I fail to see how any such sin sacrifice would pacify God. Does God delight in blood and vengeance? Is he not a merciful God?

I see what you and a few others have been saying wisewoman. But there is a great danger to that, even if you aren’t seeing it that way or intending it. Yes, the Great War has been won. But even you must know that it is not over yet. You have given me the impression (and I hope I am wrong on this) that we only need to worry about spiritual warfare when battle come.

• Studying the Scriptures,
  
  
• Opposing the false teachings of demons (1 Timothy 4:1),
  
  
• Seeking to become more like Christ,
  
  
• And sometimes, opposing demons directly and/or casting them out,
  
  
• All for the sake of working out our faith and seeking to let God work through us as part of His plan to save the lost.

Rush and Hannity are so great for Republicans! Just look at how well the 2008 elections went!

Maybe we can spend all our time over the next two years talking about unrepentant terrorists! That will be GREAT for the 2010 elections!

Why bother with actual policy questions when it's so much more fun to just ridicule people!

— BDB

BDB (#2), yeah, look how great the GOP did by NOT listening to Rush and Hannity, and instead impersonating the big-spending Dems. Being elected largely on “fiscal responsibily” then spending big is hardly inspiring—it's not quite such a big vote-winner to campaign, “yes, we love spending, but we're a lesser evil than the Dems”, even though it's right.

Sarcastro, superhero-in-training who combats evil with “the razor-sharp sting of sarcasm”(from The Tick)

How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be “un-Christlike”? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like [C]hrist only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte.

There were splendid and massive frescoes, paintings, displays, statutes and bas-relief carvings. There was a massive pipe organ towards the back. There were numerous vestibules off of the main chamber to give homage to the various and sundry saints and “Our Ladies” of the Catholic history. I nearly broke out into peals of laughter (I managed to channel it into muted chortling) because of the number of different saints and titles that were displayed, reminding me of the silly role-playing games with dozens of characters and +1 abilities.

[. . .]

When we first entered, my compatriots (whom I'd instructed to alert me in case I started violating any unwritten rules of etiquette) dipped into the bowls of water near the doors and made the sign of the cross. (“Nyeehh...what's up, doc?”) Later when on the bus, one of them flashed a small travel shampoo type bottle: “Holy water, anyone?” Now what do you say to that? “Uh, no thanks, I'm good!” What the heck is holy water, anyway? Water blessed by a priest? Why not just bless the whole globe and be done with it? Or are there spatial limits on a priest's +2 blessing-casting abilities? Can he bless a whole pallet of bottled water? That would make shipping a bit easier...

I thought I said that, no, every single sourtship does not need to look like that. [. . .] I do not look at courship with reverant eyes, courtship and the Bible are at totally different totally totally different levels in my mind.

And I fully agree that “courtship is more the mindset then the actual action.” This leads, though, to some rather interesting realizations: what is tempting or hurtful to one person may not be the same to others. What will best serve the other person and glorify God to him or her, even in the manner of physical affections? It’s the same case with holiday celebration, or eating or drinking preferences, about which Paul was clear that Christians can have different standards because some struggle in some areas more than others do.

Most of your description two pages ago I have indeed heard before. The only thing new to me is your seeming recognition that Christians aren’t required in Scripture to follow this kind of model. That is unfortunately a view foreign to many other advocates of such courtship concepts.

However, I would take issue with the ideas that this is the “perfect situation,” Daughters. For example, a friend of mine just got married on Dec. 20, after what I thought was an unusual method of speed-courtship with his church’s help. For him, a few months of dating and friends-and-fellowship time was quicklyfollowedbyengagementandthenmarriage within two months!

Other friends, including NarniaWebbers, have adopted rock-solid Biblical “courtship” principles, including accountability and direction-drivenness, while not having a “chaperone” accompany them anytime they’re together. I myself am praising God for where He’s brought me in my own mostly-long-distance relationship with a certain young lady — a NarniaWebber! Who’s to say their/our method of mate-seeking isn’t “perfect” or God’s will, too?

What I would like to see more of in the stronger “courtship” advocates is a recognition that Christians are not all the same types of people — that is, homeschoolers, with Christian parents, living relatively close together, and with plenty of accountability available from Godly fathers and/or church leaders or mentors. To think otherwise is not just unrealistic or impractical, but bypassing the diversity of backgrounds in God’s people.

Even Josh Harris (often perceived as the “Love Doctor,” as he now sarcastically refers to himself!) had to get past some of his initial expectations: he married a non-homeschooled new Christian with a history of bad relationships and an absentee father, while more than a thousand miles from his own parents and any accountability to them!

