Romans 8:12-14 --
"If by the Spirit"
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Read more!
"Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." -- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 9:04 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Holy Spirit, Sanctification, sin
A woman online who is a non-Christian Unitarian Universalist was peeved by a follower of Christ who:
Posted by John H at 10:09 AM 0 comments
Labels: God's nature
And all through this house - we are having a hard time getting into the Christmas Spirit (even the mouse). I have noticed a number of folks both in the blogosphere, and in real life, seem to be experiencing this.
Posted by John H at 9:25 AM 1 comments
Posted by John H at 12:35 AM 4 comments
Labels: Christian Carnivals, video
One of those common misconceptions that I run into is expressed in this comment.
And here we differ because I cannot believe in a loving God who created me with a long size ten foot only so that he can break the arch and bind it into a child's size four.At this moment, I am not sure what exactly what was being commented on. And, frankly, I am not sure its important - this post is about what it provoked in me and not about what it was meant to convey. So, lets look at a couple of things I have posted on in the past:
That is no God of love. It is no deity I can fuel with worship any more than I would willingly feed someone who raped me.
Posted by John H at 12:16 AM 0 comments
Labels: accountability, depravity, Enlightenment, individualism, Moral agency, Moral reasoning
Jared Wilson at The Gospel-Driven Church saw an amazing metaphor in this passage:
Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. 20 When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, 25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.The post really isn't long enough to excerpt it - so I am going to post it whole:
Posted by John H at 12:14 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, forgiveness, God's nature, Holy Spirit, justification, Marriage
[Point ten of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
10. The culture war is carried out for our name’s sake, not Jesus’. I am not a fan of gay marriage or Roe v. Wade, and even though I would vote to outlaw the former and repeal the latter, neither of those actions in themselves will make a single unbeliever say “How wonderful Christ is!”Read more!
The bitter truth is that the Christian culture war is not carried out for Jesus’ glory and renown, but for ours. It makes “Judeo-Christian values” the end-game, the treasure of our mission. And that is idolatry. Nobody was ever legally or argumentatively or even culturally convinced to believe in Jesus. But millions have been loved and served and submitted to into believing.
Dying for somebody says a whole lot more than debating them.
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Evangelicalism, Legalism, Missions, Moralism, Political action
Uganda may pass a law that could lead to the death penalty for homosexual behavior.Read more!
The proposed law is odious.
Due to the legacy of colonialism, Western people should be sensitive about interfering in sub-Saharan African politics and modest in making moral pronouncements regarding Africa, but this law deserves universal condemnation. Uganda experienced many evils under colonialism, including the loss of basic liberties.
Experiencing evil does not give a free pass to do evil and this bill is wicked.
It is not a close call.
Posted by John H at 11:10 PM 0 comments
Labels: Death penalty, Homosexuality, Law, Political action
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 7:38 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Holy Spirit, Sanctification
[Point nine of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
9. It mangles mission. The culture war sets the Church above and against the world, rather than in but not of the world. It turns us into picketers and politicos. It makes us suspicious and speculative and sensationalist. It takes relationship completely out of the missional equation. It turns us from peaceful ambassadors for Christ into pontificating warriors for Christianity. It does not ask us to serve and sacrifice, which are non-negotiables for Christian mission, but to maneuver and argue.Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:29 PM 0 comments
Labels: community, Evangelicalism, Missions, Moralism
At the moment I am writing this line 178,536 people have signed "The Manhattan Declaration" - A Call to Christian Conscience. It is probably clear from my series on the culture wars that I will not be a signer of the Declaration - but some comments are in order.
Their website front page reads:
Posted by John H at 11:18 AM 1 comments
Labels: Abortion, Homosexuality, Law, Legalism, Marriage, Moralism, Political action
[Point eight Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
8. It has no root in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus knew heart change didn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:57 PM 1 comments
[The index for the series is here.]
Posted by John H at 2:58 PM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Bible Study, humor, Sanctification, video
I was having a chat with someone who seemed to believe apology was only about Christian apologetics. It isn't, as the examples in this comment point out. The definition I would hang with in the set was from Wiki:
In modern times, apologists refers to authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for defending the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that receive great popular scrutinies and/or are minority views.Right after posting that, I ran across a skit from Monty Python that is one of my all-time favorites - along with the Lumberjack Song of course (and the Cheese Shop . . .). It is, IMO, an example of Epic Fail at apology by the shop owner.
