Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(514)
-
▼
July
(43)
- One Email in a Lifetime: Neil Postman
- Darwin's Dilemma
- Creator's Cafe: Jazz Gig and Benefit (Written by E...
- Wes Montgomery
- Television Termination: Lesson #98
- Jitter
- Jesus Christ and the Trinity
- Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?
- Stop the Take Over
- Lowering the Pulpit: A Theology of the Pulpit
- Of Skunks On Line
- Press Release for Upcoming ID Conference
- For those who think they can "Christianize" yoga, ...
- Doug Groothuis Preaching
- Hope for Liberia
- ID Conference in Denver Area This Fall
- Science Abuser
- Health Care?
- "Well, I Really Didn't Mean It..."
- The Moral Basis of Capitalism
- Attitudes Hindering Religious Experience and Chris...
- Solid Grounds Coffee House
- Doug Groothuis on BBC Radio
- Walter Cronkite (revised, spelling corrected)
- Growing Through Doubt
- Fetuses Said to Have Memories
- DemocraChurch
- Iron Fists in Green Gloves
- Sarah!
- Free Philosophy Conference
- Doug Groothuis Sermon on Line
- TV in the Good Old Days
- "Does God Exist?"
- Buddhist, Christian Dialogue in Barnes and Noble
- Narcissism is Good
- Philosophy Chops
- Defending Capitalism
- The Great Give Away
- Lost in MeWorld
- Media Analysis by Eric Goodman at Denver Seminary
- A Prediction
- "Truth Under Fire"
- The Declaration of Independence: Truths Still Need...
-
▼
July
(43)
Links
About Me
- Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
- Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus. I direct the Christian Apologetics and Ethics MA program at Denver Seminary.
5 comments:
Doug:
The book is 30-years old ... haven’t you ever changed your mind about something in your job or about an issue over the last 30 years? Heck, I’ve changed my mind about how best to handle issues, both professional and political, over the last 30 days. If you want to criticize him about being pro-choice, that’s totally understandable. But can we focus on his current, or at least recent, stances on issues? Not something he wrote during the Carter administration.
Also, changing your mind about an issue isn't a sign a weakness. Lets say he wholeheartedly, 100% embraced forced abortion. But over the course of his life, through experiences or education or whatever, he now feels differently. What’s wrong with that? Learning as you go and keeping an open mind aren’t personality faults.
If someone ever held these views without fully repenting of them, he is untrustworthy and dangerous. Moreover, this mindset fits the Obama team--extreme liberalism, statism.
What would a public offical have to do in order for you to be satisfied that he/she fully repented on an issue?
Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, was a member of a group called, AIP, for seven years (95-02), that wanted Alaskans to vote on seceding from the Union. Does that mean that his mindset fits the Palin team? Granted no one dies if a State secedes, but that is certainly an extreme view, should he have to repent?
Doug, something tells me that the party that grilled Clarence Thomas over decades-old, flimsy charges and beat Trent Lott up for broadly praising Strom Thurmond without specifically distancing himself from certain of Thurmond's politcal associations in the early 60's--well, they ought to be able to tolerate a little criticism of the obvious adherence of their people to the prevailing, eugenicist rationale for promoters of abortion leading into and throughout Roe v. Wade and the 70s. That said, if someone can articulate a different view, critical of an old and abominable one, which they now hold--should we allow such a person the chance to prove the change?
Post a Comment