tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-357215222024-03-08T17:08:07.290-08:00Thinking in InkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-18883656736874065542012-01-22T10:31:00.001-08:002012-01-22T16:00:46.321-08:00Subpar Christian Songs: Majesty (by Hillsong)Heard this for the first time today. It was so incoherent I just had to write this.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Here I am, humbled by your majesty, <br />
Covered by your grace so free. <br />
Here I am, knowing I'm a sinful man, <br />
Covered by the blood of the lamb. <br />
<br />
Now I've found the greatest love of all is mine, <br />
Since You laid down Your life, <br />
The greatest sacrifice. <br />
<br />
Majesty <br />
Majesty <br />
Your grace has found me just as I am <br />
Empty handed but alive in Your hands <br />
We sing <br />
Majesty <br />
Majesty <br />
Forever I am changed by Your love <br />
In the beauty of Your Majesty <br />
<br />
Here I am humbled by the love that You give, <br />
Forgiven so that I can forgive. <br />
So here I stand, <br />
Knowing that I am Your desire, <br />
Sanctified by glory and fire. <br />
And now I've found the greatest love of all is mine, <br />
Since You laid down Your life, <br />
The greatest sacrifice. <br />
<br />
Majesty, Majesty. <br />
Your grace has found me just as I am, <br />
Empty handed but alive in your hands. <br />
Singing Majesty, Majesty. <br />
Forever I am changed by Your love, <br />
In the presence of Your Majesty. <br />
<br />
</blockquote><br />
So here's the huge problem. What does Majesty have do with the rest of the entire song?<br />
<br />
Nothing!<br />
<br />
Nothing at all!<br />
<br />
What went wrong here?<br />
<br />
You're singing a song about being saved by grace, by the blood of the Lamb. Suddenly BLAMMO! You're singing "majesty ..." and your brain is going "what ... Where am I? What song is this now?"<br />
<br />
It's conceivable that a connection can be made. But they didn't bother to do the hard work of actually making it for you. As such it seems more like a personal meditation with a gaping hole that someone decided was "good enough" to let loose upon the world.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-81252836407185684062012-01-22T10:16:00.001-08:002012-01-22T10:22:13.599-08:00Subpar Christian Songs: Jesus MessiahI'm aware that any song may be particularly meaningful to someone, so ... Sorry if this is one of yours. But I think we need to promote excellence in Christian music.<br />
<br />
He became sin<br />
Who knew no sin<br />
That we might become His Righteousness<br />
He humbled himself and carried the cross<br />
<br />
Love so amazing<br />
Love so amazing<br />
<br />
Jesus Messiah<br />
Name above all names<br />
Blessed Redeemer<br />
Emmanuel<br />
The rescue for sinners<br />
The ransom from Heaven<br />
Jesus Messiah<br />
Lord of all<br />
<br />
His body the bread<br />
His blood the wine<br />
Broken and poured out all for love<br />
The whole earth trembled<br />
And the veil was torn<br />
<br />
Chris Tomlin writes some great songs. I was shocked to find he wrote this one. It's terrible in the ways that matter.<br />
<br />
First and most crucially, the music itself does not suit the song at all. It's too upbeat for the subject of the verses. Then there's the lazy addition of "Love so amazing".<br />
<br />
The chorus is ok until the last line. It's like he ran out of steam and couldn't figure out what to insert. So he went with another lazy choice: "Lord of all."<br />
<br />
Bleah.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-14163164028684547762011-07-31T10:21:00.000-07:002011-07-31T10:21:48.029-07:00Christian Liars?In debates between atheists and theists I notice a strange phenomenon which I am just beginning to understand, where atheists, like Gollum triumphantly accusing his alter ego of being a murderer, gleefully label theists as "liars for Christ". To them I offer this analysis.<br />
<br />
It's odd that you have to believe those who disagree with you are not simply ignorant or uninformed, but must be liars. You don't seem to understand what a lie really is - an intentional falsehood.<br />
<br />
However, a recent book made me think about this issue. It is irrational to insist that a people bound to serve the Lord of Truth are intentional liars, rather than ignorant. What causes this paranoid reaction?<br />
<br />
I now realize it is probably a manifestation of intellectual insecurity. In such debates, atheists are often confronted with new and shocking information, such as the fact that Hitler was trying to implement Darwinism, or that he persecuted and hated the Church, much as some atheists do. If these deep-seated convictions have been overturned by new discoveries, what other "knowledge" that you possess may be fiction? How could you have been hoodwinked so long by myths invented by, for example, two people in the 19th century*. It is such a shock that they can only respond, "lies! All lies!", a response of denial, shock, and rage, sometimes childishly "disguised" with LOLs galore.<br />
<br />