Posted by John H at 8:07 AM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, humor, video
[Point seven Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
7. It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety and power. The culture war is largely driven by fear. We’re afraid our public schools will ruin our children, we’re afraid gay people will ruin our families. We’re afraid a Democrat will ruin our country, we’re afraid liberals will ruin our neighborhoods. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect our family, and safety of course is not a bad thing. But neither is it a biblical virtue. Ditto comfort.Read more!
Posted by John H at 5:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: Evangelicalism, evil/pain, faith, Fear
I keep a lot of different folks on my Google Reader list from a lot of different perspectives - people that I think offer the most intelligent examples I have found for a particular niche I am interested in.
One of those sites is Common Sense Atheist. Occasionally, those places put things up that make me question why I keep them on my list. Luke just posted one of those: "Jesus is Magic".
Admittedly, up to now I haven't had a real sense of why belief in a Creator God and belief in magic are not the same; and Luke gave me the opportunity to get this defined for myself.
Posted by John H at 9:56 AM 5 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, God's nature
[Point six Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
6. Its treasure is temporary. I am not overly concerned with the culture war because it is a battle for something that doesn’t last. Culture is temporary. I am far more interested in the transformation of peoples through the transformation of people than I am in the subduing of culture through the modification of behavior. Nobody ever got into heaven by acting better.Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Evangelicalism, Holy Spirit
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, grace, Holy Spirit, Sermon audio
[Point five of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
5. It battles against flesh and blood. We’re not supposed to do that.Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Political action
It seems rare for two intelligent folks with diametrically opposed views actually have a civilized, engaging conversation. It seems to me it is even rarer when one is an atheist and one is a follower of Christ who wrote a pretty scathing indictment of Dawkins, Hitchens and company.
The atheist is Luke at Common Sense Atheist and he wrote a post called "The Irrational Atheist (notes in the margin, part 2)". Vox Day wrote The Irrational Atheist and has a blog called Vox Popoli.
I am following both of them in Google Reader. On the Vox Day side, The Irrational Atheist provided most, if not all, the basis for a couple of my posts. I also posted the beginnings of an exchange of letters between Luke and Vox.
However, what has gotten my attention this time is this set of comments by Luke. First, he quotes VD from the chapter "The Case Against Science":
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Moral reasoning, Philosophy
[Point four of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jered Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."
4. It is often hypocritical. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can’t get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God.Read more!
1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God. And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: hypocrisy, Moralism, Political action, sin
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Holy Spirit, Sermon audio, sin
[Crossposted from Street Prophets]
In the discussions that is going on about the Roman Catholic Church, and its change, I made a comment (I will get there in a minute). Starwoman responded with:
Thanks for this very clear and helpful comment about what the strategy is wrt Evangelicals, theology, and civil marriage laws.I can try to do that - but it may not work out.
I'd be interested in a diary from you on the theology behind Evangelical (and other Reformed, maybe) attitudes towards the relationship between church and state.
Posted by John H at 10:17 AM 0 comments
Labels: Abortion, Evangelicalism, Great Commandment, Legalism, Moralism, Political action
[Point three of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' are going to hell because . . ."
3. It is theologically naive. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do.Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Holy Spirit, Political action
Two things caught my eye this week related to the way discussions seem to go online:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 1 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Blogging, Civility
[Point two of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
"
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."
2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:01 PM 0 comments
Labels: Evangelicalism, hypocrisy, Legalism, Moralism, Political action
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: accountability, Bible Study, conscience, evil/pain, Moral agency, Natural Law, Philosophy, Sermon audio, sin
It seems to go along with my other post today on "Foolish Expectations" -- how does a church define and set expectations based on the Headship of Christ rather than the world.
Posted by John H at 3:07 PM 0 comments
Labels: community, Sermon audio, Worship
[Point one of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]
Jared Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to Hell because . . ."
1. Its expectation is foolish. Whether you believe America was ever a Christian nation or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn’t be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won’t make anybody a Christian, much less make America “a Christian nation.”)Read more!
