Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

Facts:

 

1.  I am not what one might call "an attractive man."

2.  I am, however, married to an attractive woman - whom I love very much.

3.  I have two sons and a daughter.

4.  I have been in the US Army for 12 years, so far.  I am, right now an E7 (Sergeant First Class).

5.  I have lived in many places:

      - Canton, OH (birth)

      - Joplin, MO 

      - Darmstadt and Greishiem, Germany 

      - Clayton, NY

      - Conyers, GA

      - Olympia, WA

      - (and kind of 'lived') Fallujah, Iraq; Baghdad, Iraq; a camp right outside of Ur of Chaldees, Iraq; near Kuwait City, Kuwait; a few other places, too.

6.  I became a Christian at 15 in a Christian Church/CoC in Ohio.  Big church of like 3,000 members back then.

7.  I was a pretty crappy Christian for a while, but didn't know it.

8.  My family (me, wife, kids) are confessional Particular Baptists.  We confess with the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), as well as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon.

9.  Now I know how crappy of Christian I am.

10.  My favorite books are -- meh, I can't really say.  I like a lot of books.  Mostly I read history (mostly American and Church), Theology, and some 'classics.'

11.  My favorite movie is Casablanca - that's easy.

12.  I enjoy long walks on the beach and poetry read from soft, inviting lips during the sunset of a cool spring morning over a glass of a fine Pinot Grigio.  And fishing... I can't fish enough.  More, more, more, and more fishing.

13.  Currently seeking membership at Olympia Bible Presbyterian Church.

14.  Thirteen is a good number so I'll end there.

15.  Crud!

16.  Truthfully, I'm not bothered by that... because I lack feelings.

 

You can go here for some more.

Here is even better.

Tags: 1One, 2Ugly, 3Dude

Views: 861

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jason -

 

Up above, you made this statement: I'm simply saying that I won't stay if I see no hope of fair moderation.

 

Daniel's engagement on threads or blog posts is not about moderation. I believe there is a team of moderators. And no one is beyond bringing things to CMP, and I think he came around a few months back, but he is never able to visit much. Discussion engagement is different from moderation. I think some clear and good moderation was recently done in the way Todd had treated me by posting a most heinous blog post while I was sleeping in Belgium.

 

Maybe I am biased here, but I cannot see Daniel being any "worse" than myself or Dave Z or another that might be open to a non-normative evangelical views on an issue (definition of inerrancy, origins, etc), or any "worse" than some things that come forth from those who would readily accept particular evangelical views (definition of inerrancy, origins, etc). We have all been frustrated at times. We have all been annoyed at times. We have all been gracious at times. We have all taken breaks at times, whether deleting our account or just staying away for a week.

 

I personally think we have shown a lot of immaturity that we cannot talk about issues like the nature of Scripture, origins, etc, without freaking out. I recently watched a debate between Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman. Total opposites in where they are and their beliefs. But they had DINNER before the debate and HUGGED after. I think there was a true respect, in both the debate and outside the debate. What the heck?! Of course, maybe Licona is watering things down and should shoot down Ehrman more. Not that you would argue that, but I suppose some can.

 

We have all "stepped over the line", shown our sinful nature, been selfish. These are great issues to discuss. I do not think anyone lies outside the purview of evangelicalism, since there is no evangelical pope, but no one definitely lies outside the true Christian creeds, and you have acknowledged that. Interesting Nicene never mentions a doctrine of Scripture or origins that must be held to be within the fold of Christianity. And evangelicalism is founded on just that, the evangel-good news and proclaiming that, not on a particular nuanced doctrine of Scripture or origins.

 

My point is that these are great issues to discuss but we have constantly showed our immaturity in so many ways, again, myself included. Whatever side one is on is not without fault here. As I said elsewhere, too much speck noticing without removal of logs. I am surprised Jax and Peter are even interested in Jesus Christ seeing the immaturity existing between us. And it is not centred in one particular person or a small group of people going of the rails of true Christianity.

 

This is not about fair moderation, since Daniel is not on his own and he has to keep things in such a way as to appease CMP. This is about a small group of about 10+ people that have interacted quite immaturely.

I had wondered why we don't hear from some of you very often. It looks like there has been a mass migration to SF. I have just signed up there, but do not intend to leave here. I have learned too much. Every time I am faced with something that has an off note, I research it. When contributors post links, I check them out. I am here to learn. I get it that Daniel is, well . . . Daniel. (I mean that most irenically, D.) But being the reactionary that I tend to be, I have been researching Enns (and found him sadly wanting). So, I learn, and pray I will continue. This is my second time here. I originally left because . . . never mind. It really does not matter. I guess I am rambling to get to a point--each of our cogent, well-thought out and supported assertions can benefit someone. This is not Face Book. Enjoy SF. I hope to. But don't jump ship here. 

