Christian Carnival #70 (now from two weeks ago) at A Penitent Blogger. 70 scholars locked away in their monastic quarters arrived at the same final product independently of each other, and Penitens has posted it for us to see. My contribution is Chronology in I Samuel 16:1-18:5.
The Bible Archive has a hilarious post seeing what would happen if someone read a love letter the way we too often read the Bible.
The Marshian Chronicles disagrees with Bill O'Reilly's claim that people who do monstrous things have left the human race. Indeed, that sort of thing is exactly what being human post-fall is all about, and it's only by God's grace that we don't do such things. As my comment says, I do think there's a sense in which any sin departs what it truly means to be human, as we were created, but even then O'Reilly is wrong. It doesn't take something very bad at all to be inhuman in that sense.
A Physicist's Perspective looks at God's sovereignty over natural disasters and the practical implications thereof.
There's a good discussion of the death penalty from a biblical starting point at Evangelical Diablog.
The Doctor Is In responds to the incessant complaints about theocracy among some on the left. The post is a bit over the top, but the people he's responding to fully deserve much worse than he's laying on them. They project something that isn't there on large swathes of evangelicalism and thereby really do act like bigots.
World of Sven gives a run-through of N.T. Wright on justification. Some have argued that Wright is simply not orthodox. I'm not convinced of that. I think he's often got his emphasis on things that are smaller than he thinks, and he too often dismisses important things as side issues (but doesn't deny them either, I must add). Sven helpfully shows how Wright differs from the traditional Reformed view. I have little to add to that except that I think the traditional Reformed view is largely right, even if at times I think the emphasis should be on other things as well. That doesn't stop me from appreciating someone who is able to explain Wright's thinking well. This is the new thing in Paul scholarship, so it's worth knowing about it even if you don't like it. Those willing to listen may find that there's something to what Wright's saying anyway.