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Abortion, Evangelicalism, Homosexuality, individualism, Legalism, Marriage, Moral agency, Moralism, Political action
I mentioned how much I liked Jared Wilson's "Funny, I don't Feel Neoconnish" posted at Evangel. His ten points about why the "culture wars" are going to hell --
Posted by John H at 5:54 PM 0 comments
Labels: Evangelicalism, Legalism, Moralism, Political action
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Holy Spirit, Law, Legalism, Sermon audio, sin, slavery
As Jeremy said when he assigned me this Carnival - the 300th is a big edition. So, wanting some kind of theme - I put "three hundred" into a Bible search. Other than "mighty men" and shields in the Old Testament, I came up with this passage:
John 12:1-8 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom he had raised from the dead. So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there. Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with him. Then Mary took three quarters of a pound of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus. She then wiped his feet dry with her hair. (Now the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.) But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, “Why wasn’t this oil sold for three hundred silver coins and the money given to the poor?” (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.) So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She has kept it for the day of my burial. For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me!”Read more!
Posted by John H at 10:39 AM 3 comments
Labels: Christian Carnivals
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible dating, Bible Study, Sanctification, Sermon audio, sin, slavery
Luke at Common Sense Atheism is continuing his series Arguing about Evil with the post "Plantinga’s Free Will Defense". Go read that.
This was started as a comment there, and then got to long-winded to keep as a comment.
Posted by John H at 11:59 AM 0 comments
Labels: accountability, Apologetics, depravity, evil/pain, God's nature, individualism, Moral agency, Philosophy, sin
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 7:59 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, faith, forgiveness, grace, Holy Spirit, justification, Resurrection, Sanctification, Sermon audio, sin, slavery
The "straw that broke the camel's back" for this post was this comment over at Common Sense Atheism:
Hey don’t you know Bill Craig and Plantinga have proven Christian theism?Now, I love those guys; and I fashion myself as a Christian apologist. However, do I think I can prove Christian theism?
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Blogging, Civility, grace
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 11:17 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Moral agency, Sanctification, Sermon audio, sin
The headline quote on my blog is called "The Trilemma": fool, demon, or God. Now, personally, I think most folks fall into one of those or the fourth which Lewis says is not open: great moral teacher. I was over participating in a thread at Common Sense Atheism and someone said
“By and large, [C.S. Lewis's] theology, like his apologetics, is embarrassingly incoherent, unsound, incomplete, and generally bad” I agree. I created a thread on freeratio about and it generated some good discussion. It can be found here:and pointed to this other thread and his opening quote there:
Theres the trilemma, which has been shredded to pieces, even though it was self evidently stupid to being with, . . .Now, I have heard Christians say the same about the Trilemma, but since it is still my banner quote - obviously no one has convinced me yet it is "shredded" or "self-evidently stupid" (I think more of myself than that). So, I invited folks over to shred it for me and perhaps make me change my banner quote
Posted by John H at 11:27 AM 7 comments
Labels: Apologetics, conscience, Natural Law
I am not going to continue blogging on the exchange as it continues. I will continue to post the links to the new letters on the original post as I see them. I was fascinated by the discussion, which is why I condensed the first 6 letters into one post. I had originally peppered that post with my own editorial comments, but then deleted them all. There are some things I want to say about the discussion and the topics raised:
Posted by John H at 11:54 AM 0 comments
Labels: accountability, Blogging, Civility, evil/pain
I have quoted The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day in three major posts:
Posted by John H at 12:21 AM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, depravity, evil/pain, God's nature, Link Tours, Natural Law, Philosophy
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: accountability, Bible Study, Legalism, Moral reasoning, Resurrection, Sanctification, Sermon audio, sin
[Attention: This posts is not about all atheists, or what all atheists believe, or even (necessarily) all utopianism - please read carefully]
I will begin with a comment I made in a discussion of Bill Maher's "enabling" of the "Religious Right" (all the scare quotes there are because I do not think any of that terminology is very good).
Suffice it to say, that the view of Marx on the philosophical side was the same as Dawkins: progress will only occur in solving the world's problems if the metaphysical, non-naturalist ideologies and theologies standing in the way of that progress (and they always stand in the way of that progress) are isolated from the culture so they can no longer stand in the way of that progress.There is no doubt that the modern history of totalitarianism is primarily anchored with expressly atheist ideology (Communism) or non-Christian ideology (Hitler). The slaughter has been enormous - far, far outweighing the closest of Christian kings or rulers since the beginning of Christendom around 400 AD. Religious, but non-Christian, kings have not been as bloodthirsty either by several orders of magnitude. Why is this?
