do you agree with these theologians?
367376
I agree with Maimonides, who basically also sees eye to eye with classical (i.e. pre-evangelical fundamentalist) Christian theology: the same views were essentially held by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in the 4th century.
811094
Yes, they do. And as for the people above mentioned, yes they are doomed unless they repent.\nAmen and goodbye.
1013894
An excellent list. And there isn't a christian that can deny the utter stupidity of the bible when presented with these outright contradictions.\nI mean, how can a "perfect" being's manifesto be so chock full of mistakes?
439784
I don't think they are hatful. I think many of the leaders are frustrated or perhaps selfish or otherwise suffering from the trials that life brings with it, but I don’t think the majority of the people are hatful.  \n\nI do believe however that many of the followers of these faiths are misguided...just as you are. Not in their choice of religion or faith, (or lack there of) but in the way they practice. Certainly there is no reason for Christians to treat practitioners of other religions with hostility. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus teased, belittled and harassed those that would not follow him. Yet many Christians feel obligated to do so today? \n\nStill, I think you are looking at the minority of the practitioners and allowing their actions to be interpreted as the actions of the majority of people. Regardless of your faith or beliefs, try to be companionate and understanding and look at the situation with some perspective.  \n\nI hope this helps.
1140952
I attend Piper's church, and I am perfectly content that his theology is sound. Check out some of his books, and then put it to the test, as Jesus commanded. We shouldn't just believe anything--that's why we (Christians) have the Holy Spirit and The Word of God.
804564
I dont think they can be right, especially those that refute the others.  I think a spiritual path with no fixed ideas about God, the form he takes, is best.  It allows athiests and believers to agree.
1179875
to religious people... YES!!!
408941
Regarding translation and the Word of God.  To say, in general, that I "question" something is not saying that I disagree with it.  I try and question much in translation.  There was a time when I questioned the Word of God.  I have since been convinced of the veracity of God's Word, but I still question translation and try to derive as much as possible from it by reading many different concordance references and multiple versions.  I would say, all in all, general bibles like the NIV and ASV are pretty good translations.  I would definitely get one with a good concordance, explanations, and references, and use them.\n\nOn fundamentalism and the Evangelical movement in America.\n\nThis is a loaded question.  There is 1. A fundamentalist faction.  2. an Evangelical movement and 3. the Moral Majority faction.  These are not one in the same, though members of each may cross over into the other and become affiliated with the other now and again.  NONE OF THESE ARE MILITANT.  Do they feel that America has diverged from a "wholesome" path... absolutely.  Do they feel that they want to be able to let their kids play outside again.... absolutely.  Do they think that God is the answer to the problems with America..... absolutely.  Do they think that their vote can make a difference... they know factually that it can.  But, few support Jerry Falwell for any public office... I believe his call is for evangelism... not politics, though he has a right to voice his opinion when someone asks him.  Is it good for the Republican party?  Well, I guess it would be... considering their "conservative" agenda.  Moreover, I think that is bad for the Democratic party than good for the Republican.  The Democratic Party is now appearing to stand against Christianity and Christians, in general.  Considering there is only one kind of Christian (whether fundamental or liberal) this is a bad progression of events for the Democratic party.  I think that they need to review their stance, or another party needs to creep up.
757135
I totally agree.  People believe that Christians are supposed to be faultless or something.
117524
I do... and so does the Pope.\n\nhttp://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-10T181257Z_01_L10652640_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-POPE-SCIENCE.xml&archived=False\nhttp://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html
994228
You have an interesting view. I think I would agree with a lot of it. Ultimately anything about God comes down to relationships. Our relationship with God and how we treat those around us.
923478
I disagree with them, I think it is rather fanatical for my taste.\n\n\nGod Bless You
809348
I'm not sure which "scholars" you're referring to, but I've never seen any support for your conclusions among mainstream Biblical academians. Could you give us some references on these "scholars"?\n\nFor what it's worth, I posted an entry about Haggard on my blog yesterday. Check out the link below.
59055
There is a wonderful book published by the Vatican Observatory called "Physics, Philosophy, and Theology:  A Common Quest for Understanding."  It is edited by Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J.\n\nThis book is a collection of articles on Science and Religion by Christian scholars, most of them I think Catholic.  Some of its contributors are:\nIan G. Barbour\nErnan McMullin\nMichael J. Buckley, S.J.\nRichard J. Clifford\nFrank J. Tipler,\nand more.\n\nAlso, there is a good book called "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" edited by Keith B. Miller, which contains articles by Christian scholars and scientists.  I think most of the contributors in this book are Protestant, but there may be some Catholics as well.  It includes:\n\nDeborah Haarsma\nConrad Hyers\nEdward B. Davis\nMark A. Noll\nDavid Livingstone\nLoren Haarsma\nJeffrey Greenberg\nHoward J. Van Till\nRobert John Russell\nand others\n\nWilliam Dembski is a prominent advocate of the "Intelligent Design" theory.  \nMichael Behe is also an advocate of Intelligent Design and has written "Darwin's Black Box" in which he argues that evolutionary theory does not account for "irreducible complexities."  He means by this systems which seem to need all the parts in order to function, such as the eye, or even a cell.\n\nOf course, Behe and Dembski are highly criticized, and you can see their views as well as their opponents' views in a book called, "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics" edited by Robert T. Pennock.\n\nAlvin Plantinga has written extensively on science and theology, and he is anti-evolution.\n\nThe writers in the Perspectives on an Evolving Creationism book are mostly (I think all) pro-evolution, and yet they are Christians.\n\nMichael Ruse, while I don't think he is actually a Christian, has a book called "Can A Darwinian Be A Christian" in which the answer is yes.  \n\nI hope this helps!
509812
yes. i do agree with u.
815436
Well, there are two cases to consider. The first is the one you spoke of, when they already believe theirs is the right choice. The second is the case of genuine curiosity, wanting to know what fundamental truths support which argument. In the first case, it could be to try to convert others or simply to reassure onesself that the justifications for other faiths are invalid (although this is from a biased perspective). In the second case, asking a question like this would hopefully bring out strong arguments from many sides. It's interesting to weigh these points against one another.
601687
I agree with you.\nI'm a Christian too.