This is derived from Psalm 55:22

"Cast your cares on the Lord and he will sustain you; he will never let the righteous be shaken."

This metaphorical "casting" of anxieties is accomplished through prayer and trust.

Anyway, it seems that some Texas veterinarians are discovering several cases in which the cattle are distressed. One scientist has come to the conclusion that the cattle are having "sexual identity crises."

In layman's terms, some bulls believe that they are actually trapped in a cow's body.

LOL!

Simple yet effective.>

http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2...

An interesting article and one that does concur with aspects of my own thinking on certain points.

Unlike the author, I have never been 'Evangelical', and would describe myself as "liberal" Catholic.

Like the author, I am opposed to attempts at legislating morality, but do believe that Western civilisation must continue to function within the moral framework of a Judeo-Christian ethic.

A "true" Christian, in the broadest sense, is simply someone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and this allows for a diversity of views within Christianity.

My understanding of the Bible has been previously posted on my own forum (page 7 Dec-10-13) and it seems he and I may not be that far apart in our interpretations of Scripture.

I don't subscribe to his "religious stew" since I believe Christianity contains all that is necessary for salvation, and I don't like the term "cafeteria Catholic" since it mistakenly attributes that sort of "religious stew" to any perceived "liberal" Catholic who doesn't toe the Vatican line on every piece of dogma.

I think there is some truth in the saying "that religion separates us while spirituality brings us together" however the separations are not easily glossed over if they are inimical to our core beliefs.

I agree with the following; "Respecting a wide diversity of views is not the same as moral relativism nor does it mean I don't take my own views very seriously or that I don't believe I'm right about what I believe. It simply means I'm open to change and to the possibility of being wrong and am always willing to test everything, even those things that were handed down to me as absolutely "gospel"."

I agree that "there was a progressive revelation of God from the Old Testament through the New" and I concur with the author's experience regarding the immanence of God, which he identifies closely with the Holy Spirit. Especially having just celebrated Pentecost Sunday, I can relate to that understanding.

I agree with him when he says "I still have great motivation to share the gospel because the gospel is now truly good news, not a veiled threat."

I notice he identifies himself as a Preterist, although as a Catholic, I would consider myself a partial-Preterist.

According to Jesus, "I am the way, the _________ and the life".

According to Jesus, "The _______ will set you free."

According to Jesus, true worshippers must worship God "in Spirit and _______."

I was reading over your thoughtful comment and came across the above. It caused me to think.

Absolutely Jesus commanded us to evangelize the world, but in the above context, the term 'Evangelical' is used as a noun, not as a verb.

The author is referring to his previous Evangelical Protestant religious belief, which is predominantly fundamentalist in outlook, as distinct from my own family Catholic tradition, which does not take a literal view of the Bible.

I see. But couldn't one who evangelizes be called an Evangelical?

<fundamentalism>

I think this word is used too much and does more harm than good, when Christians talk among each other. I would like all of us Christians to be good brothers in Christ and to encourage each others core, basic, and yes fundamental belief in Christianity, namely, the atonement and salvation.

When we look at the book of Acts, we don't see the first Church caught up in the minutiae of this and that, splitting hairs over non essential details. Instead, we see a focus on Christ's story, His resurrection and how we can be saved if we believe and repent.

We see in Acts the edification of fellow believes among themselves as they reinterpret the Old Testament in light of what had just transpired, meaning Jesus' life, death, burial and resurrection. We see how the apostles, who were with Jesus and learned from him (imagine that!) and were full of the Holy Spirit, spent time showing that Jesus' passion and resurrection were carefully laid out and prophesied in the Old Testament, so that people who studied The Law could see it with new meaning as it pertains to salvation and really believe.

We do see that the apostles did believe in the Old Testament. Take Steven, who was martyred after boldly testifying to the council. When they asked him if he was guilty of blasphemy, as the false witnesses who were brought to accuse had testified, Steven recounted and summarized much of the Old Testament teachings.

His face was lit like an angel's face and he was full of wisdom, grace and the Holy Spirit, which guided him and guides us in the spirit of Truth.

No, the current understanding of that term is inextricably linked with a conservative-style fundamentalism. One who evangelizes would be called an Evangelizer, not an Evangelical. (Of course an Evangelical could be an Evangelizer, but an Evangelizer would not necessarily be an Evangelical).

The rest of your post I whole-heartedly agree with!

I think 'fundamentalism' is a term which conservative biblical-literalists apply to themselves anyway, so it's not like it's name-calling or anything.