It is perfectly understandable, since even many theists have bought into the many modern myths being fed us in our schools. I was at a seminar where a very educated man demonstrated his complete ignorance on Galileo, insisting that he single-handedly brought science to the world. The poor man - something of a celeb in our field - was totally ignorant that the Catholic Church had been the prime sponsor of science for over a hundred years!<br />
<br />
It's funny that those with "question authority" bumper stickers all over their cars actually rarely do so.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-52807356575916281092010-05-07T07:00:00.000-07:002010-05-07T07:00:48.397-07:00Anthony Flew: memorable quote from the ex-atheistFrom the ex-atheist who died at 87:<br />
<blockquote>The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in <em>The God Delusion</em> that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over.</blockquote>Hope to see you at the banquet table, Anthony.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-2377723402065656532010-03-30T10:12:00.000-07:002010-03-30T10:12:31.248-07:00For true scientists - a great siteFor those who truly have inquiring minds, here is a great site that asks the tough questions of the data that is constantly arriving. I don't know how they do it, but they examine all the recent findings across all fields of science in the light of theophobic and theophilic theories.<br />
<br />
One of the most entertaining threads is of the constant astronomical discoveries that confound theophobic theories of universe formation and instead suggest very strongly that the universe is very young. Other threads show off the amazing creativity and intelligence of our Creator by recounting recent discoveries and especially how we are trying to imitate his creation to better our lives.<br />
<br />
The site is <a href="http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm">Creation Safaris</a>. Ignore its lack of aesthetics and dive into the content. It is richly rewarding.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-57242189983113814802010-03-29T13:06:00.000-07:002010-04-07T14:28:49.784-07:00Who Created God? A Reply to Anonymous (Part 1)Anonymous was kind enough to provide his thoughts on my thoughts on the subject. Before answering, here are his comments in their entirety. (I do not mean any disrespect by the small font, as I will be answering each point at normal size; doing this just to save space for now.):<br />
<blockquote style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">As you have written such a one-sided aggressive article, I provide comment the same...<br />
<br />
Being of a scientific nature, and atheist belief myself, your assertions on 'our' beliefs are wrong - "where no such mechanism is observable or has been observed" the <i>current</i> scientific theory, science is ever evolving (no pun intended) and, by nature, should readily change "it's" views, should a more plausible theory be introduced.<br />
<br />
"Atheism belief", to me, is born out of a need to witness proof, instead of just putting ones faith in something. And on a personal note, if any of theism's gods wanted to make me think otherwise, then they would provide evidence of their existence through whatever means that particular person / people, would be more than likely to believe (just as people who believe seem to have extrapolated, from somewhere, themselves), which leads to the obviously <b>logical</b><br />
Personally, (on a non-scientific basis) I cannot imagine a being that is so powerful, that it created the diversity of the university as we know it, but yet expects us to spend some of our time worshiping them. Surely a being such as this would prefer to see us spend all this time helping our fellow human beings, rather than thanking them for their gift of life (This point, to me, is especially hammered home, seeing as their has been little scientific evidence to prove their existence - Maybe they are making a point?)<br />
<br />
Your reasoning that because we don't know everything (or more precisely science hasn't postulated solid theories to many questions) is, how do you put it - Absurd. A lack of knowing someone should not lead them to creating conclusions, without substantial evidence - Think about it, would you convict someone of murder with only circumstantial evidence?<br />
<br />
The rational being, my fellow human being, "must accept" that we do not know all the answers, yet... And therefore one should not be proposing that one sides points are any less valid than the other.<br />
<br />