In either case, both Marxism and Dawkins stated, or seriously implied, that religion must be removed as an influence in society in order for humanity to solve its real problems and evolve to a higher order of human social relationship. In the case of Marxism in power, that led in every case to atrocities against the religious and holders of other "bourgeois philosophies" in order to move that evolution on.
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 4 comments
Labels: Atheism, History, Philosophy, Political action, Theocracy
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 1 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Sermon audio, sin, slavery
Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.
If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.
Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:
Posted by John H at 10:19 AM 0 comments
Labels: Blogging, Civility, forgiveness, Holy Spirit, individualism, Link Tours, Philosophy, Woman in ministry
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 11:05 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, grace, Holy Spirit, Sermon audio, sin
President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize
“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” [full text of announcement]Obviously, lots of folks are talking about this; and I am sure someone will be able to explain why President Obama was deserving [here it is] - despite the nominations closing on February 1, just 11 days after President Obama took office.
Posted by John H at 9:33 AM 1 comments
Labels: faith, grace, Political action
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 8:53 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, grace, justification, Resurrection, Sermon audio
Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.
If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.
Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:
Posted by John H at 3:24 PM 0 comments
Labels: Abortion, accountability, Law, Link Tours, Worship
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Sermon audio, Worship
When chatting about abortion in the public arena - the pro-life and pro-choice folks have typical things they say. Now, I am not particularly "typical" on the pro-life side - I am not in favor of focusing on making abortion illegal - I am in favor of making it unchosen. To put that positively, I want folks to Choose Life.
While technically pro-choice, I am not typical either - I believe that abortion is (prima facie - not always) immoral: the fetus is a type of life whose life it is seriously wrong to end. There are reasons why it may be moral - but the assumption for me is that abortion must be justified. Suffice it to say here (you can see much longer argument from me starting here), that I believe that the unborn child is a rights bearer from (essentially) conception and therefore falls within this view from David Gushee:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Abortion, accountability, Moral agency, Moral reasoning
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, evil/pain, faith, Holy Spirit, Sermon audio
Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.
If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.
Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:
Posted by John H at 9:46 AM 0 comments
Labels: Apologetics, Bible Study, Biblical criticism, Blogging, Inspiration/inerrancy, Link Tours, Political action
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 10:57 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, Sermon audio
"Speaking truth to power" is not a phrase that one hears very often either from political or theological conservatives. I always assumed that it just had to do with someone who was a theological or political liberal having used it; and that it was picked up in one of those cultures. It has always felt presumptuous to me.
However, I have never seen a critique of the phrase. Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed pointed me to a "an old blog that deserves a wide readership" - and if this post is any indication then I agree.
The name of the site, and the author, is Allan R. Bevere; and he speaks
". . . perhaps the most useless political phrase of all is the high-sounding but irrelevant phraseology of "speaking truth to power." -- Allan Bevere
Bevere gives two reasons: "And therein is the heart of the problem. That most Christians in America believe that the church's primary role is to affect policy in Washington DC betrays the mistaken belief that the primary political action in this world is to be found in the White House and on Capitol Hill, when the New Testament clearly indicates that the primary agency of politics is located in nothing less than the community of faith known as the church. In order for the church to speak truth to power it must recover its unique polity apart from the earthly polity known as the nation state; for it is God and not the nations who rules the world.
One of the examples Allan uses is feeding the poor:
My great concern is that when Christians in America want to play the role of prophet in Pharaoh's court, they end up looking, not like the wise sage, but the court jester that gets used by the king for his or her own comical and unsavory purposes.
The people of God have been co-opted; it is time for the church to recover the politics of witness." -- Allan BevereFor Christians to be concerned for the poor, the outcasts, and those on the fringes of society is a given. The problem is that it is not always clear how Christians should care for such persons.
Another writer who tried to lift Kingdom priorities over politcal priorities was J. Budziszewski in his two essays on political liberalism: The second moral error of political liberalism is expropriationism. According to this notion I may take from others to help the needy, giving nothing of my own; according to Christianity I should give of my own to help the needy, taking from no one. We might call expropriationism the Robin Hood fallacy. Today, the expropriationist is usually a propitiationist too, confusing the needy with some subset of the merely wanty. So we are speaking of a style of politics in which the groups in power decide for us which of their causes our wealth is to support, taking that wealth by force
and political conservatism: The eighth moral error of political conservatism is meritism. According to this notion I should do unto others as they deserve. With the addition of mammonism, matters become even simpler, for then those who need help are by definition undeserving, while those in a position to help are by definition deserving. That meritism is not a Christian doctrine comes as a surprise to many people. Large numbers think the meritist motto “God helps those who help themselves” is a quotation from the Bible. What the New Testament actually teaches is that in what we need most, we are helpless; the grace of God is an undeserved gift. According to Christianity I should do unto others not as they deserve, but as they need.