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of bad doctrine being taught in these movements. It is very often based on the desires to correct other bad doctrines — such as anti-marriage-roles feminism, anti-family attitudes, secular dating-just-for-fun-and-profit, or “lazy Christianity.” Those goals, then, can become the goal of many teachings, particularly if — as I’ve already pointed out — you’re operating from a wrong view of God’s Grace and the need to make Him our center.

In fact, I would recommend backing up and restarting this whole debate from there — the flawed presuppositions of patriarchalism, leading to the result of flawed courtship concepts.

Meanwhile, though, let me repeat and supplements everyone’s arguments again Arranged-marriage-esque (how about we call it AME?) type courtship in a more-organized way. However, I must give credit to Don Veinot, who similarly organized his book’s rebuttal to the Gothard-esque courtship concepts (at least, as they are purported to be The Scriptural Way of Doing It). My first point will be the longest.

Tolerance is a sham. Tolerance is much talked about, but rarely practiced. Tolerance, as defined by the politically correct, means tolerating those who fit snugly within the borders of the politically correct.

[. . .]

The myth of tolerance is fueled by two major lies. You may not recognize these lies when you first encounter them. Initially, they may even sound good and make sense. But when you subject them to the scrutiny of basic reasoning, the lies become apparent.

The first lie is that tolerant people are good people and that intolerant people are bad people. Inherent in this idea is that tolerance is always good. Therefore, the more tolerant a person is, the better a human being that person becomes.

Really? Why don’t we try it out:

Let’s say you are a male at college and your roommate wants his girlfriend to spend the night in your dorm room. You tolerate that with a wink and a nod, and hey, you’re cool. You’re tolerant. Who are you to judge?

Let’s say the next night, he wants to have two girls spend the night. You might be a little more uncomfortable with this scenario, and it’s not really your thing, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be your roommate’s thing. And besides, you’ve already proven yourself tolerant of one girl and earned the accolade of good guy. By extending the logic of tolerance, if you tolerate two girls, you become twice as tolerant and twice as good. You are doubly understanding. Doubly less judgmental and doubly compassionate.

Now, let’s say the roommate is tired of sexual escapades in the dorm room with two girls at a time and wants to try something different. Really different. Maybe bring a sheep in the room. Or a cow. Or a little boy. You now have an incredible opportunity to prove just how open-minded and truly tolerant you really are. You can see how once started down the path of tolerance, you begin veering down a slippery slope. Tolerance is not the equivalent of goodness. Blind tolerance without discretion is anything but good. It’s ignorant. G. K. Chesterton referred to tolerance as the virtue that remains after a man has lost all his principle.

[. . .]

When we fail to deal with the tolerance issue, two things happen. As conservatives, we compromise liberty. As Christians, we compromise truth. Those are the two things at risk when we silently bow to leftist tolerance.

So, how do college students deal with the problem of psuedo-tolerance? Based on my own experiences, including some mistakes, I offer the following ideas [. . .]

One of my favorites in her “tolerance” arguing tips is no. 7: Smile. “Why? Because you’re right,” she quips.

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything.

1 Corinthians 6:12 (ESV)

For now, I am not accusing either you or Truth Seeker [another commentator who disagreed with Davis] of holding to a false gospel. I don't know enough about your beliefs to make such a call. In fact, I haven't accused you of anything, yet you have labeled me as being neo-Pelagian. Enough said on that.

[. . .]

More later ... maybe. I don't want labels thrown around. If you continue doing that, I won't publish your comment.

Bryan, firstly, as for throwing around “labels” in my last contribution — well, I also like to call those “words,” and you yourself used 188 of them in your response. ;-) The label I used in capital letters was neo-Pelagianism, meaning that your views on man’s nature, before and/or after salvation, are remarkably close to that idea.

Theologians both professional and amateur, “good guys” and “bad guys,” have used and continue to use such terms all the time, in order to save space, sort and organize ideas and compare today’s doctrinal views with those of their earlier advocates.

(If you like, I will later use other terms on myself as well, and thus demonstrate their harmless nature and lack of weaponized damage!)

Such terms do not count as an “accusation” per se as you said, but are merely descriptive. And the term I used was in support of my view that your perspective on matters relating to man’s nature are affecting your views on the story elements of films such as The Dark Knight, and apparently other media as well.

To be sure, it is my view that your foundational views are wrong, contrary to common sense and moreover, Biblically untenable; but whether the views are right or wrong — or my ventured connection between the views and your dislike of the film is right or wrong — is another issue.