I could go one, and on, but as your minds seems undoubtedly decided, and the postulations in your blog, I feel it worthless trying to open your mind to the consideration of other standpoints. conclusion that A) The god(s) do not care if we believe / worship them, or don't want "us" to, B) They don't care if a large portion of their children (Seeing as people who believe have many different faiths to choose from) believe in them, or C) They don't actually exist.</span> </blockquote>I'm not sure if it's "aggressive", but as to one-sided, well, I <i>am </i>trying to prove a point. You'll note that essays on the wonders of Darwinism or atheism are not famed for being two-sided. But any argument should take into account possible objections or replies, and I think I did so. And I didn't see Anonymous arguing <i>my</i> points.<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">Being of a scientific nature, and atheist belief myself, your assertions on 'our' beliefs are wrong - "where no such mechanism is observable or has been observed" the <i>current</i> scientific theory, science is ever evolving (no pun intended) and, by nature, should readily change "it's" views, should a more plausible theory be introduced.</span></blockquote>There is a word for believing in something which you haven't yet observed. That word is "faith". Everyone exercises it to some degree, since we do not know everything we can know about most things. You are saying you have faith in science to eventually answer the big question of where everything came from.<br />
<br />
But how scientific is that belief? Is that belief based on science or reason? I would argue "No".<br />
<br />
First, let us remember that scientific inquiry is closed to us at the singularity of the Big Bang; all physical laws break down. So science will <i>never </i>be able to answer that question. Brute fact. Although if you read and buy into Randy Alcorn's <i>Heaven</i>, there is a possibility that we may one day understand, since science - like all other worthwhile human activities - will probably continue in heaven. But that will be too late for the purposes of this argument. You are betting your eternal soul on this impossibility.<br />
<br />
Even if we come up with a plausible theory of creating matter from nothing, that still doesn't answer the question of what happened to <i>cause </i>the Big Bang.<br />
<br />
Remember that time as we know it <i>began to exist</i> at the Big Bang. Therefore the cause of the Big Bang was outside of time, or, in theological parlance, timeless. It is interesting to note that, unique in ancient history, <i>only the Biblical account</i> espouses this concept of time as finite - Buddhism, Hinduism, the Greeks, and the Romans all believed in unending cycles or of time stretching into eternity past.<br />
<br />
Today, history is being rewritten to cast this discovery of the Big Bang as a triumph for atheism. But nothing could be further from the truth. At the time of its discovery, atheists were reeling in shock and disgust at the notion and implications of a Beginning. Arthur Eddington called it "repugnant"; even Einstein, formerly an atheist, struggled with the idea (leading to his infamous blunder, the "Cosmological Constant").<br />
<br />
Finally, though, Eddington had to admit, "the beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural."<br />
<br />
Why did these atheists so strongly oppose the Big Bang? Well, it's obvious. The next question readily pops to mind: what caused the Big Bang? Logically, it must have been something extremely powerful, acting outside of time. That we don't know all there is to know about this Cause does not negate this conclusion (see below). But, as Paul Davies argues, since the design of the universe is so precise, we can infer that a great Mind was at work to create the universe; and, so, the Cause is a Person. Other conclusions follow.<br />
<br />
To your next point: It should be acknowledged that your position of readily changing your view (only) <i>once a more plausible theory is introduced</i> is not scientific; it is a recent invention to stave off open thought, especially concerning origins.<br />
<br />
For example, anyone can see that the bacterial flagellum or our vision system was designed, and that Darwinism has utterly failed to explain the step-by-step origins of either in anything even remotely approaching rigorous, scientific fashion. This can also be seen on a gross scale, of any biological organism when taking into account its structure and behavior. (Perhaps more on this later.) Any rational person would thus discard Darwinism as a possible answer to these. How do Darwinists cling to their faith? By requiring not only that their theory be shown useless, but that a <i>complete alternative theory</i> be offered in its place. Let us be clear: This is not a scientific requirement. It is not even a rational requirement!<br />
<br />
It's just plain silly. If someone shows you that 1 + 1 is not, as you claim, 3, you should not demand that that person write a successful version of the <i>Principia Mathematica</i> before you discard your previous notion. It should be enough to know that your belief is wrong to spur you on to find alternatives.<br />
<br />
Very few people almost understand quantum physics. Yet, according to this same standard, it would be Darwinists (and atheists) who would be insisting that it cannot be accepted because, although the evidence backs it up,<i> we don't fully understand it</i>. This is analogous to rejecting theism because, although logic tells us that there must be a God, theists "cannot fully explain God."<br />
<br />
