Reformed and Loving It

Expectations in our modern world for church worshi...

2010-03-10T04:37:53.488-07:00

Expectations in our modern world for church worship include entertainment. But how are we actively engaged in the preaching? Often I like to talk with my pastor about what I learned after the service and I also take notes on a small notebook computer. I don't expect just to be entertained on Sundays, nor to make the sermon my only interaction with Scripture for the whole week. Preach the Word. Yep, I hope to be fed.

I also must add, on the point of 'ad populum', nei...

2010-03-08T17:40:40.814-07:00

I also must add, on the point of 'ad populum', neither the atheist or theist has a leg to stand on under this 'fallacy', technically speaking.

(Personally, I do not consider this a true fallacy, as all arguments would fall under this category.)

The difference is, the theist position has no evidence whatsoever to back a single supernatural claim.

In comparison, the atheist or scientific perspective can apply historical fact and mathematics to display a rational conclusion.

Hence why establishing critical thinking skills/rationality is crucial in freeing oneself from the 'god' delusion.

Hence why religion teaches its victims to never question it's origins or validity....and just to 'accept it without evidence'.

Hence why there is ABSOLUTELY no difference in the terms and processes of 'faith', and 'gullibility'.

Chew on that one for a moment.

Famous Dave's, I'll have you know was Minnesota gr...

2010-03-06T19:00:19.493-07:00

Famous Dave's, I'll have you know was Minnesota grown. I've met the owner on a couple of occasions.

Great the family is together. The trip out sounded...

2010-03-06T13:54:38.228-07:00

Great the family is together. The trip out sounded great too. Don't hurt your back unpacking.

Heather, Thanks for correcting my misuse of "chal...

2010-03-05T23:51:46.177-07:00

Heather,

Thanks for correcting my misuse of "chalk". I was most edified.

You were addressing Joe in your comments but I did not write anything regarding ad populum. But since you made the assertion...

"Theism is rife with ad populum, as it is a marketing tool for conversion. i.e., "Look around, can this many Christians all be wrong and you alone be correct?"

I was wondering if there was some theist in particular that you were thinking of when you wrote that.

I suppose one could say that a secular humanist teacher/professor in say a public school or institution of "higher education" might use the ad populum argument as a sales tool for "conversion" to atheism. i.e.,"Look around, can this many people with soooo much erudition all be wrong and you alone be correct?" Your statement sounded more like a slam to me.

I agree, the burden of proof does rest with the one making the claim but the burden has to be defined by the antagonist and should be evaluated for its proper use of logical relevance to the claim. I think this is why Kevin asked Jim...

"Still, out of curiosity, I must ask, what evidence would you accept for the existence of God?"

It is curious to me that you failed to mention anything about DNA molecules mysteriously leaving their natural course and out of this entirely different species form, along with the analogy of leprechauns, unicorns, and the dark side of the moon. It can't be observed and so the scientific method cannot be applied. This too seems a bit on the supernatural side and one might even need a kind of faith to beleive it. Kind of like alchemists trying to make gold out of lead.

"Joe said... It sounds like you value liberty and ...

2010-03-05T05:54:53.527-07:00

"Joe said... It sounds like you value liberty and survival? Why?"

- Is this a real question? Are you saying you do not value your survival, or your families survival and liberty?

"Joe said... In your view, what is liberty? Is it good? What is your definition of good or do you use this term in a moral sense? What terms would you use to evaluate this and why?

- Joe, I'm sorry, but no matter how many times you try to circumvent this point it will not change from my original statement. Our morality is based on moral codes that promote survival and balanced liberty, as they are clearly beneficial to us. You do understand it is better to live than die, right? You do understand it is better to have freedom, than not, right? If you do not understand these general definitions of 'liberty' then it's your duty to research it. As I've clearly stated, I use general terms here, not some left-field definitions.

The main point here is that your claimed codes of morality, of being from supernatural origin, or their superiority, are not backed by any conclusive evidence whatsoever. Therefore, to teach/tell people they are 'truth' and the 'the way', when you can supply no evidence, is clearly deceptive and immoral.

Perhaps you only adopted the Christian dogma because your parents were of the same religion? Or you simply wanted to 'fit in' with your social circles, without giving it's validity (or lack thereof) much question?