Read the rest of Allan Bevere's thought-provoking post; and I would suggest you put his blog on your reading schedule - I am going to.
I even like his quote of the week from G.K. Chesterson: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Political action, Theocracy
I recently discovered a blog called Fundamentally Changed which has fundamentally changed my view of the word "fundamentalist", and being called a "Fundamentalist". I am not sure the word (like "Evangelical") can be resurrected from what secular society has done to it, but at least I do not need to feel insulted anymore when someone calls me one.
Jason, one of the bloggers at Fundamentally Changed, noticed that I was beginning to link them in some of my stuff and put them on my reading list on my sideboard. He did something that really hasn't happened to me up to now (and is, in my opinion, really cool) - he sent me an email:
Posted by John H at 8:35 AM 1 comments
Labels: Biblical criticism, Blogging, Holy Spirit, Inspiration/inerrancy, liberal theology, Political action
[The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Notes:From the Notesheet:
31 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
32 tn Grk “who against hope believed,” referring to Abraham. The relative pronoun was converted to a personal pronoun and, because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
33 sn A quotation from Gen 17:5.
34 tn Grk “according to that which had been spoken.”
35 sn A quotation from Gen 15:5.
36 tc Most mss (D F G Ψ 33 1881 M it) read “he did not consider” by including the negative particle (οὐ, ou), but others (א A B C 6 81 365 1506 1739 pc co) lack οὐ. The reading which includes the negative particle probably represents a scribal attempt to exalt the faith of Abraham by making it appear that his faith was so strong that he did not even consider the physical facts. But “here Paul does not wish to imply that faith means closing one’s eyes to reality, but that Abraham was so strong in faith as to be undaunted by every consideration” (TCGNT 451). Both on external and internal grounds, the reading without the negative particle is preferred.
37 tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A C D Ψ 33 M bo) have ἤδη (ēdē, “already”) at this point in v. 19. But B F G 630 1739 1881 pc lat sa lack it. Since it appears to heighten the style of the narrative and since there is no easy accounting for an accidental omission, it is best to regard the shorter text as original. NA27 includes the word in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.
38 tn Grk “And he.” Because of the difference between Greek style, which often begins sentences or clauses with “and,” and English style, which generally does not, δέ (de) has not been translated here.
39 tn Grk “and being.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
40 tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
41 tn Grk “him”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
42 tn A quotation from Gen 15:6.
43 tn Grk “his”; the referent (Abraham) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
44 tn Grk “who,” referring to Jesus. The relative pronoun was converted to a personal pronoun and, because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
45 tn Or “handed over.”sn The verb translated given over (παραδίδωμι, paradidōmi) is also used in Rom 1:24, 26, 28 to describe God giving people over to sin. But it is also used frequently in the gospels to describe Jesus being handed over (or delivered up, betrayed) by sinful men for crucifixion (cf., e.g., Matt 26:21; 27:4; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33; 15:15; Luke 20:20; 22:24; 24:7). It is probable that Paul has both ideas in mind: Jesus was handed over by sinners, but even this betrayal was directed by the Father for our sake (because of our transgressions).46 tn Grk “because of.” However, in light of the unsatisfactory sense that a causal nuance would here suggest, it has been argued that the second διά (dia) is prospective rather than retrospective (D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 288–89). The difficulty of this interpretation is the structural balance that both διά phrases provide (“given over because of our transgressions…raised because of our justification”). However the poetic structure of this verse strengthens the likelihood that the clauses each have a different force.
47 sn Many scholars regard Rom 4:25 to be poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188–89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage.
Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, faith, Sermon audio
Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.
If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.
Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 2 comments
Labels: Link Tours
[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 12:01 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, faith, Sermon audio
I spend a lot of time actually discussing religion and politics with folks who are neither political or theological conservatives. This is primarily at a "faith and politics" site called Street Prophets. I have been there long enough that I am a part of the community - at least in the sense that "crazy uncle Ernie" is part of your family; or the pit bull barking at you when you walk by is part of your neighborhood (Just kidding - mostly - I have good friends there as well). Maybe you would be happy if they both disappeared, but it would change your world.