This is like saying your TV "just came to be" because you don't know the people who allegedly made it and, even if you did, you cannot fully explain their origins. It's just silly. You can reasonably make certain inferences from the data you have and from experience of how the world works. In this way we deduce that the TV was made by persons unknown, but persons nonetheless.<br />
<br />
Lastly, science is based on faith. In more than one sense.<br />
<br />
First, science is based on the belief that we are actually experiencing the outside world. As Kant shows, and as explained by Dinesh D'Souza in <i>What's So Great About Christianity</i>, this is absolutely unprovable. Read it and weep. To take it a step further, we cannot even logically prove we know anything, since all knowledge is based, ultimately, on sense experience.<br />
<br />
Second, modern science came from the Church which, for more than a hundred years was the prime mover and funder of science. You have heard it said it was from the Greeks. Not historically true; they may have kicked it off, but their worldview stifled it. Can't get far if you believe thrown rocks tend towards the ground because, well, it's "in their nature." It was the Church which, believing in a God of order and reason who sustains the universe and its laws, who created matter originally "very good" (and, so, unlike the pagans, didn't consider matter "dirty"), wanting to "think God's thoughts after him" as reflected in his creation, sustained modern science as an organized enterprise.<br />
<br />
Oh, but what about Galileo? You're in for a lot of surprises there. Read D'Souza. Or read <a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html">this</a> article or <a href="http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial">this one</a>. But compare your stated position to Cardinal Bellarmine's:<br />
<blockquote>I say that, <i>if there were a real proof </i>that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and<i> we should rather have to say that we did not understand them</i> than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true.</blockquote>The irony is, contrary to popular mythology, these guys understood how to do science. They were in fact <i>more scientific</i> than Galileo, whose "best" proof at the time - the tides - was <i>completely wrong</i>. They said sure, go ahead with Copernicianism<i> as a theory </i>until you have proof. But he wouldn't listen, instead ridiculing the pope publicly, and reaping the whirlwind.<br />
<br />
The other irony is that the Church was defending what it believed to be a <i>scientific </i>view, which was actually a mistaken, pagan view that seemed to make sense. Kind of similar to the Catholic Church giving ground to Darwinism - except, of course, that geocentrism had much more "evidence" going for it.<br />
<br />
Anyway, that's it for this post. If you can't wait for more, I strongly recommend reading ex-atheist Anthony Flew's <i>There Is a God</i>. You could do the <i>ad hominem</i> attack and claim he didn't write it, etc. - or you could take his word for it and consider the arguments on their merits. Perhaps you are scientific enough to do the latter.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-91866910903784426082010-03-23T10:06:00.000-07:002010-03-23T10:06:42.846-07:00Not the same GodYou have heard it said that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God.<br />
<br />
Not really.<br />
<br />
There are non-trivial differences between the Judeo-Christian and the Muslim God.<br />
<br />
(At this time I can only direct you <a href="http://www.answering-islam.org/God/index.html">here</a> to explore this further.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-38996714109156424982010-03-23T10:01:00.000-07:002010-03-23T10:01:58.536-07:00Considering some objections to "Calvinism"This is a reply to the comments from Anonymous regarding what is normally labeled as "Calvinism":<br />
<blockquote>you should read ben worthington's book, problem with evangelical theology. The original recipients of the new testament did not read it the same way as you. Much of the new testament can be unlocked by considering the people and the culture to whom it was written. If god has predestined people for salvation in the manner Calvin suggests, then why did Jesus die to cover the sins of the whole world and not just those that are predestined. It seems to me that Jesus covered the sins of the whole world so that the "who so ever's" of the world could receive grace. One more point, Paul was often dealing with Jewish Christians who still believed that Israel was "god's people". Paul felt with that by revealing that god has offered salvation to all people and anyone can become part of god's people.</blockquote>There are several points here. First, Ben Worthington. If I've found the correct blog, he seems a pretty smart guy - as are many of my friends who are "Arminian", i.e. "Faith before Regeneration" (FbR). But this is not a battle of IQs; it's about how we see God. Our salvation is not affected, but, like the church who doesn't accept the Revelation of St. John as scripture, our view of God can be impoverished or enriched.<br />