"Joe said... For example, do you feel slavery, rape, murder, or genocide is 'moral'? - The bible clearly condones these actions in the Mosaic Laws, (OT and NT refs.), and even gives instructions in HOW to exercise these actions, including how to kill infants by smashing them on rocks, or smashing rocks into your particularly 'hated' human target. (aka stoning)" - Where does the bible condone these things? Where does it give instructions on how to exercise these actions?"

- Joe, please read your bible. The Mosaic Laws, Exodus, Leviticus, Duet., etc.. Surely, you have not overlooked the massive amounts of verses in which these actions are condoned, commanded, or praised as 'good' in the eyes of your assumed god.

Example - "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock." Psalms 137:9 NSV

The bible even condones killing an entire town if just one nonbeliever or false prophet is found there. (ref. Deut 13.)

"Joe said... If it does, is this immoral? If so, why?"

- Because its proponents have NO evidence to back these claimed origins, their morality, and it goes against our survival and liberty. They are murderous fascists actions, and there is NO WAY to properly justify such actions. They are simply guessing at its validity, and have never offered conclusive evidence to its truthfulness, or even it's claims being purely original.

"Joe said... How would you define supernatural?"

- As any rational person would do Joe. Any system that acts independently of our natural system, meaning outside the laws of physics, as by some assumed miraculous event or force. I certainly hope you are simply not going to ask me to define all these general terms for you after I have emphasized I only use general terms.

So, I have outlined certain reasons why the bible is immoral, and even invalid as a proper, justified system of morality.

Therefore, it is my turn to ask you...how do you justify the immoral verses of the bible, and it's 'claimed' codes of morality as being superior?

Also see - "The Origin and History of the Doctrine...

2010-03-05T05:54:15.352-07:00

Also see - "The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment" by Thomas B. Thayer, 1855. "The Christ Conspiracy", "Suns of God," and "Jesus as the Sun Throughout History" by Acharya S.

"Joe said... How would you define religion?"

- Religion is any system that uses faith based initiates to persuade, manipulate, or motivate others using assumed supernatural ideologies based on the belief of a deity, or deified figures.

"Joe said... The bible is an immoral book created by immoral men, and not god inspired." - When you wrote this did you mean it in the absolute sense?

- We'll never get anywhere here if you can't get past the previous statement where I said I do not deal in absolutes. Therefore, no. However, one does not need to know each author in person to see their immoral agendas in the text of the bible. As for the term 'god inspired', I mean this in the sense of direct influence by a deity...and not in a delusional, or metaphorical sense.

"Joe said... Where does the Bible say that Christians should kill their disobedient children?

- Come on Joe. You've surely read these passages in the Mosaic Laws and other parts that condone such actions and know the bible contains such verses. Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 22:20-21, 2 Kings 2:23-24, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Isaiah 14:21, etc., etc.

"Joe said... If I did kill my children for being disobedient, would that be immoral in your view? If so, why?"

- Perhaps I should ask you first. Why would this NOT be immoral in your eyes? Perhaps your answer will give us the evidence we're looking for here...in that religion brainwashes it's hapless victims into believing it is moral, or somehow how fine to murder in the name of an assumed god, instead of offering forgiveness, a second chance, or a lesson learned. So, go ahead. Condone these actions for us in your own words. I would surely consider that a victory towards my premise. And no, the contradictory verses of forgiveness in the NT do not rectify the OT commandments and condonements. They only stand as evidence the bible is contradictory, errant, and purely man-made.

"Joe said... Are your definitions for morality better than any other definitions?"

- If your definitions consistently end in the death of innocents, attempt to teach unproven doctrines/pseudoscience, or result in fascist actions due to beliefs that you cannot back with evidence, then yes, my definitions would be better for our survival and liberty (aka morality). Morality, no matter how you slice it, is based on survival of our species, and the communal liberties of our species. In comparison, religious morality has no evidence to back its claims of being 'god inspired', or from any supernatural origin whatsoever. Therefore, I ask you the same question...why do you assume your faith based biblical morality is superior?

"Joe said... If so, what standard do you use to establish this? Something of your own making?"