Of course the apostles believed in the Old Testament but it's important to understand that the focus was always on Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. Neither Jesus nor the apostles were ever interested in trying to prove the historical past. The Biblical 'history' was simply an a priori assumption in regard to the message of God's Kingdom.

I would much prefer that Christians concentrate on Jesus Christ and His message of salvation, yet time and time again we see 'fundamentalists' carrying on about the age of the universe only being 6,000 years old or whatever and claiming dinosaurs were on Noahs Ark and all the rest of it.

Obviously we Christians who know better can't just remain silent and allow this nonsense to be paraded around as if it's part of our faith! We're obligated to speak out and show that Christianity is not at odds with science and the modern world.

I don't agree when you say,

<Obviously we Christians who know better can't just remain silent and allow this nonsense to be paraded around as if it's part of our faith! We're obligated to speak out and show that Christianity is not at odds with science and the modern world.>

I can find no command from Jesus, The Lord in the Old Testament or the apostles on behalf of Jesus, where we are obligated to do as you described above.

In fact, I think it does harm and not good, when we cut down Christians who believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is correct.

However, I do agree with you that we should aim to show the general public that science does not cancel out Christianity. I believe this is important because many young believers lose their faith in high school or college when their teachers present science as being at odds with "religion", which means Christianity.

This is one reason why I spend so much time on apologetics and, in particular, natural theology. There are so many misconceptions about the myth of science and Christianity being against one another. It's not true, and it undermines the young believer's faith.

Getting back to mature believers and the way they read Genesis, I think that there is no good reason to think that we are obliged to "correct" them on their literal interpretation of Genesis. Any correction aimed in this direction is scientific in nature and not theological. It is a scientific argument; a scientific squabble.

I think people who interpret Genesis literally think that those that don't are controlled by peer pressure. That is, if you grow up in a very secular society where God isn't cool in the first place, then, if you are going to be a Christian anyways, the pressure you feel makes you conform to what society finds acceptable and not was is plainly written in the texts.

Meanwhile, there are many Christian thinkers that are agnostic about the way to read Genesis. They say that there is no reason to think that the earth is 6 or 10,000 years old because it doesn't say so explicitly. There may be lots of time between when God made the heavens and the earth and when He made Adam.

Still, there are other scholars and exegetes that look at Genesis the way a literary analyst would and try to figure out what style the book is written in. Revelation is clearly written in a different style than, say, Acts, which is historical.

I think attacking those who interpret Genesis literally is doing great harm and, if nothing else, undermines the faith of that person, while being wholly unnecessary, not spiritually directed, and born out of pride rather than love. It's more an affirmation of one's own belief rather than theological and spiritual correction that arises out of love.

Has science buried God?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSq...

It's 1 hour and 43 minutes, so you'll need some time. However, I hope you give it a listen and also listen to many more of Lennox's talks and debates. I'm sure you'll really like his style too!

We are obligated to preach the Good News of God's Kingdom!

If we have 'misinformed' Christians running around desperately trying to 'prove' the universe was created in 4,004 B.C. how do you think this message of Good News will be received amongst unbelievers?

Do you think it will be taken seriously in the 21st century?

<In fact, I think it does harm and not good, when we cut down Christians who believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is correct.>

I agree that these Christians should not be "cut down" but patiently educated as to the scientific realities of the universe.

<However, I do agree with you that we should aim to show the general public that science does not cancel out Christianity. I believe this is important because many young believers lose their faith in high school or college when their teachers present science as being at odds with "religion", which means Christianity.>

Exactly!

<This is one reason why I spend so much time on apologetics and, in particular, natural theology. There are so many misconceptions about the myth of science and Christianity being against one another. It's not true, and it undermines the young believer's faith.>

Quite right!

<Getting back to mature believers and the way they read Genesis, I think that there is no good reason to think that we are obliged to "correct" them on their literal interpretation of Genesis.>

I must disagree with you on this point.

It is imperative that the Bible be properly understood and not misrepresented.

If fundamentalists read Genesis and conclude that they have read a blow-by-blow description of how the universe was actually created,and then proceed to calculate the various genealogies in order to ascertain the age of the universe, then I believe those of us who know better are indeed obliged to "correct" them on their literal interpretation of Genesis.

<Any correction aimed in this direction is scientific in nature and not theological. It is a scientific argument; a scientific squabble.>

And therein lies the most important point!

