Thinking to Believe

Elizabeth at the Life Training Institute blog writes of the double standard in the media regarding abortion.  When later-term abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered by a pro-life man a few months ago, it was a media frenzy.  Everybody was talking about it, and speculating that this may be an intimation of where the pro-life movement is heading. 

Last Friday, when a 63 year old pro-life activist, Jim Pouillon, was killed by a pro-choicer in Michigan because he didn’t like the man’s pro-life sign (which had a baby on it with the words “life”), crickets could be heard chirping in the major media.  No one was suggesting that this is an intimation of the future of the pro-choice movement. 

I don’t doubt for a moment that the major media published the daylights out of the George Tiller murder because they knew it would tarnish the pro-life cause, but are mum on the pro-lifer’s murder because that would tarnish their own cause.  I guess news is whatever they say it is!  

Every denomination or religious tradition has its doctrinal peculiarities.  Not only may these be unique to the religious tradition in question, but they are often thought of as strange to outsiders.  Usually these doctrinal peculiarities are based on some Biblical text, but they either distort that text, fail to read it in light of other texts, or overemphasize it to the point that it becomes a distortion.  And yet, people who were raised in that tradition not only accept it as true, but will work up all the intellectual muster they can in defense of it.  While they manage to convince themselves with their reasons, they often fail to convince most others.

We need to be on guard that we do not become so intent on protecting all the teachings/traditions of our own particular religious tradition, that we will come up with, and actually settle for subpar arguments in their favor.  Are there things we believe and argue for simply because they are part of our religious tradition – things we would not believe if we were raised in a different tradition, and would not be persuaded of if presented with the same evidence that we use to justify the teaching/tradition?

(more…)

Please note, I updated this post on 9/26/09 to make some needed changes and clarifications per reader feedback.

Given my last post, I thought it would be helpful to examine some of the historic Christian creeds, showing which parts are acceptable to Oneness Pentecostals (black font), which parts are not (strikethrough), which parts are questionable (red font), followed by some brief comments.

A little bit about my method: The parts I have struck out, I have struck out because I cannot agree with the terminology.  The parts I have kept, I have kept because I can agree with the terminology, even if I do not mean the same thing by those words as the drafters of these creeds meant by those words.  Furthermore, by striking out some words, I did not necessarily intend to create a new context, so do not try to read through the creeds using only the words that remain, thinking that it will make sense on its own.  In some cases it will, but in other cases it will not.

I’ll begin with the Apostles’ Creed:

Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

(more…)