- You mean as opposed to getting yours from a unknown source/book, yet still following your own moral codes? Come on Joe, don't step in hypocritical quicksand here and not expect me to call you on it. Clearly, if you have children, and did not kill them for their disobedience, you have chosen your OWN moral codes over the bible's commandments. I've already stated, all cultures, including YOURS makes it's own moral codes. Where your codes differ from mine is that you claim yours come from an assumed supernatural origin, and yet you have no evidence to back up those claims, or links to anything supernatural. Therefore, for you to push those codes and beliefs on others and tell them it is 'truth', when you clearly have no idea of its origin or its truthfulness, is immoral and even deceptive by very definition.

If you disagree with this last statement, please explain.

"Among educated Christians Protestant Christians a...

2010-03-05T05:53:29.793-07:00

"Among educated Christians Protestant Christians at least the best minds are ashamed of hell today. They profess to accept the teaching of Jesus, but they must put their own interpretation upon what he is supposed to have said. By the aid of their new interpretations they have constructed a new hell which has nothing in common with the old except the name. It took the Church ten centuries to reject a hell of torment for unbaptized infants and construct a painless limbus for them; and it has taken nearly another ten centuries to reject a hell of torment for adults and construct for them a limbus free from physical pain. There is no doubt that the more enlightened and far-sighted among the clergy would be glad to dispense altogether with this immoral dogma of hell; there must be many today who realize the truth of what F. W. Newman said fifty years ago, that " the weight of hell will totally sink Christianity if it is not cut away "; but they are faced with the difficulty that heaven and hell stand or fall together. If you cut away hell, heaven goes also. In the recent symposium referred to in a previous chapter, it was generally agreed that " belief in hell rests upon precisely the same ground as belief in heaven " if you reject the one, you cannot retain the other. Without heaven and hell without the promise of salvation and the threat of damnation the occupation of the priesthood would be gone ; hence even the enlightened clergy cling desperately to the husks of hell, while they strive to divest it of all its ancient terrors. One result of all this has been a serious development of the most barefaced, if unconscious, hypocrisy. "

"Although educated Protestants no longer believe in hell themselves and are ashamed of it, they are not ashamed to force it on the schools to be taught to little children ; they are not ashamed to teach it to primitive people ; a magistrate upon the Bench is not ashamed to ask a child, too young to be sworn, whether he knows " where he will go if he tells a lie?" How can the clergy justify this teaching to the credulous and immature of ideas which they themselves stigmatize as grotesque? The Foreign Bible Society boasts that it issues the Bible in hundreds of translations and sends it even to the rude hill tribes of India. The Church Missionary Society asks for ,100,000 to propagate the faith. The Gospel Tract societies issue tracts with lurid titles, such as Straight to Hell, Everlasting Destruction, and Are You Afraid to Die? By what right of honour and good faith do all these persons continue their maleficent work of corrupting the minds of little children and trustful peoples with horrible ideas which the more enlightened Christians at home reject and repudiate ? Protestants may no longer believe in the reality of eternal punishment, but many millions of pounds are sent every year from this country, from the United States, from Canada, and from Australia, to carry the fear of hell to the heathen, despite the testimony of missionary after missionary that it is a hindrance rather than a help to conversion ; that the educated natives of India refuse to believe in the dogma of unending suffering ; that " the thought that their ancestors would be burning in hell is for these poor Santhals a terrible incubus "; that the Chinese delight to use it to discomfit the Christian missionaries."

"The struggle for religious liberty and intellectual freedom is a long one. Its beginnings are lost in the unwritten records of the martyrdom of obscure men and women who ventured to rely upon their reason rather than put their faith in the dogmas coined by priests. Much has been gained, but the crowning victory is still to win a victory which can only come with the recognition that the happiness of mankind is founded upon what a man does, not upon what he believes ; that, contrary to all Christian teaching, Conduct is everything, Belief nothing. "

con'td.....

To reference the book, "The Christian Hell: From T...

2010-03-05T05:52:29.829-07:00

To reference the book, "The Christian Hell: From The First To The Twentieth Century", by H.B.Bonner -

"ALTHOUGH a hell of punishment for sinners has been regarded as so essential a part of Christianity that Justin Martyr declared that if there was no hell there was no God, (1) and Chrysostom said that it is because God is good that he has prepared a hell, (2) nevertheless the Christian hell is in no sense an original conception. It is merely an intensification of the later classic hell, which was itself a graft of Eastern origin. We find the earliest traces of the idea in the account of the descent of Ishtar, the Babylonian Venus, into the land of No-return, in search of her lover Tammuz ; and more vividly in the nightly descent of the Egyptian Sun God and the journey of the souls with him through the underworld, the terrors overcome, the weighing of souls before Osiris, the judgment, and the punishment of the wicked. We may trace it in the awful torments of the souls of the Hindu dead, the ghastly horrors of the later (corrupt) ."

