Posted on 10/10/2004 9:34:59 AM PDT by UnklGene
I wish they would answer this great old puzzle.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
...it's always dangerous for a nation to see itself as God's appointed agent in the world....YOU ARE FRICKING RIGHT PROFESSOR SINCE THAT IS WHAT ISLAM BELIEVES AND THEY ARE DAMN DANGEROUS.
IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE ME MR. THEOLOGY PROFESSOR GO OVER THERE AND GO TELL THEM THAT YOU LOVE THEM SO...
THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE BULL EXCREMENT PART.
ARRRGGGG ! YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID!!!!!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.The professors oppose more than Bush's 'theology'.
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President . having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
where has the US DOJ been on this item? Remove KERRY from the Senate NOW!
Is Fuller a member of the "Revisionist Theology" Movement?
Jesus, who IS God, knows boundaries. God used nations' kings, boundaries and militaries quite frequently in Old Testament times, both for the discipline and restoration of His people.
A novel approach for the 20 signing "Professors" at Fuller; Check out the Bible, then spew forth your opinion.
Certainly, this isn't without historical precident.
If someone wants to be argumentative, they can spin almost anything their way. Just so much bull pucky.
Ok, I don't care if they are religious men, they are a#$wipes.
Why the Left Is Not Right --- The Religious Left: Who They Are and What They Believe by Ronald Nash
Book Review: Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - December 1997 by Doug Bandow
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3918
When it comes to religion and politics, most media attention is focused on the right. And it usually isn’t positive coverage. Religious conservatives are presented as threatening America’s constitutional balance, women’s right to choose, gays’ civil liberties, and much more.
Yet religious activism runs both ways. As Ronald Nash, a professor at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, notes in Why the Left Is Not Right, there is an active and diverse religious left in the United States. To be sure, these people, who once “proudly proclaimed their liberal or radical connections,” now “describe themselves as moderates and centrists,” notes Nash. But their policy positions remain unashamedly left-wing.
Nash divides the religious left into three parts: liberal mainline Protestants, liberal Catholics, and left-wing evangelicals. There’s no doubt where Nash stands. He argues that these groups have been used (willingly or unwillingly) by the Democrats for electoral purposes and have helped “demonize politically conservative Christians.” A prolific author and entertaining speaker, Nash obviously views himself as among the demonized right.
In his view, the central argument is not whether people of faith should be concerned about peace and justice, but what those terms mean. The evangelical left has appeared to have simply assumed the standard liberal understanding of the words and then discredited anyone (including their politically conservative brethren) who understood the terms differently and who pursued the objectives of peace and justice in a different way.
Perhaps the greatest value of Why the Left Is Not Right is that it shows how political activism by people of faith is neither new nor restricted to conservatives. Indeed, even as evangelicals were receiving exaggerated public attention for entering the political process, mainline Protestant denominations were promoting Democratic political causes domestically and communist revolutionary movements abroad. It is a story worth remembering when the media and political establishments pour obloquy on traditionally less active evangelicals and fundamentalists as they seek to protect themselves and their values from government intrusion.
Much the same politics has been on display within the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics were once “thoughtful enemies of secularism, humanism, and the liberal welfare state,” writes Nash. Many still are, but as Nash puts it, “large cracks have appeared in the political and social thinking of many educated Catholics.” The 1985 Pastoral Letter on the economy, for example, was as political as anything emanating from the Christian Coalition. Even more radical have been specific segments of the church, such as the Maryknoll Order.
However, Nash devotes most of his attention to the lesser-known left-wing evangelicalism. He argues that the New Left and “the adversary culture” of the 1960s spawned political liberalism among Protestants who purport to hold a more conservative, orthodox theological view. Nash focuses on three leading leftish evangelicals: Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine; Ron Sider, founder of Evangelicals for Social Action and author of Rich Christians in a World of Hunger; and Tony Campolo, sociology professor, well-published author, and presidential confidante.
The scrutiny is warranted, though Nash seems more skeptical of the trio’s good intentions than is justified. Wallis, for instance, lives his beliefs. Two decades ago Wallis moved his magazine to a poor section of Washington, D.C., and formed a community of the same name. At the same time, however, he has, as Nash points out, remained imbued with the leftist Zeitgeist of the 1960s. The boat people fleeing communist Vietnam, Wallis wrote, were leaving “to support their consumer habit in other lands.” Their departure should not be taken to “discredit” Vietnam. Wallis’s views toward Cuba and Nicaragua were similarly skewed.