One of the drawbacks of it is that I have to deal with a question like
Where were the shocked and outraged evangelical reactions when Falwell and Robertson both asserted that God made (or permitted--a fine distinction) 9/11 to happen, and that it was the fault of gays, liberals, feminists, pagans and so forth?This question is not unique to me. Muslims who aren't terrorists have to answer it, atheists complain of having to answer for some of their ilk, (and liberals, and conservatives, and Republicans, and Democrats, and . . .) are all expected to have denounced any nutcases in their particular tribe.
the evangelical community (and even the conservative evangelical community) is very diverse and doesn't have one acknowledged leader.She went to give a list - but it showed how impossible making a list is. The folks she mentioned are on as broad a theological and political spectrum as can be imagined.
Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Exhortation to Mutual Forbearance
Romans 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
1 John 2:9 The one who says he is in the light but still hates his fellow Christian is still in the darkness. 10 The one who loves his fellow Christian resides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But the one who hates his fellow Christian is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
1 Corinthians 13:2 And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
Ephesians 4:29 You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Restoring Christian Relationships
Matthew 18: 15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.
It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We' cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word . . .Now, this is a very Biblical examination of my responsibilities to my fellow follower of Christ when I think he has done wrong. However, from my experience, the general principles here are easily expanded outside of Christianity, and indeed outside of religion, to relations between folks in general.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
Posted by John H at 2:23 PM 5 comments
Labels: accountability, Civility, Moral agency, sin
[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 2:48 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, faith, Legalism, Sermon audio
[Crossposted to Street Prophets]
Wherein I look around the web - hopefully once a week - and draw some attention to things I see there that interest me.
If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left of my blog under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list up to three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.
Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy:How do you go about cultivating a lifestyle of honesty when you are terribly embarrassed and even ashamed of yourself? I wasn't raised to tell people the truth about my problems or struggles. I wasn't familiar with letting people look into my personal growth or know about my issues. Also, I wasn't at all used to family breakup or creditors calling or choosing which bill to pay.
So here we have two men from very different backgrounds – one practicing the Hindu faith throughout his life, the other a fallen-away Christian – both of whom object to Christianity on the basis of the behavior, actions, and appearance of Christians.
Early Christianity was, he writes, a kingdom-of-God movement, a resurrection movement, and a Messianic movement. From our distance these seem commonplace assertions, and if we try we can easily imagine coming up with a set of religious fables to support such thinking. This is why Wright emphasizes the historical setting so strongly, though; for these ways of thinking, in the forms they appeared in early Christianity, were completely foreign to the culture in which Christianity arose.
The last sustained history of fundamentalism to be published by a fundamentalist was David Beale's In Pursuit of Purity1. Nearly a generation has passed since Beale finished writing his book. During that time the landscape of fundamentalism has altered significantly.
I read the first four posts, and it seems like a pretty insightful series on the philosophical, theological roots and current state of Fundamentalism [HT: Fundamentally Changed]The Iraqi presidency council called for "containing the situation with neighboring Syria and for cooperation between the two countries to resolve disputes through dialogue and diplomatic channels".A statement released after the council's meeting in Sulaymaniyah stressed the need to do what is in the best interest of both countries and to prevent "enemies" from using one country against the other.
Senate Finance chairman Max Baucus has labored long, hard - and in secret - to produce an 18 page summary of what Ezra Klein refers to as a “Not that bad health care bill.” The fact that I agree with Klein shouldn’t worry you. The irony is that he sees fault where I see merit and vice versa.
That should make both liberals and conservative heads explode. Philip Pullman, author of the childrens book series His Dark Materials that arguably portray an atheistic worldview, will release a new book next year recycling an old argument that is contradicted by the majority and most recent scholarship. In a book that appears will be a mix of fiction and non-fiction, Pullman will argue that "St. Paul came up with the 'story' that Jesus had a divine link." He claims that "by the time the gospels were being written, Paul had already begun to transform the story of Jesus into something altogether new and extraordinary, and some of his version influenced what the gospel writers put in theirs." Jesus' divinity is a product of Paul's "fervid imagination."
when a guy who’s name is "Scat" puts up a sign up sheet called "Rock and Roll, Funk and Soul: The history of the music we listen to" and specifically invites me to attend, it sounds like it’s going to be a good time. The warning I missed was how precise my invitation was and that I was given a unique responsibility that night:
His best comment, to me, was:
"Hey Joe! I’m holding a session tonight about music, man. And I saw that great collection of Rock T-shirts you have. Boy, those are really great. I could use them in my presentation. Would you mind bringing them along?"