<br />
"The original recipients of the new testament did not read it the same way as you. Much of the new testament can be unlocked by considering the people and the culture to whom it was written." True, but what does this considering actually tell us? Let's take a look.<br />
<br />
In Romans, Paul was writing to a predominantly Gentile church, and had to explain the Jewish point of view. He did this by expounding Jewish Scripture.<br />
<br />
What did the Jewish scriptures have to say about this subject? The most obvious passages regarding predestination that the Jews had to struggle with are all mentioned in Romans 9. The first is about Esau and Jacob (Rom. 9:11-16):<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: </span><span style="font-style: italic;">not by works but by him who calls</span>—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, </blockquote><blockquote>"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,<br />
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." <span class="sup" id="en-NIV-28157"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy</span>.</blockquote>"<span style="font-style: italic;">... before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand" </span>tells us that God's election does not depend on our actions, or, by implication, our choices (which lead to our actions).<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>Although in our temporal experience God interacts in response to our choices and actions, <span style="font-style: italic;">His purposes and election were already decided from eternity without any reference whatsoever to those choices and actions.<br />
<br />
"Anything good or bad." That includes our choice to receive salvation.<br />
<br />
</span>That's a hard pill to swallow. But that's the clear meaning of Scripture.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
<br />
</span></span>Our natural reaction is anticipated - "this seems unfair!" But it is also answered - to complain about this is really to accuse God of being unjust. So we can choose: we can insist that our judgment is superior to that of Scripture, and even of God, or we can trust in God's goodness and justice that somehow his election is perfectly just and loving.<br />
<br />
Not convinced? Let's continue: <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy</span>." God's election does not depend on our desire - even our desire to be saved, or to accept Christ - or our effort, including our efforts to attain righteousness or salvation, or our efforts to humble ourselves in order to receive his grace. Not much wriggle room there.<br />
<br />
Note, though, that God's purpose came to pass in concert with human choices, freely made - Esau's choices, Jacob's choices. This is a great mystery.<br />
<br />
But is this really the Jewish understanding of election? Well, Paul gives us the gold standard, the mother of all texts on the topic:<br />
<blockquote>For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."<span class="sup" id="en-NIV-28159"> </span>Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, <span style="font-style: italic;">and he hardens whom he wants to harden</span>.</blockquote>The Jews certainly had to come to terms with this text, not just a throwaway phrase but one that was repeated over and over: God "hardened Pharaoh's heart."<br />
<br />
What does this mean? Did God override Pharaoh's desire to be good? No, that would be out of character both for God and for Pharaoh. Exodus uses three phrases to describe the same thing - Pharaoh hardened his heart, Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Since no one would suggest that a just God would force someone to choose evil, this seems to be a way of saying that everything was completely under God's control: Pharaoh's wicked choice was allowed by God, that is, although Pharaoh determined to do evil, God allowed it for His own purposes. God allowed Pharaoh to continue to harden his own heart.<br />
<br />
But it's interesting that the third phrase was used at all.<br />
<br />
Today, we see the same thing happening when people reject God. They do so of their own free will, and often against all reason and evidence. God does not need to encourage them; they choose to subject their reason to their desire for self-determination.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span>This suggests an interesting picture: our hearts would continue to harden into some final state, where the good gift of reason is trampled underfoot by rebel will, a state which we should understand as Hell, unless God intervenes to stop the hardening.<br />
<br />
(Sorry, I just saw this today in Draft state. I don't remember what I would have written had I continued. But I hope this is helpful, or at least worthy of consideration.) <br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-68547661465040067322010-03-20T08:59:00.000-07:002010-03-20T09:00:06.398-07:00Kyrie Eleison v2.0My attempt to repurpose this great song by Mister Mister for church use. I know the original is a spiritual song already, but here its content is made more explicit. Sorry, it's not as poetic as the original!<br />
