|
Obviously I cannot speak for religions other than my own Christianity in the treatment of women. It would certainly appear to an outsider that women have fared very badly, and continue to today, in the Islamic world.
Under our Constitution, there can be no religious test for office. That does not mean, however, that candidates should not make known their religious beliefs.
One of the great Christian theologians of modern times, Abraham Kuyper, once said, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'"
The answer is yes and no. The media, after all, is made up of fallible human beings who often get things right and sometimes don’t.
While thankfully the vast majority of Muslims do not practice violence, the answer to whether Islam is a violent religion is: Regrettably, Islam spawns violence.
Jesus was the most radical social revolutionary in human history. But he did not arrive—as the Jews expected—to the sound of hoof beats and swords clashing; rather, he came as a helpless babe born in a manger.
If the Democratic candidates are genuine in their conviction that Christian truth should inform their moral judgments, I am certainly the first to applaud.
While there may have been an argument to be made on just war grounds against the original pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, I believe without any question that applying the just war criteria to the present situation obligates us to remain, and restore civil order and authority.
First off, as a Baptist I am hardly an expert on liturgy or the history of liturgy. But the real question being posed is the necessity of maintaining continuity between our worship and the way in which our ancestors in the faith worshiped.
As a Christian, I have experienced working with Muslims in prisons for the last thirty years. Apart from that, I would not feel really qualified to speak out in this week’s discussion.
The decision by the ELCA to ignore biblical standards of moral behavior is, given the history of modern mainline Christianity, not surprising, but it is deeply distressing.
Who wants to belong to a church that doesn't treat biblical teachings as truth? Would I sacrifice my life for something I didn't believe to be true? Of course not. But martyrs from the first century on have.
This kind of decision dishonors our Lord, dishonors the Church, and dishonors those who have kept the faith for two millennia.
This is why John Gresham Machen said, almost a century ago, that liberal Christianity is not a brand of Christianity: it is simply another religion altogether -- liberalism.
E. O. Wilson’s proposal for “an alliance between science and religion forged in an atmosphere of mutual respect” is one of the healthiest suggestions I have heard, especially since it comes from the founder of the sociobiology school, which is rooted in materialism and rejection of the supernatural.
Could it be that Wilson, admittedly an extraordinary intellect, has had a second “conversion”? He has written that he left his own Baptist faith at the age of 15 and entered the “temple of science.” Perhaps he has come back.
On Sunday, in Christian churches around the country, many of us lit the first candle in the advent wreath, that of hope. Hope says, in the face of all the darkness, that God is at work in the world.
I believe God uses the efforts of well-intentioned believers, who rely on His strength, to shine into the darkness and advance the light. To say such a thing is different than believing that the world’s biggest social problems—poverty, disease, homelessness—can be cured by well-intentioned religious believers. That is the sort of utopian dreaming that constantly gets social planners in trouble. But hope sees a vision of the world where things are put right, and hope works toward that vision.
Archbishop Christodoulos and Gordon Hinckley were both church leaders who commanded enormous respect. Both were members of denominations that are hierarchical, that is, policy and theology—though often collegially discussed and interpreted—is dictated from the top down. The same could be said of the Roman Catholic Church and the other Orthodox churches throughout the world.
I would view with great skepticism anybody telling me they were Jesus Christ, even someone who had amassed a lot of followers; maybe especially someone who had amassed a lot of followers.
First, Jesus said that no one knows the hour nor the time when He will return; but when He does return, every eye will see Him, and no one will be left in doubt as to who He is (Rev. 19). All we know about Jesus we know from Scripture. It is absurd to think that any human person other than Jesus of Nazareth could fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. It is absurd to think any person could replicate the character of Him whom we see in the Gospels. It is absurd to think that someone could countermand the plain teaching of Scripture concerning His return, and have others still believe in that person’s claims. Sound reason requires that all such claims be evaluated in the light of reliable source material: the Scriptures and the witness of the Church throughout history.
The idea of the historical Jesus running for president is on its face preposterous. He was tempted by Satan, who offered Him all the powers of the world, and He emphatically declined (Luke 4). He told the Roman governor Pilate that “My kingdom is not of this world.”
The Question: How should Barack Obama have responded to inflammatory remarks made by his former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright? Are you responsible for what your spiritual leader says from the pulpit?
Barack Obama is not responsible for what his spiritual leader says from the pulpit anymore than I would assume responsibility for what my pastor says.
The Question: The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated 40 years ago. What are your memories of that day? What impact did it have on you? How is King relevant to you and to us today?
I vividly remember the day and the shock I felt and the fear I had for what it would do to our country. King remains one of the most significant figures in our history.
The longer any campaign goes on—and nowadays they're almost perpetual—the more the charges and counter-charges build up. It's unavoidable in year-long campaigns that a lot of the negative stuff would stick. So the figures do not surprise me.
The more important question is, does integrity matter in a president? Having served one flawed president and known a number of others, I would, if I had to make a choice, far rather see character than competence. Integrity goes to the very heart of what a person is. His or her policies may be very attractive, but if he or she can't be trusted, the policies won't matter.
And a candidate's personal life, while privacy should be respected, is fair game because it informs us on matter of character and integrity.
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
Comments (157)