Sells

You've got me there!

As entertainment, my realised eschatology certainly is pretty mild by comparison with the apocalyptic extravagances of your average evangelical (let alone charismatic) preacher. It does, however, have a certain immediacy and contemporary relevance. Better to be 'bland' and relevant than to waste one's breath preaching theological arcana to audiences who neither understand nor care.

It is worth pointing out that, in a world primed for apocalyptic sentiment, Jesus was actually crucified for His prophetic ministry and not for any apocalyptic proclamation. Prophetic eschatology is directed towards a future to be realised in this world in the form of a just and caring society. Apocalyptic eschatology, on the other hand, is other-worldy and concerned the 'end-time', judgement and personal salvation. I stand unrepentantly on the side of prophetic eschatology.

You accuse liberals of being 'bland' and ineffective on the one hand and on the other you accuse them of 'castrating the church' which hardly seems bland at all. This sounds 'to me' like a desperate and confused attempt to discredit liberalism.

Liberalism is obviously 'potent' enough to elicit powerful and emotional responses from evangelicals and conservatives like yourself. How bland is that?

Well said, Oliver.

Trav, do you believe, then, that Dawkins would remain a convinced atheist if God Himself descended from heaven, said unto the wicked scientist, "I am God from the Bible and I am VERY real", brought suffering to an end upon the Earth, and smote Dawkins with a bolt of lightning?

make no apology for using the word liberal. I know it lacks specificity but there is no other word that fits what I am trying to describe. I first came across it in the Restoration church in England where prominent bishops sat very easily with Christian doctrine as a means of healing the eruptions of the civil war and Cromwell's commonwealth. I can see how theological terms gradually lost their content and how tolerance was elevated over orthodoxy. This eventually led to the 19th C during which, the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, became an empty concept within Protestantism and a mystery to Rome. I am with Barth who was the first great post liberal who restored orthodox theological language and concepts.

But I still see in both the Anglican and the Uniting Churches liberalism at work sapping the life out of Christian theology in an attempt to cosy up to modernity and save the church. I see myself as a reformed liberal that is on the way to being cleansed from it. I think liberalism is the enemy of the church in our time and the sooner we relearn how to think in robust theological terms the better. Liberalism has let so much go that was too hard and too hard to get across to our society that there is little left of interest.

My aim is not to divide and rule but to accurately describe the malaise of the church in our time. It is only when we understand where we are that we can begin to retrieve the theology of the early church and observe how it may be translated into our time.

Waterboy betrayed himself by calling God "She" in response, no doubt to the feminist movement. While this again sounds very understanding it corrupts the basic language about God so that the doctrine of the Trinity no longer makes sense. Examples such as this abound, key dogmas of the church are changed to suit the fashion of the day, that is what liberalism does!

Sancho, that's a completely irrelevant question.

Oliver, it's getting increasingly difficult to discern any logical thought progressions in your posts. Dawkins is an atheist. We have already established that. Whether or not he thinks he is "infallible", whatever that means, is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is an atheist or not.

If you're going to keep rabbiting on about this obscure notion of infallibility which you've, for some unknown reason (thus far) introduced into the discussion, you'll need to clearly spell out it's relevance.

trav, oliver, sancho: can't we all just get along and beat up on sellick?

trav, you are of course right, that for all intents and purposes dawkins is an atheist. but dawkins himself makes a distinction between a very strong *belief* that there is no god, as opposed to claiming to *know* it.

dawkins' standard analogy is the teapot orbiting mars. He does not believe that there is a teapot orbiting mars, but he cannot know whether this is true or not. dawkins refers to himself as a teapot atheist.

i actually find the distinction of little use, but this is the relevance of sancho's question. if someone gave dawkins a photo of mars's teapot, or if a guy with a grey beard started throwing lighting bolts, dawkins could and presumably would change his beliefs.

Sells,

Having exposed your extreme orthodox catholic roots, I can see why your posts seem to eschew any modernist thinking post Gallileo.

Your intolerant views while understandable given the archaic mindset from which they orignate, are generally not welcome, any more than that of an islamic fundementalist.

PS. the earth revolves around the sun.