"Buddhist hells, and the Zoroastrian punishment of the accursed. The earliest hells, however, were not places of punishment ; they were, like Sheol, abodes of the more or less silent dead, "where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest." Virgil's hell lasted a thousand years ; the Christian hell endures for ever and ever. Pluto became transformed into Satan, the Furies became demons, Hades was replaced by the bottomless pit, and the fiery river Phlegethon turned into the lake of brimstone and fire. "

"But, although a hell of some kind or another is common to all religions, and they all exhibit marked similarities in the nature of the punishment allotted to sinners after death, there are three important particulars in which the Christian hell differs from every other, and in these Christianity reached a pinnacle of ferocity and moral insensibility never attained before or since in any religion known to mankind. The three points in which Christianity thus stands out from other religions is in (1) the doctrine of the absolute eternity of punishment, (2) the joy felt by the blessed at the sight of the torments of the damned, and (3) the damnation of infants."

"The ethics of mankind should be built upon the rock of reason, not upon the shifting sands of cowardice. The ultimate result of intimidation, whether in politics, religion, or social matters, is that the strong, the brave, and the reckless will to a greater or less extent disregard any threats which stand in the way of what they think right or what they desire. It is only the feeble who can be disciplined by the rod in the cupboard ; and even they, in their hour of passion, are apt to find a temporary courage which enables them to disregard all risks. Intimidation may also restrain for a time men of low intelligence, but it has no permanent value."

cont'd..

Sorry for the delay. Work has been a real monster ...

2010-03-05T05:50:30.424-07:00

Sorry for the delay. Work has been a real monster the past couple of weeks and I wanted to make sure I responded in full...

"Joe said... How do you differentiate between a general truth and an absolute?"

- Absolute truth entails knowing our origins, and if there is a creator, the creators origins, etc. It would be the all encompassing knowledge of all. A general truth by comparison only exists in a temporary frame of reference, or completely relative to it's place in time and space. Also by comparison, if I were to say, "No one knows absolute truth", while this sounds like an 'absolute statement', it does not entail an unchangeable potentiality, or a statement of absolute truth. So, just for the record, 'general absolute statements' are NOT a form of an 'absolute truth'. They only entail a general truth.

"Joe said... Would you say morality based on zeitgeist is a convention of a culture? That is to say, something people just agree upon for their mutual benefit."

- Generally speaking, yes. Although, as we all know, cultural norms can be radically different based on their particular traditions.

"Joe said... AND massive evidence TO support that it was added by the Roman Catholic Church in order to scare Pagans into conversion around 3-6 B.C." -Is this scholarship that you have personally done? What evidence would you site for this?"

- Yes, you simply have to look over previous translations of the bible, the original Hebrew, and in comparison to previous 'sun-god' myths from Egyptian origin that predate the Christian version of 'hell' by many centuries. If you look back over the original Hebrew bible, the references to a 'fire and brimstone' hell do not arise until this era, and evolves over time up through the time of Constantine and Dante's 'Inferno', and even up to the time of the KJV.

Originally, there are only references relating to theosis or damnation, a separation from god, a grave, underworld, or even the Valley of Gehenna (Hinnom) in which a constant fire of refuse and dead bodies were disposed. This 'eternal fire' was developed later into the 'fire and brimstone' hell we see in the KJV. The OT word that was later translated into 'hell' was 'sheol', which simply meant pit, 'grave', place of the dead, and was later translated into 'Hades', which by translation itself, added a context of being destroyed or destruction. (Some say decay of dead bodies), whereas the NT uses Hinnom. From The Apocrypha, B.C.150-500, to the time of Justin Martyr A.D., 140-166 we see no mention of the term Gehenna being translated as 'hell'. In fact, only John and Jesus used this exact term, and only to the Jews, never the Gentiles, which entails a locality of the Hinnon Valley.

cont'd...

Kevin, Congrats on the move to CO. May God bless...

2010-03-01T05:29:16.056-07:00

Kevin,

Congrats on the move to CO. May God bless your ministry there. Does this mean future Twin Lakes Fellowships will be hard to come by? Hope not.