<br />
The wind blows hard against this mountainside<br />
Across the sea into my soul<br />
He reaches into where I cannot hide<br />
Setting my feet upon the road<br />
<br />
Within my heart, where once was wilderness<br />
Your Spirit burns, a gemlike flame<br />
Somewhere between your grace and holiness<br />
Is where I find myself again<br />
<br />
Kyrie Eleison down the road that I must travel<br />
Kyrie Eleison through the darkness of the night<br />
Kyrie Eleison where you lead me I will follow<br />
Kyrie Eleison on a highway in the light<br />
<br />
As now my soul in your embrace unfolds<br />
Your faithful mercies do I see<br />
And as I journey on the narrow road<br />
You point me to what I could beUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-13371625517991133772008-08-20T11:15:00.000-07:002010-03-20T09:15:32.869-07:00On hymns and spiritual songsI understand comments about some songs seeming too "me-centered." There are definitely songs which fall into that category.<br />
<br />
However, I don't think we can tell by just counting how many "I"'s or "me"'s there are in the song. Amazing Grace is full of first-person references; and even the Psalms are, starting with Psalms 3 and 4. I think it's unavoidable because of the special nature of our relationship to God.<br />
<br />
There are some songs and hymns which give glory to God because of his attributes, especially related to being Creator. These sing of his power and wisdom. But since the defining attribute of God is love, we should expect much celebration of the relational aspect, and it's difficult to do so without saying what God has done "for me" or "for us." Although we extol his power in creation, Christ did not die for the earth or the universe; Christ died for us, so that we could have a personal relationship with him. And I'm sure we agree that's much more important to him than all the galaxies he created. The earth will pass away (in fact he will take a large part in bringing that about) but that relationship will not.<br />
<br />
There are songs which are too syrupy, or seem to me too me-centered, or just mindless wastelands of lists of titles of God, or just plain lazy writing, and I've tried to weed them out. But unfortunately many of them are meaningful to others, and I accept that they may continue into Heaven (now <em>there's </em>a sticky theological thorn!). My consolation is that in God's grace (and good taste) he will spare me from having to ever listen to them. Perhaps we will have "song filters" built into our heads.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-44603441336722769542007-11-01T22:03:00.000-07:002010-07-27T11:44:40.437-07:00No love in BuddhismThere is no love in Buddhism.<br />
<br />
Buddhism is non-love. To love is to rebel against the teachings of Buddha, to adopt perhaps the most serious affront to the core of Buddhism - to thumb one's nose at his insistence of denying and extinguishing desire. For love is a font of all kinds of desires, raging or responsible.<br />
<br />
In other words, to adopt not merely a Westernized or Christianized or humanized Buddhism, but Something entirely opposed to its main tenets.<br />
<br />
There is a deep truth here. It tells us that, deep down, we know that Buddhism demands that we lose sight of what it means to be human, what is important, and what we know to be true. All the kindly, wise-looking monks writing books and telling us to be good and kind and loving are in fact rebels - rebels against Buddha. Monks telling us not to be Buddhists, but to be humans, even Christians.<br />
<br />
Either that or they didn't study very well.<br />
<br />
Anyone is free, of course, to practice Buddhism. But Let us not be deluded about the core - or, rather, the missing core - of Buddhism.<br />
<br />
Update: from reading the Comments, I think I need to clarify (but may fail miserably to do so).<br />
<br />
I am not denying that Buddhists value love and compassion, or that Buddhism teaches these virtues. I recognize and applaud it.<br />
<br />
What I am saying is that these virtues are a rebellion against the goal of extinguishing individual personhood, since to love and care we must value those we love as persons, and affirm their personhood as intrinsic "goods" in themselves. And if personhood is intrinsically "good", why strive to extinguish it?<br />
<br />
