM so to the individual making the contingent choices in the negotiation of life. Thus, your "final vocabulary" includes the absolutism of an almighty god. Fine. That is your strategy. If it works, and no one is harmed by it, I say, you are welcome to that. I may be an atheist, but I am not an evangelical atheist. My strategy has been to live an ethical life where many of the same qualities of integrity, honesty and compassion that one is taught in many religions, guide me; not because I fear hell damnation, but because it works well enough and I have chosen such values as part of my conscience, also from the example of my parents.

When polticians, however, claim absolutist stances for their rationale, and appeal in religious-fundamentalist language to justify their actions and policies, it sends a message to those who do not follow the same creed that they are second-class citizens. Politics, of all professions, should be the most pragmatic, about making things work for the largest contingent (pun intended). This requires not absolutism, but compromise. Negotiation is by its nature a relativistic enterprise.

Thanks for your reasonable and civil reply. I know I come across a bit dogmatic at times, but some of the entries are also very confrontational; which I guess comes with the territory. So I take it in stride and try to make my points with equal force.

I do not consider myself a ”fundamentalist” in the sociological sense; but rather a Reformed conservative. We differ from the average fundamentalist by having stronger ties to the historic Church through creedal and confessional orthodoxy, stemming from the magisterial reformers. We also tend to be amil’ or postmil’ regarding our eschatological position, and not dispensation (rapture). We are also not legalistic, stressing sola fide and sola gratia theology. We do, however, uphold biblical orthodoxy.

It is my belief that atheists and humanists, who aver absolute moral and ethical values, do exactly as you have stated: they borrow substantially from the Law and Gospel (Jesus’) teachings in how they actually live, because “it works well enough.” In fact, there is no other way to live that is virtuous, just and civilized. Does not Jesus state that one should love one’s neighbor as one’s self, and to implement the Golden Rule. His sublime teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, which includes the Beatitudes, are almost universally regarded as the pinnacle of human empathetic love and wisdom.

It all goes back ultimately to how reliable Jesus, and the Scriptures generally, are; both of which are under severe derision and attack today. There are certain things, however, that must be understood regarding biblical morality and ethics, especially the in the OT. One is that there was a certain degree of accommodation for the particular historical sitz im leben. Polygamy was not laid down as law or even encouraged, per se: but was allowed for a season. The ceremonial laws were peculiar to the OT, because Messiah would fulfill them in his life, death and resurrection: the sacrifical Lamb, who made general and complete atonement.

Other than these and other temporary procedures, the Law was understood by both OT and NT writers as normative, permanent and absolute. It has only been since the idea of non-theistic evolution came on the scene that a completely different world view and human ethic has become popular: that man is just a big brained ape who is evolving his moral tenets as he goes; that morality is entirely pragmatic and situational. This allows for free sex, abortion, sexual perversion of all types, abandonment of religion, and other anti-traditional behaviors.

This is why Christians are concerned; because these behaviors have proven themselves to be, not only destructive of personal health and happiness, but causes of societal decline as well, causing much pain and suffering (STD’s, AIDS, divorce, child abuse, ad nauseam). Having a biblical worldview also enables one to see down the road, to be future-oriented rather than just immediately self-indulgent. You know, “eat, drink and be merry. . .” The tendency of unrestrained sense gratification is to see only the momentary fix, and to be oblivious to long-term effects. When the inner man is fulfilled and at peace in “true righteousness and holiness” one has the equilibrium to be aware of consequences and to joyfully conform to God’s revealed life principles (laws). However, REAL Christianity is not legalistic uptightness, but the joyous expression of divine love, which cannot flourish except in an environment of truth (God’s moral/ethical Law).

Indeed, a make-it-up-as-you-go approach to morality leads, not unpredictably, to self-centered sensuality; is so prevalent today. And the picture is not pretty; neither is the pain it causes. Ultimately all human suffering has its origin in sin (anti-life rebellion against God’s life principles). Hatred, violence, prejudice, adultery, stealing, self-centeredness all lead to child abuse, runaway teens, depression, et al. It was no overstatement when Jesus said that he had come that we might “have life and that more abundantly.”

But the complete life of love, blessing and peace can only be had when we are in right relationship with our Creator. Sin separates us from God and from one another. The elimination of guilt and sin by the power of the atonement Message (Gospel) brings us back to vital union on all levels. The fact that many have misunderstood and distorted this sublime message in no way limits its truth and power.
So many great individuals throughout history have found this glorious reality: Paul. Veronica and Augustine, Susanna Wesley, Luther and Calvin, John Newton, Mother Teresa, C.S. Lewis and so many more.

To be a biblical Christian does not mean that one shelves his intellect or must see the Creation week in Gen 1 as a literalistic scheme, the earth as only a few thousand years old, or the Flood as global; but as real, historical events, albeit couched in symbolic or limited-sphere language. One must understand the idea of progressive (not evolutionary) revelation, culminating in Jesus and NT teaching. A true understanding of biblical truth does not include the pop theology of television eccentrics and performers.

There is a reasoned, faith-filled way of viewing not only the Scriptures, but the Faith as well; that makes sense out of human worth and beauty, and enables us to live a life that glorifies our Creator and brings blessing to our world. Jesus Christ is Lord because He really is the “Way, the Truth and the Life.” “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Soli Deo Gloria!

Buddha, Confucius, the (mainly agnostic) Greek philosophers and many others of no particular or even avowed non-theistic tradition have advocated the same moderation and compassion you aver and ascribe to, giving credit to (solo mio) Jesus, period. I will not deny the environment of Christianity has filtered into my own choices, too, but not because it came to me by prayer or grace or any such supernatural belief system or practice. Rather, a pragmatic fallibilism is my own guiding principle.

The wholesale blaming (and coversely, balming) of the evils of society on those who go against the fashion of mores you happen to have been born into and chosen to follow, is uncharitable at best and downright rotten faith (to up the ante of Monsieur Sartre). Earlier epochs show how evanescent, in the long view, such choices are. I have to chuckle, particularly, at polygamy "for a season", as if your god was whistling a timeout in (poly)game of cosmic Calvin Ball.