If I am not mistaken, true Christians believe there is only one way into the presence of God; through His Son. It is more than passing strange that a man who believed that certain persons were not reconciled to God through the only means appointed by Him, would exhort, nay solidify in their religion, those who believe otherwise.
In other words, why would a true Christian encourage the validity of a belief that rejected Jesus Christ?
Obviously, I do not understand this article. 'No explicit references to... crucifixion'? I find innumerable passages wherein that very term is used explicitly in various forms and tenses; as well as implicitly with regard to us in connection and solidarity with Him in that death entitled 'crucifixion'. No irony intended. Am I just being simple?
You can only be what you are. A man may no more choose God, while in an unregenerate state, than he may choose to be a cat in his original birth. A man may no more 'choose' God, when he has been reborn, than he may choose to be human in his original birth. When the Lord reveals Himself and yourself to you, and 'rebirths' you into 'the kingdom of His dear Son', there is no choice to be made. You can only be what you are.
Just how does one determine who knows the most about the universe? Don't you have to know more about the universe than that person to say that with any authority? I mean; if I say that someone is a really great veterinarian, don't I have to be on a higher level to make that assessment? At any rate; as I've always said... great technician, just no thinker.
I am afraid this ingenuous young man has unknowingly turn himself over to enemy, that has made a deal with the crocodile to eat them last. It is too difficult to make many millions of people bow to you... so you intimidate the leaders to do it for you. Make no mistake; the present leadership will do it. I cannot make this sound sufficiently ominous.
Just for you, dear, sweet Jessica Dawson; ever pulling us back by our shirt collar to the charges of our gracious Lord...
'World' Magazine; June 5; Janie B. Cheaney article, entitled 'Whose Offense?'. Find it online.
I don't know if you are a subscriber, but if not; it is a wonderful, intelligent news magazine from an unabashedly Christian perspective (not frilly). I believe it encapsulates your absolutely correct, but sometimes difficult to submit to, sentiment (an example of which is the first sentence of my previous post). Never leave us.
I'm ashamed to say, Mike; I did laugh out loud at your post. Ahem! That being said... I found her ignorant venom spewing at the press conference concerning the flotilla incident, less alarming than her lack of honor displayed (along with Pat Buchanan) by an absence of apology or retraction upon discovery of the facts concerning the same. Ever speaking out of turn, I suspect it would be exceeding difficult for rabid liberals to continually retract 'words without knowledge'.
Germany, France, England, Australia, Canada, and now America, have all been duped into thinking that Islam will discontinue its mission of the global domination of sharia law, if we will treat them with deference. The results of this thinking are manifest in all of the above mentioned locations. The rapidity and ease with which these nations have simply handed themselves over to Muslim rule is amazing, even to those who are orchestrating this world wide jihad. All liberal media, law enforcement, and government agencies are merely capitulating. As I've said before; it's a good thing this is all based on a true story.
Some time ago, a woman in Mexico burned a tortilla, leaving what many believed to be the image of Jesus on one side. Thousands were involved in a pilgrimage to worship the 'holy' tortilla. This has the potential to be exponentially more enslaving.
There is a distinguishing characteristic here which makes both sides correct and consistent with scripture and the behavior of godly men; including our Lord, who, on a notable occasion became violent, and pronounced some pretty weighty woes, and caustic denunciations on others. See for example also, Moses, who showed both of these forms of behavior. The distinction... anyone?
Good to see some sanity. While here the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms 'We... hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...' and 'that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.'
Is this some revelation? One need not even be a believer to see this; merely an intelligent, unbiased individual (as if there were such a thing). Golly. It's as if 'someone' is putting a lot of pressure on everyone who persecutes Christians... to persecute Christians. I wonder who that could be.
No matter who you are, if you put on yellow tinted glasses, sooner or later, you will see something that actually is yellow and be correct. Sadly, many are the times when professing Christians are called to account by unbelievers. The thought of it should be an aid to keep us in line... sometimes. In spite of the fact that Mr. Hitchens may be a great technician, but not much of a thinker; and generally is in completely over (or perhaps out of) his head in such matters, he has a point. We all know what would be the honorable thing for the 'pope' to do, but that is probably not going to happen.