Well, that sounds friendly enough, and at age 14 I had not yet learned to be so suspicious of anyone who’s always that happy and energetic. So, like the clueless fool I was, I showed up looking forward to a great time about music history, and having some part in the story. Little did I know what my part was . . . What you should take away from this story, in my opinion, is that if the labels of "faithful", "Christians" – whatever stereotypical name we use to grossly oversimplify and identify one group is offensive to you then I’ve done my job. For the same reason "atheist", "secularists" is injurious to me when it’s used to hold me accountable for individual acts of others that I personally had no part it, I understand your distress. So if you’re tired and indignant of being shouldered with the burden of what "those" Christians do, which of course no Christian as you understand it should ever do, then you need to be talking to those Christians and tell them to cut it out.
I only partially agree with the last part - it is only my responsibility when I can do so in love in a situation where we are under the same discipline/leadership. However, in posting this I am making it clear that if the reader thinks what the camp counselor did is OK - I think you really need to rethink your concept of personal evangelism. So it’s been awhile since we’ve had a frank discussion about sex, and today I find myself “in the mood” (pun intended). To be more specific, rather a discussion about the fine art of not having sex, if you’re a single disciple of Jesus, or just a woman of higher than average intelligence.
The furor over President Obama's trillion-dollar restructuring of American health care has left his other trillion-dollar plan starved for attention. That's how much the federal balance sheet will expand over the next decade if Mr. Obama can convince Congress to approve his pending takeover of the student-loan market.
The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.
Posted by John H at 10:36 AM 3 comments
Labels: Link Tours
[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]
I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:
Posted by John H at 6:15 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bible Study, faith, forgiveness, God's nature, Legalism, Sermon audio
I have talked alot about subsidiarity:
"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." (Pope Pius XI, "On Reconstruction of the Social Order", 1931)On of the reasons for this is diminishing spontaneity:
as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.So, as this article points out:
[Subsidiarity] holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracyThat is because the closer, and more organic, organization is the more natural organization and easiest for the folks affected to control.
suggested that where power, in the sense of effective action within a community is missing, violence takes its place. Moreover, once the institutions of government have outgrown the individual and the neighborhood, so that the very scale of governance no longer permits effective action for most people, then those people are more likely to take to the streets and address their grievances in destructive ways.If you are not just going to take things like the Tea Party movement and the outcry at the health care town halls as astroturfing, then you can see this feeling of ineffectiveness and lack of control beginning to explode into anger and violence.
Posted by John H at 9:48 PM 0 comments
Labels: Philosophy, Political action, Subsidiarity
This re-initiates my old practice of looking around the web - hopefully once a week - and drawing some attention to things I see there that interest me.
If you want to know where I go, look at the links on the left under "Places I Frequent". From there, I will go places those places may point me. Typically, I will also list three of my favorite posts from the current Christian Carnival - and may go somewhere those blogs take me.
Sometimes they will be topically organized, and sometimes just in order of the links I visited. Enjoy: Over fifteen years, I have been part of almost a dozen small groups sponsored by three different churches; my husband has joined me in most of them. Never once have I developed a close friendship through one of these groups.
and We are told to confess our sins to each other [I tore a group up doing this], to restore each other, to love each other, to encourage each other, and to serve together as the body of Christ. I have rarely – if ever – seen these things happen in a small group. And if that kind of fellowship isn’t taking place regularly, why do we keep trying the same methods and hoping for different results? It seems to me it’s time for a new approach.
… The problem is this: when one takes a close look at the Bible in its original context, there is no evidence that the Bible is such a historically-situated divine revelation, that it is somehow ontologically different than other texts from antiquity and should be privileged or treated in a special way. …
with "Indentifying Define Revelation"On WESTLAW, I looked up other news stories about the speech. It was eported as 10 minutes in some reports and 12 minutes in others. It was carried live on CNN, PBS, and [the NBC] and Mutual radio [networks]. The Secretary of Education sent a letter urging schools to have their students watch, but I didn’t find any evidence of how many schools followed that recommendation. And most striking: Bush laid out goals — to increase the graduation rate, improve student competency and better prepare students for entering school — and said, "Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter. I'm serious about this one. Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals." [Written text is here - and wasn't checked against the tapes]
I am stunned at the outcry against the President of the United States speaking to the youth of this nation about the importance of education.
