I often wonder how Christians simultaneously believe man is the perfect creation and in the image of God, yet simultaneously believe the heart is evil, sex in all forms is sinful, and man is nothing but corrupt? Seems a bit schizo.

—a poster in Gavin’s blog in response to a video clip about a kid preacher ranting against evolution and how the strictest of  “Creationist Christians” present a dichotomy of how Christianity is presented.

I first picked this up from Bob Thiel’s site. I don’t agree much with Bob but we both generally agree that we disagree with most of  Joel Osteen’s theology but this is a brave and bold move on his part on telling his congregation about avoiding  pork and seaford according to the laws of Leviticus in the Old Testament.  Certain Messianic Jews, Seventh Day Adventists and some adherents of the Church of God (Seventh Day) among others have no problem with the message Joel gave. The rest of many other Christian denominations  love to start a fight. Joel might lose a few members but I am confident, he’ll gain more members of the church and more people listening to him. Certain (but by no means all and let me make that perfectly clear) former members of the WCG (now the GCI) will accuse Joel of being Galatianist, Armstrongist and leading people to bondage. They even make Republicans at a townhall meeting about health care look like the suave George Clooney. For the record, dispite Joel’s “theological issues”, I am certain that he does believe in the gospel of grace (well, at the end of his program, he gives the viewer of his program to receive Jesus Christ in their lives) meaning that it is not what you can do for God but what God (in the Person of Christ) done for you on Calvary. So what Joel is probably proposing here has nothing to do with “justification” but everything to do with “sanctification”.  Of course, some will still want to fight Joel Osteen, anyway. I just say, if one feels compelled to avoid pork and unclean seafoood, do it. If one is stoutly opposed to the idea, eat what you have before. Respect each other’s point of view and don’t be an manipulative idiot in demanding submission. I know what I just said is a tough thing for religious people while Christians are notoriously known for shooting their own wounded and wanting every other  Christian to see it their own ONE way, or else! I still long for what Jesus wished prior to his crucifixion was that he would love to His people one as He and His Father our one.  Well, here is the video clip, courtesy Youtube.com.

Would you believe that the founder and first pastor general of the Worldwide Church of God backed up pirate radio in the ’60’s??? Well here’s an excerpt of The United States and Britain in Prophecy (Gavin’s, Aggie’s, Byker Bob’s and I’m sure a few others favourite book of HWA to hate with passion. Mine’s was Missing Dimension In Sex but that’s another post):

According to wikipedia, in 1960:

CNBC – (Commercial Neutral Broadcasting Company) made test broadcasts in English from the MV Borkum Riff anchored off the Netherlands and also the home of the Dutch station Radio Veronica. The target audience was in south-eastern England, but due to the low power and distance the programs were not successful and they were terminated after a short period of time. However, the experiment gave rise to two other ventures which were planned for vessels anchored off the coast of south-eastern England.

The first was GBLN which was also known as the Voice of Slough and the primary geographical target area of the transmissions. This vessel was to be based aboard the MV Ellen. What made this station notable was the fact that U.S. evangelist Herbert W. Armstrong, who financed by his daily paid broadcasts many of the successful offshore stations which followed, believed in the project to the extent that his broadcast called The World Tomorrow was listed in the radio log of his worldwide magazine (The Plain Truth), as being heard at 8 p.m. daily at 306 metres in the medium wave: (AM).

But of course, HWA hated rock and roll (and believed it was of the devil and seemed to treat that classical music was God’s, how childish) and never approved of the renegades behaviour as seen in the trailer below (but on the other hand he would just keep his mouth shut if they would broadcast his stuff).

I’m baffled by sharp divides over evolution and God as creator. The umbrella designation of “intelligent design” includes some pretty bizarre deductions. I’ve read (with hope) a magazine of theirs. I was amazed at its sloppy thinking, quirky methodology and sweeping conclusions based on what I call “preferred conjecture.”

   I believe God is Creator. I’m neither a seminary trained theologian nor a university educated paleantologist.  My belief is based on Faith, raw experience and relationship not on the fossil record or skewered, fundamentalist pseudo science.  I believe Genesis is not a gealogical explanation of Earth’s history; but, a poetic analogy whose point is to declare that God is Lord of all.

“The just shall live by faith, and that not your own, it is the gift of God.”

I’m not offended, threatened or even sad if others disagree with me. I wasn’t put on this Earth to force others to my opinions but to love and serve them. Their hearts and minds can only be reached by God’s Spirit.

My God is a great big God.  I’ve yelled, screamed and cursed at him in my rages.But even as I spew poison something inside me says, ”No.This isn’t right. God is a good god. I don’t care how MAD I am at Him. I will repent and give Him the benefit of the doubt.’ Let God be true though every man be a liar.’ My emotions are real and powerful but they’re not true.”

So let the scientists dig, examine and propose and the theological types debate. I’m sure God is amused.

I discovered that Dr.Richard Dawkins had more interviews from his Root of All Evil series. The other smart British guy here is none other than liberal-progressive theologian and retired Anglican Bishop Richard Harries —uncensored and uncut, of course!  Controversial but interesting views shared indeed.

Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins, being the polite Brits as they are, have a discussion (not a fight) about atheism, religion and science in Richard Dawkins’ documentary The Root of All Evil?. For those who already seen the documentary (I posted it on my old blog), the interview between McGrath and Dawkins did not make the final cut but now here is approximately 70 minutes of the interview, unedited and uncut.  May all feast away!

I’m surprised the blog God Discussion have not picked this one up yet. Here’s their chance. For some troubled by pluralistic tones in the trailer, please note what the filmaker says that he’s simply asking a question and it is up to YOU to answer it! I will add that I am not asking you to understand other people’s point of view, not to submit to it. In so doing, I believe we can be humble in expressing our own point of view without compromising what we believe.

When it comes to theology, we should hold strongly to our views and even defend them, but at the same time hold those views in humility. God’s truth is inerrant, but our understanding of it is not. Yes, some views are based on ignorance, emotion and/or sloppy scholarship. But we shouldn’t broadbrush all opposing views as originating this way.

…I see one of the greatest problems in Christianity not as being different viewpoints, but the fact that people don’t understand differing viewpoints and how such conclusions are reached.  We can better understand and defend our own positions when we truly understand our opponents. 

The controversial (yes, the sometimes irascible) “Realist” a regular poster on Mark Tabladillo’s Jesus Loves Fellowship message board giving his modern day rendition of  “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity” when it comes to studying and understanding Christian theology. May he take his own advice when it is warranted.

For those who are easily offended at Saturday Night Live Alumni Sarah Silverman’s let’s say “colourful” language you can can go another blogsite. I am all about authenticity here, not “the tyranny of niceness”. For the rest of us who want to understand her point (and yes, she does have a point) can watch it and agree (and laugh at the same time). Her heart is definately in the right place and I cheer on for her strong suggestion.

Anything that discusses law, Judaism or even Messianic Judaism is sure to raise eyebrows and arguments with some. On Derek Leman’s blog Messianic Jewish Musings discusses about the journey of one person, who is of non-Jewish background, with his affinity with Messianic and regular Judaism. Just to let some know, I am NOT the guy!   Neverthless, I think the person in question makes some interesting and valid points which may not be comfortable with some, which is perfectly fine with me. I do have plans (yes, please be patient) on a series of  posts here which deal with responding to objections to Messianic Judaism.  That sure is also to generate some discussion and that is understatement to say the least. Right now read Derek’s post Strangers Choosing Jewish Life.