Plus. This is how Fischer makes his living. He doesn’t mean a word of it.

Jayhuck said, If you want to get into a discussion about theology, we should probably start another thread.

Would you be willing to start that thread, Jayhuck; especially, with hermeneutics as our tool?

I would not be qualified, and as David B suggested, we should probably stay on target 😉 BTW, David, I enjoyed your SW reference 🙂

There is a justifiable reason to use ideology to interpret science and public policy. It is nearly unavoidable on all sides of the debate.

World views effect the way we interpret science, the way we set up scientific inquiry and this is even more true of public policy.

“Twisting” science to fit a world view seems unavoidable…but it can be acknowledged or “confessed.” In so doing the consumer is protected.

Need to post on Obama’s reversal of DOMA.

You are making a sound observation here. Most of the advocacy groups who get into trouble when making public policy statements do not have an advisory board of academics who can help evaluate the accuracy of the claims. People who have no training in evaluating the studies they cite can make significant errors.

Often even when people with advanced degrees are brought in, it is because they already are sympathetic to the position taken and bend the science to the fit the desired conclusion.

I disagree with you about the so-called “compilers” of the NT – but I think you have the sentiment right. Fischer is an abomination 🙂 If you want to get into a discussion about theology, we should probably start another thread

In keeping with my nature to blame systems for the co-creation of problems highlighted by the bad behavior of a “leader,” let me suggest the following:

Christian Universities with highly qualified departments of Education, Psychology, History and Missiology could quickly and easily disqualify the absurd assertions of someone like Fischer.

Only recently have Christian Universities been willing to authorize funding for Public Policy centers to address such issues with Intellectual Rigor.

Please note the Public Policy Center which was recently created at Grove City College.

…hmmmmmm.

Each Gospel was written primarily to ‘make a point’ about Jesus: I would aver that in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the Suffering Servant; in Matthew’s, he is New Moses and the Fulfilment of all the hopes of God’s people, of the Law and of the Prophets; in Luke’s, he is the Saviour of the World; in John’s, the Human Face of God. A proper analysis of the Gospels takes these themes (which are related to the social and historical context in which each account was written) into consideration; if we want to understand the messages they carry, we need to be aware of the linguistic, cultural and historical aspects, otherwise we are going to ‘miss’ things, or get things wrong (even more than we already do!).

Of course, the proper application of hermeneutics does not give us ‘neat answers’ (and perhaps one of the key psychological impulses behind fundamentalism is the desire for ‘neat answers’); instead it throws up real questions, with which the faithful must engage. For example, how should we understand the Mosaic Law in the light of the Sermon on the Mount (and vice versa)?