Proverbial Wife hosts the 40th Christian Carnival, or at least the 40th one people submitted posts to. Marla put in a lot of work digesting each one and putting them into an order that really flows quite nicely. It's actually only the 39th to appear, since the one that was supposed to be the 39th is unfortunately delayed (or canceled?) because Adrian Warnock's real life is refreshingly more important than his blogging. My Abominations gets top billing in the Carnival this week. There's lots of good stuff, and I've selected eight posts to highlight, so it's going under the fold.
Rebecca Writes contributes another post in her series on the attributes of God, this time on God's mercy. As usual, it involves things you might not have thought about when you first saw that it was about God's mercy. She's always balanced, careful, and systematic, and this post is no different. If you read this post when she first posted it, you might want to go back again, since she added a really crucial paragraph.
The bloke in the outer offers some probing thoughts about Paul's command to be angry and yet do not sin. The problem is that it's very difficult to be angry and not sin. I've long thought that anyone who claims to be righteously angry probably isn't. What the bloke in the outer has done is what I didn't do my own post (just linked). He gives some excellent advice on how to deal with anger (not to mention other negative emotions, though he doesn't dwell on those).
Starting from a Christian attitude toward prostitutes, Allthings2all blogs about why Christians need to be very careful when they talk about politics. I agree. It's not whether it's done. It's how it's done. There are too many Christian blogs that focus on politics that don't sound very Christian in their tone, and both conservatives and liberals are guilty of this.
On that note, 21st Century Reformation reminds us what's far more important than politics. I obviously don't see this as a reason not to blog politics, which is his main point, but I agree with everything short of that.
Fidler on the Roof works through her struggles understanding and accepting Psalm 91 in the wake of sexual abuse. People don't talk about this sort of thing much, and when they do they hardly ever end up where she does by the end of the post.
Viewpoint defends invading Iraq on a number of grounds, but one point stands out: The truth is that war must never be a last resort. The last resort is to surrender or to do nothing that is effective in relieving an injustice. Making war a last resort is code for never making war at all. Those who say, as Senator Kerry has in the current campaign, that George Bush did not make war a last resort are really saying that as long as the other side is willing to "negotiate", as long as there is a glimmer of hope that they are prepared to concede here or there, as long as they haven't actually attacked us, as long as we can't prove they're going to attack us, as long as .... but this is to keep putting off ending a threat until the other side is so powerful that he makes ending it impossible. It is precisely the lesson Neville Chamberlain learned in the 1930s, and as the Duelfer Report makes clear, it was Saddam's strategy throughout the last thirteen years. This reminded me of Matthew's Prosblogion post on just war and preemption, which deals with the same issue more theoretically, arguing that a last resort condition is not what we want in a just war theory, though it's difficult to know what we do want in its place.
Off the top considers Christopher Reeve on the meaning and value of his life and the lack of meaning and value of embryos. These are the lengthiest quotes I've seen from him on the stem-cell issue. She wonders why people don't consider in vitro fertilization when complaining about abuse of embryos. I do too.
Jollyblogger urges caution in the realm of apologetics, pointing out what it is and isn't good for. I'd have a lot more to say myself about what it is good for, but the main point of his post is to show its inadequacies for certain things, and he's right. If only I could convince him that he's not really a presuppositionalist, because he claims to be a presuppositionalist, while I think presuppositionalism is hopelesly misguided. Yet on all the substantive issues we agree. Go figure.