EA -

What have you not appreciated about his works/writings? Have you been able to read Inspiration and Incarnation? Probably a better place to start than his recent one, The Evolution of Adam. I think he is much more gracious and solid than some. I appreciated Sparks' book, God's Word in Human Words. But he more easily accepts most everything in critical scholarship. Actually, even before Enns' book, you might try Scot McKnight's The Blue Parakeet (I review it here)It would be a good primer.

He asserts one thing (belief in inerrancy) and then defines it in his own terms-terms subtly different from those of orthodoxy. His views on God accommodating Himself to human language and understanding goes too far. While it is obvious God condescends to us, we are created in His image. As such, we are rational and communicative. (i.e. we are not, nor have we ever been, Neanderthals.) We can "get it." We have always been able to. He overstates the case of pre-science and modern science. (Look at the pyramids. That evidently took more than elementary math to design.)  The thing that bothers me the most is that he sounds so smooth on initial reading. His message is subtle. One more example, and then I am off to work. He says that God took ANE myths and accommodated them in such a way that they became Israel's stories to show them the one God. The Bible presents our God as omniscient, omnipotent and holy. He had no need to "borrow" incorrect and blatantly untrue stories as a starting point. He had the wherewithal to start out with truth to teach truth. 

I am super busy with work, home, and school, so I can't get bogged down in the subject. That is why I have not commented on the ANE Text thread. So, if I make no more comments, it is not that i am ignoring you. I just have other priorities. 

ScottL said:

EA -

What have you not appreciated about his works/writings? Have you been able to read Inspiration and Incarnation? Probably a better place to start than his recent one, The Evolution of Adam. I think he is much more gracious and solid than some. I appreciated Sparks' book, God's Word in Human Words. But he more easily accepts most everything in critical scholarship. Actually, even before Enns' book, you might try Scot McKnight's The Blue Parakeet (I review it here)It would be a good primer.

Ser -

 

I appreciate the contribution. Like I said, this surrounds a group of about 10 or so people, rather than Daniel, or Daniel, myself and Dave Z.

 

I do believe that whatever has been attributed to Daniel, or to the 3 of us (if that is what you are suggesting), could also be attributed to those arguing the other side in these debates and discussions. I suppose you would acknowledge such, but it seems like you are saying one group is being naughty and one group is being nice. It works both ways. I am aware that some have tried to lessen tension with apologies where warranted. But that's not really been too many people's prerogative at times. Now, I am aware that I could be reading a bit too much into things, and it is easy to do so with a typed medium. But this is not an issue of a particular group of 3 being arrogant, unChristlike, selfish, harsh, etc, while another group is being humble, irenic and Christlike. This has happened on both sides, as much as I can tell.

 

So maybe one group has logs and one groups has specks, or a combination of both. But we've all got something in the eye. But to not acknowledge such and/or put it all on one person or one small group of people is not really going to help here.

Ser -

 

Your comment pretty much identified that you (and all) could agree that there has been a problem with Daniel, myself and Dave Z. I could have read it wrong. I don't want to create a martyr group. But we also don't want to create a good-guy and bad-guy group, right?

 

Daniel has been head moderator since Day 1. It's only the past 6-9 months which people have started saying there is a big downfall. And it seemed interesting to me that it all was around the time when some people began to regularly consider/express some views that were non-normative evangelical views. So is this only about bad behaviour, or also about touching into pet doctrines that are important?

 

I have not been able to read every comment of Daniel's. I cannot speak of all Daniel's motives. I have read some things of his. But here is the whole speck and log thing. People keep lambasting Daniel for all his wrong motives. But I read comments by very gracious, or errrrr, unirenic people towards Daniel, or towards others, and I start seeing specks and logs. And from all I can tell, only a small, small, small, small, small percentage have been man/woman enough to recognise they have done it as well. Sure, Daniel has been wrong. I think he would agree. Sure, I have been wrong too. But this is not a Daniel thing. Or if it is, specks and logs will remain. Whoever has specks and whoever has logs, that's not the point. It's that we all have things impeding our sight. This is much bigger than Daniel.

Ser is just looking for common ground that we can all come together on. Why do we have to fight unity all the time?? I am crying right now for our lack of unity. :'(

Okay not really. My tear ducts dried up when I reached cronehood.

Char said:

Ser is just looking for common ground that we can all come together on. Why do we have to fight unity all the time?? I am crying right now for our lack of unity. :'(

Char -

And how would you like to contribute to the conversation?

Isn't it already obvious? By the written word. About how Ray loves PeTrA now. The thread IS about Ray you know. And now his love for PeTrA.

Ray told me this is his new favorite PeTrA song. He especially likes the pictures of Jesus in the video.

And what of Stryper?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================