Paul Bankson
Warner Robins, GA

Joe, for your edification, the expression is "choc...

2010-02-24T12:25:48.816-07:00

Joe, for your edification, the expression is "chock-full" not chalk full, unless you intend to draw a hopscotch game.

Secondly, Jim was correct about the "ad populum" definition. The fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular theory is true.

For instance: "Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea."
Or
"Nine out of ten of my fellow congressmen favor the bill, therefore it is a good idea."

It does not mean, as you stated, that because someone else said it, it must be true.

Theism is rife with ad populum, as it is a marketing tool for conversion. i.e., "Look around, can this many Christians all be wrong and you alone be correct?"

The statement of burden is completely logical and irrefutable, as the burden of proof does lie with the person making the claim. i.e., If I told you Leprechauns were riding unicorns in the center of a crater on the dark side of the moon, would you take my word for it? No, you would probably ask me to provide the source of this information. I could hardly blame you, as extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. You must admit, talking snakes, rising from the dead, walking on water, creating a universe in 6 days, et cetera, are some pretty fantastic claims with the only source being an ancient collection of books.

Jim may have been a bit overzealous with his delivery, but his logic seems sound.

Alan, How do you differentiate between a general ...

2010-02-23T21:07:36.376-07:00

Alan,

How do you differentiate between a general truth and an absolute?

Would you say morality based on zeitgeist is a convention of a culture? That is to say, something people just agree upon for their mutual benefit.

"AND massive evidence TO support that it was added by the Roman Catholic Church in order to scare Pagans into conversion around 3-6 B.C." -Is this scholarship that you have personally done? What evidence would you site for this?

How would you define religion?

"The bible is an immoral book created by immoral men, and not god inspired." - When you wrote this did you mean it in the absolute sense?

Where does the Bible say that Christians should kill their disobedient children?

If I did kill my chldren for being disobedient, would that be immoral in your view? If so, why?

Are your definitions for morality better than any other definitions?

If so, what standard do you use to establish this? Something of your own making?

It sounds like you value lberty and survival? Why?

In your view, what is liberty? Is it good? What is your dfinition of good or do you use this term in a moral sense? What terms would you use to evaluate this and why?

"For example, do you feel slavery, rape, murder, or genocide is 'moral'?

The bible clearly condones these actions in the Mosaic Laws, (OT and NT refs.), and even gives instructions in HOW to exercise these actions, including how to kill infants by smashing them on rocks, or smashing rocks into your particularly 'hated' human target. (aka stoning)"

Where does the bible condone these things? Where does it give instructions on how to exercise these actions?

If it does, is this immoral? If so, why?

How would you define supernatural?

You should totally use this for the John 3.17 week...

2010-02-22T22:19:19.851-07:00

You should totally use this for the John 3.17 week! We can get the LCD hooked up to the sound system. :)

We'll see...so, until then... Be safe in your tra...

2010-02-22T17:37:39.817-07:00

We'll see...so, until then...

Be safe in your travels. Peace.

Alan, I am out of state for a week and have littl...

2010-02-22T17:27:33.041-07:00

Alan,

I am out of state for a week and have little time to post. I'll get back with you soon.

I will say this, however, the "problems" you have raised with the morality of the Bible are not really problems. I'll be happy to go through them one by one upon my return.

Hi Joe, Firstly, I claim no 'absolutes', on anyth...

2010-02-22T17:22:33.705-07:00

Hi Joe,

Firstly, I claim no 'absolutes', on anything. I only use general norms and definitions here. That's religion's fallacious role...in claiming 'absolutes', not mine.

But, on the 'might make right' statement...no, it doesn't make right, per se. And, claiming an assumed 'all powerful' god who threatens people with a made-up hell concept is the epitome of the false 'might', that many assume, despite the obvious lack of evidence to support it, AND massive evidence TO support that it was added by the Roman Catholic Church in order to scare Pagans into conversion around 3-6 B.C.

Secondly, my personal definitions of morality are perhaps inconsequential to you ultimately. However, I will offer my personal def. for sake of debate...

Morality, can be seen as the social 'checks and balances' to support our survival, and the liberties of said survival. For, every action that is considered 'moral or immoral' is simply a reflection of a particular threat or boon to our survival, or our liberty.