If they want to argue for a 6,000 year old universe based exclusively on the science, then let them argue from science!

But they don't -- they instead read the Bible and then go about cherry-picking pseudo-scientific "facts" to bolster their bizarre ideas about how the universe was created in 4,004 B.C. or whenever.

<I think people who interpret Genesis literally think that those that don't are controlled by peer pressure. That is, if you grow up in a very secular society where God isn't cool in the first place, then, if you are going to be a Christian anyways, the pressure you feel makes you conform to what society finds acceptable and not what is plainly written in the texts.>

Perhaps they do think that but of course they're wrong.

<Meanwhile, there are many Christian thinkers that are agnostic about the way to read Genesis. They say that there is no reason to think that the earth is 6 or 10,000 years old because it doesn't say so explicitly. There may be lots of time between when God made the heavens and the earth and when He made Adam.>

That's a cop-out!

And in any event, Adam too is metaphorical.

<Still, there are other scholars and exegetes that look at Genesis the way a literary analyst would and try to figure out what style the book is written in. Revelation is clearly written in a different style than, say, Acts, which is historical.>

I do agree that it is important not to attack those who interpret Genesis literally and especially not to cause harm or undermine anybody's faith.

However, if the proper meaning and interpretation can be explained to them so that they no longer feel antipathy towards science, and thus have a better understanding of the Bible, then that must be of benefit to them, and to Christianity as a whole.

<Whenever I see such arguments, my heart sinks and I actually feel quite sad.>

Yes, there should not be arguments, but a respectful exchange of ideas.

<I pray for unity, fellowship and the strengthening of our faith as Christians.>

<If we have 'misinformed' Christians running around desperately trying to 'prove' the universe was created in 4,004 B.C. how do you think this message of Good News will be received amongst unbelievers?>

Well, my concern is how Christians interact with other Christians, not unbelievers.

I do not believe scientific education is any part of our obligation, personally, and can only lead to disunity rather than unity. At least that's what I've seen in my experience. Also, I don't think that the book of Genesis is, exactly, the Good News. I think that is in the Gospel accounts, but the context of my concern is regarding Christians among each other.

<Do you think it will be taken seriously in the 21st century?>

Yes, I do. Unbelievers believe far more difficult things to believe already. They believe that the universe just came into being, uncaused, out of nothing (not a state of nothing, but just nothingness). They believe that life came into being out of non life. Now just imagine if these were the requirements for believing in the Truth of Christianity!

I think the craziest thing of all is believing the universe just came into being uncaused. That is just intellectual bankruptcy. It's a basic metaphysical truth that nothing comes from nothing. Nothingness isn't even a state of nothingness.

In light of this I don't think that a literal reading of Genesis does any harm to the Gospels.

Unbelievers often times believe in lots of crazy things. Look at pagans. A lot of them actually believe in spells and magic and so on - even in the 21st century.

<It is imperative that the Bible be properly understood and not misrepresented.>

Think about this. Just over a hundred years ago (actually, even until the 1960's when evidence of cosmic background radiation was growing), scientists often claimed that the universe just always existed.

Christians who adopted that view would have to correct the "misunderstanding" of the fundamentalists who believed there was a beginning, and those educated, scientific Christians would have been wrong, while the fundamentalist would have been right all along.

In fact, this is exactly how it went. For centuries the world's smartest scientists claimed that the universe was eternal and always existed. It wasn't until the big bang theory that modern cosmology realized what fundamentalist Christians have known all along - that there was a beginning.

Scientific Christians may or may not be in the same position today. We don't know, so I think these points are unimportant but tempting none the less.

<However, if the proper meaning and interpretation can be explained to them so that they no longer feel antipathy towards science, and thus have a better understanding of the Bible, then that must be of benefit to them, and to Christianity as a whole.>

Just remember, 100 years ago, the proper meaning and explanation was that the universe just always existed.

As a Puritan who was baptized by fire, nearly destroyed by God but begun to be saved by the Holy Ghost in the same eternal instant (for God gave us His only Son to protect us from Himself, and to save us from His divine wrath, and to save us from our desire to confront Him, and to save us from our delusion that we can somehow usurp His singular divine power, and to save us from ourselves and our sins, with their otherwise damning consequences under the immutable natural law that God is, omnipotently and omnisciently, and that is God), I never deem it necessary to evangelize. I don't feel from within, immanently, that Jesus wants me to proselytize. I'm no antinomian, but I believe in a mystic transmission of Jesus's love and message that transcends the Gospel, and in the soteriological imperative of faith. Good works are God's will, and the Gospel is God's word, mediated by man, but only faith is essential to salvation. Faith alone saves.

