(This week topics were prepared by Chris Eyre.)
Not so likely Trump now, but Cruz?
I know there’s history of people’s pastors views resulting in them being given a hard time, but really?
Also, Cruz has declared himself opposed to the system he’ll have to work with and has been instrumental in stopping it working in the past. Is he a fit candidate?
Plus http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/, and Trump’s comments about Christianity http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266234-trump-christianity-under-siege
On the democratic side, we do not see so much mention of Christianity. Is this a good or a bad thing? Is Iowa actually a win for Bernie, and might he get the nomination?
Elgin and myself were talking about methodological as opposed to metaphysical naturalism last week, and didn’t finish; we could return to that.
Also left over was, from Henry:-
“I would also note the posts on a multiplicity of interpretations of scripture as a possible subject if you go to the logic behind it. Steve Kindle posted the ‘Yes’ and Edward Vick was rather hard on the ‘Yes’ position (his post appears tomorrow). Let me give a sample:
That there is a multitude of teachings derived from the Bible should not be taken to imply that none of them is worthy of belief and so the effort to discover which are to be accepted is not a worthy activity. It is the result of bad logic, an example of non sequitur. Does the proponent really mean to suggest that the more interpretations there are the less any are likely to be reasonable? Or, is it not rather the unwillingness to be involved in expending a great deal of effort in the quest?
I would think that would also be a useful topic, even though not so much political. Yet it has an impact on society.”
Full circle? Historically the Democrats have been the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK. In the 1960s they changed and started accusing the Republicans of being racist for not supporting race based policies. Are these policies coming full circle?
Allan and Steve Kindle have expressed differing views about atonement theories this week.
I have been very critical of substitutionary theories, especially PSA, in the past; those I definitely think are no longer fit for purpose.