Wallis’s economic opinions also were long solidly collectivist. The collapse of socialism abroad seems to have chastened himhe now calls himself centrist and asserts that he is independent of Democrats and Republicans alikebut he remains wedded to interventionist policies. Conservatives, Wallis charges, retain an “attachment to institutions of wealth and power, preference for the status quo, and the lack of a strong ethic of social responsibility.” Unfortunately, while Wallis now criticizes abuses by government, he underestimates how the activist state promotes concentrations of wealth and power, supports the status quo, and undermines social responsibility.
Similar is Nash’s case against Ron Sider. Sider is a gentle spirit who has borne substantial liberal criticism for his opposition to abortion and gay rights. Unfortunately, however, on economic policy he has always placed intentions before results. Thus, as Nash documents, Sider has long advocated the sort of government intervention that has been tried and found wanting throughout this century. While criticism is rife of the Christian Coalition for seemingly attaching itself to the GOP, Nash points out that “Ron Sider, the person who comes closest to being a moderate member of the evangelical Left, has himself spent years trying to elect liberal, typically Democratic, candidates to public office.”
Tony Campolo is probably the most public of the three, given his high-profile contacts with President Bill Clinton. Campolo also criticizes government, but seems committed to statist remedies when it comes to solving specific problems. Nash doesn’t stop his criticisms here, however; he goes on to question Campolo’s evangelical credentials, given the latter’s views on such issues as abortion, feminism, and the environment.
Through his analysis, which concludes with chapters on economics and poverty, Nash shows how even the best-intentioned of religious believers can come up with solutions inimical to the interests of those they wish to serve. But Nash, who has been on the receiving end of endless left-wing barbs, puts an unnecessary edge in his own analysis. Perhaps nothing irritates Nash more than the evangelical left’s flirtation with Bill Clinton.
Yet the opinions of Wallis, Sider, and Campolo reflect ignorance rather than malice. I’ve met and debated all three. All want to help those in need, seem to have been affected by the decline of statism, and were willing to acknowledge contrary arguments. They deserve to be criticized, not demonized.
Why the Left Is Not Right deals seriously with an important subject. Despite the public perception that religious activists gravitate toward the right, many people of faith have embraced collectivist remedies despite the ill effects on those most in need. In short, Nash’s basic thesis is correct: the left is not right.
Zondervan • 1996 • 222 pages
Doug Bandow, a nationally syndicated columnist, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).
Matthew 5:14-16 (NIV)
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. [15] Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. [16] In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
I thinke the context in the above still matches the President's quote and Reagans and they are the words of Jesus....
The Fuller folks have forgotten, if you are in Christ, you are the light...
I'm not saying if Jesus would or would not have agreed with the War on Iraq, my belief is that he raises up nations and tears them down. Unrigteousness in Iraq and it's leadership was and is demonic. Daniel witnessed the work of the Prince of Persia, when he was at th Tigris river.
If this leads to a more stable situation for Israel in the long run, I know God is behind it. Look at the situation. Iran is now isolated. They have Aghanistan on one side and Iraq on the other. We have troops in both nations, as well as Kuwait and Qatar.
Libya suddenly is becoming more reasonable
Syria is now cut off from support from Iraq. We now have the region so cut up that none would be in a position to
attack Israel with any real hope of success.
Don't know, sounds like it might be God to me.
Hmm I am guessing the serviceman's oath would apply here.
I am sure that negotiation for the communists would also apply!
I AGREE, REMOVE KERRY FROM THE SENATE
Dear Professors:
GET A JOB!!!
Unlike President Bush, The Religious Left have a *Relativistic Worldview*
Exactly! I regret to say that is what our son turned out to be after attending Fuller.
I wouldn't trust this group of retards to wash my imaginary cat.
And I hate that cat.
President's Office Phone: 626-584-5204
E-mail: pres-asst@dept.fuller.edu
These silly anti-war professors seem to be always with us, like warts. Their lack of political judgment is an embarassment to the Christian community and to all informed conservatives. It would be interesting to know to what extent they protested the persecution of Christians in Africa, or for that matter, what stand they have taken on the abortion holocaust.
Fuller Theological Seminary
135 N. Oakland Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91182
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.