Each is given, and may choose to walk, his or her own path. For me, I feel He wants me to have faith, and to live my faith, and to let others live. If I can reach others through love, through charity, through faith, without telegraphing to them why I'm doing so, I believe and find I stand a better chance of being a vessel of the Divine than I do if I bespeak my faith, with or without resort to the Gospel. (Obviously, I'm tipping my hand here, but that's for didactic purpose, and I'm "preaching to the choir," as it were.) Love is divine, and forgiveness is divine, and loving and forgiving others, as I try yet fail and so try harder to do each day, is the Gospel, and is faith, and shows faith, and helps to save one's soul, and so too the souls of others, and that's evangelism for me, though I'm no evangelist -- just a sinner "trying to get to Heaven before they close the door." (Bob Dylan)

"Well God is in His Heaven
And we all want what's His
But power and greed and corruptible seed
Seem to be all that there is." -- Bob Dylan

"They talk about a life of brotherly love
Show me someone who knows how to live it." -- Bob Dylan

"And I'm still carrying the gift you gave
It's a part of me now; it's been cherished and saved
It'll be with me unto the grave
And into eternity." -- Bob Dylan

I do not believe scientific education is any part of our obligation, personally, and can only lead to disunity rather than unity. At least that's what I've seen in my experience. Also, I don't think that the book of Genesis is, exactly, the Good News. I think that is in the Gospel accounts, but the context of my concern is regarding Christians among each other.>

Certainly how Christians interact with other Christians is important, but this also affects our interaction with unbelievers.

If some Christians are running around claiming that the biblical account of Noah's Ark actually happened, then it behoves their brethren to tap them on the shoulder and say, "Umm, excuse me, but that's not quite right!" It's not so much scientific education that is any part of our obligation, but biblical education! Fundamentalism creates disunity, whether Christian or otherwise. The whole of the Bible is Good News when properly understood. That's the issue! The Gospel is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets beginning with Genesis.

<<Do you think it will be taken seriously in the 21st century?>

Yes, I do. Unbelievers believe far more difficult things to believe already. They believe that the universe just came into being, uncaused, out of nothing (not a state of nothing, but just nothingness). They believe that life came into being out of non life. Now just imagine if these were the requirements for believing in the Truth of Christianity!

I think the craziest thing of all is believing the universe just came into being uncaused. That is just intellectual bankruptcy. It's a basic metaphysical truth that nothing comes from nothing. Nothingness isn't even a state of nothingness.

In light of this I don't think that a literal reading of Genesis does any harm to the Gospels.

Unbelievers often times believe in lots of crazy things. Look at pagans. A lot of them actually believe in spells and magic and so on - even in the 21st century.>

What would you say if a biblical fundamentalist insisted to an atheist that to accept the Good News of Jesus Christ he would have to believe in the literal account of Creation, Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, The Flood, etc? Now just imagine if these were the requirements for believing in the Truth of Christianity!

Whilst a literal reading of Genesis does not specifically do any harm to the Gospels, I feel that it does undermine the credibility of Christianity in the modern world.

<<It is imperative that the Bible be properly understood and not misrepresented.>

Think about this. Just over a hundred years ago (actually, even until the 1960's when evidence of cosmic background radiation was growing), scientists often claimed that the universe just always existed.

Christians who adopted that view would have to correct the "misunderstanding" of the fundamentalists who believed there was a beginning, and those educated, scientific Christians would have been wrong, while the fundamentalist would have been right all along.

In fact, this is exactly how it went. For centuries the world's smartest scientists claimed that the universe was eternal and always existed. It wasn't until the big bang theory that modern cosmology realized what fundamentalist Christians have known all along - that there was a beginning.

Scientific Christians may or may not be in the same position today. We don't know, so I think these points are unimportant but tempting none the less.>

Have you asked a biblical fundamentalist about the big bang theory? They won't even accept the recent confirmation of gravitational waves! Did you see what happened on <playground player>'s forum when I introduced that topic? The fundamentalists simply pulled down the shutters and refused to even discuss it!

<<However, if the proper meaning and interpretation can be explained to them so that they no longer feel antipathy towards science, and thus have a better understanding of the Bible, then that must be of benefit to them, and to Christianity as a whole.>

Just remember, 100 years ago, the proper meaning and explanation was that the universe just always existed.>