Therefore, we will have contradicting, evolving, and speculative claims upon what is moral or immoral, so we chose according to our culture and particular societal norms. (Historically speaking).

What is considered 'immoral' (eg. nudity, sex, cannibalism, eating habits, etc.) can be considered 'tradition', and even 'sacred', in another culture.

Therefore, it is the zeitgeist of the particular area that truly defines it's morality.

Concepts such as 'good and evil' are man-made constructions that normally entail 'salvation/damnation' ideologies. Unfortunately, these religious definitions are purely speculative in being linked to a 'supernatural force'.

This includes concepts such as 'karma' or 'god given free will'. Both, man-made concepts used to manipulate or force social constraints...sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

So, thirdly, to answer your question of does 'logic/empiricism' offer irrefutable definitions of 'absolute' morality....no, of course not. Absolute 'morality' is an impossible concept, despite religions attempts and claims.

However, to claim it is 'certain' that a god has given us the 10 Commandments as a guide, or even 'free will' would be a failing assumption, and on many levels.

For example, do you feel slavery, rape, murder, or genocide is 'moral'?

The bible clearly condones these actions in the Mosaic Laws, (OT and NT refs.), and even gives instructions in HOW to exercise these actions, including how to kill infants by smashing them on rocks, or smashing rocks into your particularly 'hated' human target. (aka stoning)

The bible even says we should KILL our disobedient children.

So, I ask you...
1. Do you have children.
2. Have they ever been disobedient?
3. Did you do as commanded and kill them, if so?
4. If not, why did you disobey your assumed god's clear commandments?

So, as for morality, and our own 'personal definitions' and actions...how are you doing any different than the 'nonbelievers' in picking your own moral codes?

Alan, I've been reading this thread and noticed th...

2010-02-21T22:43:24.900-07:00

Alan, I've been reading this thread and noticed that you have claimed that the scriptures and the men who wrote them were immoral. How do you define morality? It seems that any definition of morality is chalk full of presuppositions. Who is to say that your definitions for morality are better than anyone elses? It seems the best an atheist/agnostic worldview could offer is arbitrary. Can logic/empiricism offer definitions for right and wrong, good and evil?
I don't see how these worldviews can offer an understanding of such absolutes. Does might make right?

Good blog brother. Keep up the good work. Feel fre...

2010-02-19T23:23:17.779-07:00

Good blog brother. Keep up the good work. Feel free to visit my blog anytime for daily conservative commentary.

http://www.hackwilson.blogspot.com

Try going directly to http://www.creedcodecult.com...

2010-02-19T08:36:11.080-07:00

Try going directly to http://www.creedcodecult.com/

That's odd. I clicked on it just now and it went t...

2010-02-19T08:34:51.709-07:00

That's odd. I clicked on it just now and it went to the right spot...

When I click on your link to the website. It send...

2010-02-19T08:31:33.661-07:00

When I click on your link to the website. It sends me to GoDaddy.

I agree with you about music, Adam. What was intri...

2010-02-19T06:16:36.273-07:00

I agree with you about music, Adam. What was intriguing to me about the article was how, when you removed the Christian markers, a pagan worship service was indistinguishable from a Christian one.

Well, at least he admits that he is painting with ...

2010-02-18T21:49:36.111-07:00

Well, at least he admits that he is painting with too broad a brush. I do think that worship may or may not look different around the globe (to the naked eye) depending on where you are, what church you are in, etc. But, as the RPW insists on certain elements of worship, there is no laws on how those things may be carried out in worship...ie, singing of psalms and hymns (and spiritual songs, which the Bible says but not the RPW--which is for another time ;)). God gives us the tune names to many of the Psalms, but why doesn't He provide us with the tune itself? Because it's not the tune He is concerned with. So, in the end, I see no problem with a rock-n-roll type style to the music in worship, as long as the words are true to the Word of God. :o)On the other hand, adding a mixture of hymns and Fleetwood Mac? Well, that's a different story.

Indeed, it was an interesting read, and a subject very close to my heart. Thanks for pointing it out to your fellow bloggers!

blessings brother,
Adam

Perhaps we should establish our initial premise on...

2010-02-17T17:49:19.699-07:00

Perhaps we should establish our initial premise on which to debate?

I suppose mine would be -

The bible is an immoral book created by immoral men, and not god inspired.

Or, something similar.

Care to add a counter premise?