Count Me as Never Trump

There are many reasons to dislike Donald Trump as a candidate.  And as much as I would like to focus on his policies, whatever they really are, I have to take a moment to rehearse some of the more egregious personal attacks that in my mind reveal the utter lack of character necessary for the leader of this nation.

There is a reason I find this exercise necessary.   Politics has gotten ugly in the age of Alinsky.   His “Rules for Radicals” suggests as a legitimate strategy the practice of isolating individuals as figureheads and then demonizing them with lies and ridicule.  It forces them to waste time responding to charges that ultimately have no defense and distracts the rank and file from real issues.  It has been a tactic of the left for years and one I find utterly opposed to the practice of democracy. 

So to see Donald Trump and his minions using such ugly, immoral and unprincipled tactics and using them successfully means that the right side of the political spectrum has sunk to the same gutter as the thugs of the left.  What good is “winning” the Republican nomination if one utterly shreds any principles that once were a normative part of a civilized society built on self-government?  (More)

Is Trump a Fascist? Probably Not, but...

I have little doubt analogies linking politicians to villains of the past are generally unfair and unwise, not only for impugning the individual in the present, but also for minimizing and misrepresenting the evil of the past.   Lately, with the rise of Donald Trump to the front of the GOP Presidential race, comparisons to Hitler are popping up and more commonly the word “fascist” is used of both Trump and his supporters.

Full disclosure, I have no love for Trump as a potential President.   His campaign has been vulgar, insulting and crass.   He labels his opponents with insults and slurs to avoid discussion of issues and policies.   He demeans the process itself.   But more to the point, I have little confidence that whatever his current campaign positions are, he will follow through and not change his poistion if he is elected.   If I had to choose between Trump and either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I would find it difficult to vote at all.

But is Trump a fascist as some of his opponents claim?  (More)

Daily Suffering: The Practical Difference Between Calvinism and Arminianism

There is no mystery in the universe as profound and troubling as the problem of evil.  Many who are atheists will cite this very problem as the primary reason for not believing in God.

On an intellectual level, an Arminian can live in a quiet truce with other Christians over this issue because on an intellectual level, both sides generally accept that much of the problem is indeed a mystery.  But on an emotional level, the question goes too deep.

On an emotional level, I fear the Calvinist and the Arminian are in completely different universes when it comes to dealing with pain, suffering and evil in the midst of human experience.  (More)

Shadow of Oz - Pay no Attention to That Scientist/Theologian Behind the Curtain

Wayne Rossiter followed an interesting path, from Christianity to Darwinism to a vocal atheism, to crisis and back to Christianity.   While he remains a practicing scientist, he found himself troubled by the path chosen by many Christian intellectuals in attempting to maintain a purely Darwinian view of origins while claiming to hold to Christian beliefs.   He begins the book with the troubling tale of a young college student who was so devastated by the destruction of his faith through Darwinism that he committed suicide.   While extreme, this brief story sets the stage for the discussion of the uneasy marriage of two contradictory worldviews.   (More)

The Baltimore Catechism On Origins

One of the many false canards used by Theistic Evolutionists to dismiss Young Earth Creationism and is the idea that belief in a literal Adam is something of a novelty.  We are told, over and over, that Ancient Near Eastern thought doesn't really care about science or history the way we moderns think about those things.  All that really matters is the narrative and the theological ideas behind the stories.

We are told Augustine's "Literal Meaning of Genesis" cautions against pitting the Bible against science, for if we are wrong about the science it will discredit faith.   We are told many of the church fathers allegorized the early chapters of Genesis.

Ultimately, the whole science/faith divide boils down to a few misguided fundamentalists creating a false dichotomy between science and faith.  (more)

A Step Beyond Orthodoxy at Jesus Creed

At Jesus Creed, the continued Evangelizing in the name of Christian Darwinism continues with a post by the prolific guest blogger RJS.  The post is titled “Evolution, Belief, and the Virgin Birth” and features a discussion of a book by Robert Asher, “ Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist.”

While I think I should be fair and say that I believe both RJS and Scott McKnight would profess to affirm tenets of the faith called into question by the author of the book, the rather uncritical discussion of the views and the ho-hum tone of the comments indicate a great deal of comfort with one who questions central doctrines of the historical Christian faith.

RJS has been a steadfast champion of Evolutionary Creationism, what used to be called Theistic Evolution.  In the views presented in her posts, the primary constant is that science requires a commitment to seeking understanding of nature through natural processes alone.  Though she is a theist and an adherent to Christianity, she sees natural law as vital to the scientific enterprise.   Adding the possibility of interference from somewhere “outside of nature” is anathema to the science academy, which means no miracles are permitted, particularly in the discussion of origins.  That raises a bit of a contradiction when EC’s deal with New Testament miracles such as the resurrection and virgin birth of Christ, as we shall see.  (Read More)

What Color is Your Heresy?

In postmodern approaches to theology, context determines everything.  Since interpretations of reality are social constructs, and the subjective context from which one does theology determines the meaning of just about everything, postmodern theologies can be exceedingly relativistic, destructively creative, and aggressively subversive.

This Jesus Creed post from November 5, 2015 is titled "White Heresy, Black Heresy" was written by Austin Fischer, author of "Young Restless and no Longer Reformed" who blogs at Purple Theology.  The question Fischer frames is one of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy as relates to race and justice, but the “context” of American race struggles takes the whole premise in a dangerous direction.   In short, it implicitly celebrates “contextualization” with a vengeance while hiding a great deal from unsuspecting readers about the source material.  More