I am embarrassed by the governor of my home state saying, that the president’s plan to address them is “disruptive . . . uninvited . . . and number three . . . I don’t think he needs to force it upon the nation’s school children.”
This speech seems, for me, to be an answer to a prayer that I have prayed for the president repeatedly . . . Today I call upon all of my fundamentalist brethren to honestly take the time to examine their doctrines and practices and see how they measure up to God’s Word, the five sola’s, and the historic fundamentals. If they don’t fit that, they must be discarded, no matter how old, precious, and dear they are to us.
Iraq continues to insist on internationalizing the crisis with Syria, which began after Iraq demanded that Syria hands over senior Ba’ath Party members. Iraq now plans to persuade the international community to form an international criminal court, similar to the one investigating the assassination of the late Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stressed at a meeting with the Turkish FM that Iraq “will move forward to demand that the UN forms an international tribunal to prosecute those who committed ugly crimes that target Iraq’s stability and people and killed many innocent lives”.
David Bentley Hart, a historian of ideas, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies , has been our guide into some of the philosophical and historical issues at work among the new atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. One of the implicit and sometimes explicit claims is that we are enlightened and that
the secular state is safer than a religious-shaped state. To which Hart makes this statement, and he expresses the growing body of literature that both denies the myth of secularization (that all things are becoming more secular) and reveals the profound mischief of the secular state: "We live now in the wake of the most monstrously violent century in human history, during which the secular state (on both the political right and the political left), freed from the authority of religion, showed itself willing to kill on an unprecedented scale and with an ease of conscience worse than merely depraved. If ever an age deserved to be thought an age of darkness, it is surely ours. One might almost be tempted to conclude that secular government is the one form of government that has shown itself too violent, capricious, and unprincipled to be trusted" (106)
2009 -- March 9th: President Obama rescinds Bush’s August 9, 2001 EO with his own EO entitled, “Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The revocation of Bush’s EO is heralded as “lifting the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).” (this is the event found in the video offered above)
Notice that now not only is there no federal funding of ESCR - President Obama removed President Bush's mandate of federal funding for IPSC research as well. Incidentally, Jeremy did what anyone should really do when confronted by such a reported contradiction between stated positions of politicians and their actual actions:
This EO simultaneously revokes Bush EO # 13435 which has provided federal funding of successful IPSC research. This aspect of the order is not mentioned at the press conference.
2009 -- March 11th: President Obama signs and renews the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which continues the ban on federal funding for ESCR that Obama claims to have lifted 2 days earlier. No announcement is made and no press conference is called. When I first read this, I immediately wanted to find something to verify it. It was incredibly difficult to find an actual news story on it, since the mainstream media either suppressed it or never got the information on it. The one news story I could find was from a partisan organization, but it does give chapter and verse for where to find the language in the bill that does indeed do exactly what the story says it does. It's in Title V, section 509 of the Omnibus spending bill (page 128 of this PDF; it appears in full here). It repeats verbatim exactly the section that since 1996 has appeared in every such spending bill under President Clinton and President Bush.
The Ninth Circuit handed down a fascinating and important case on preventive detention on Friday, and one that I suspect added a new case to the Supreme Court's docket next year: al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. The basic holding of the opinion is that the post-9/11 practice of using the material witness statute to detain suspected terrorists is not only unconstitutional, but clearly unconstitutional, and that former AG Ashcroft can be personally sued for his role in it. The majority opinion was written by Judge Milan Smith and joined by Judge Thompson; Judge Bea wrote a partial concurrence and partial dissent.
There's a lot of coverage of the case in newspapers and around the web, but nothing that really delves into the legal questions. That's understandable, as the opinions in the case fill about 100 pages. But in this post, I wanted to delve into the legal questions and see if the court's opinion holds up to scrutiny.
. . .
Fortunately, this case is perfect for Supreme Court review: If the en banc Ninth Circuit passes on it, this case will give the Supreme Court an ideal opportunity to evaluate the very important question of how the Fourth Amendment applies to preventive detention.
Posted by John H at 6:00 PM 1 comments
Labels: Atheism, Bible Study, Biblical criticism, Enlightenment, History, Iraq War, Law, Link Tours
Christian Carnival II |
Visit this group |