To (attempt to) clarify another point: You do not need to have a Judeo-Christian worldview to make this analysis.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-76035223284253449312007-09-12T10:24:00.000-07:002010-07-27T10:55:13.672-07:00Rebuttal to Phipps - Hitler and Darwinism<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">A debate at CaseAgainstFaith:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Just read </span><a href="http://caseagainstfaith.com/submissions/hitler_resp.htm"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Phipps' "rebuttal"</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> of my thing on Hitler, regarding Hitler's animosity to Christianity and affirmation - and practical application - of Darwinism. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Regarding his complaint that I gave no reference, anyone willing to take the four-year degree necessary to get versed in the intricate workings of the web might find it quite easily by following the hyperlink provided. By this subterfuge, it would be discovered that these are not merely "opinions" but referenced quotes.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">As to Hitler saying that he was "doing the work of Darwin," it was clearly a foundation of the Nazi party that they were following the "scientific" method, i.e. Darwinism. "In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, </span><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp#f15"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Hitler proclaimed that 'higher race subjects to itself a lower race</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> …a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,' because it was founded on science.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/" name="f15"></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">"</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Phipps is right that quoting Haeckel does not prove Hitler's views. However, Hitler's own views were quite clear. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Regarding the Pope, the facts of history now bear out that he was instrumental in saving many Jews. I am no apologist for him, but I direct readers to "</span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/0140296271/ref=sr_1_1/002-5457947-2068867?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183139442&sr=8-1"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">The Myth of Hitler's Pope</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">," written by a rabbi, in defense of the man. Regarding "Hitler's Pope" by Cornwell, these points from a reviewer (search for "Williamson") might be of interest:</span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Jeno Levai, a Jew and leading Holocaust scholar, said that Pope Pius XII "did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences", and elsewhere: "From that day on, acting in accordance with the instructions of the Holy See and always in the name of Pius XII, the Nuncio never ceased from intervening against the disposition concerning Jews, and the inhuman character of the anti-Jewish Legislation." </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Rabbi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness (Pius XII) and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Emilio Zolli, Chief Rabbi in Rome during the German occupation: "no hero in all of history was more militant, more fought against, none more heroic, than Pius XII." <b>Zolli was so moved by Pius XII's work that after the War be became a Catholic</b>. He took the Pope's name as his baptismal name.</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Albert Einstein noted that to prevent the Holocaust, "only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth."</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel (1949-52), writing during the war: "The Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can, to mitigate the fate of my persecuted coreligionists."</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Moshe Sharett, Israel's first foreign minister and second prime minister, upon meeting Pope Pius XII during the war: "I told [the Pope] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him, the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public, for all they had done in various countries to save Jews, to save children, and Jews in general. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church."</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Pinchas E. Lapide, Israeli consul in Italy for a number of years: "The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all the other churches, religious institutions, and rescue organizations put together. Its record stands in startling contrast to the achievements of the International Red Cross and the Western democracies ... The Holy See, the Nuncios and the entire Catholic Church saved some 400 000 Jews from certain death." [The latter figure was officially recognized by the State of Israel with the planting of over 400 000 trees in remembrance of the efforts of the Vatican and the Catholic Church.]</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Pinchas E. Lapide, Israeli consul in Italy, again: "When an armed force ruled well-nigh omnipotent, and morality was at its lowest ebb, Pius XII commanded none of the former and could only appeal to the latter, in confronting, with bare hands, the full might of evil. A sounding protest, which might turn out to be self-thwarting - or quiet piecemeal rescue? Loud words or prudent deeds? The dilemma must have been sheer agony, for whatever course he chose, horrible consequences were inevitable. Unable to cure the sickness of an entire civilization, and unwilling to bear the brunt of Hitler's fury, the Pope, unlike many far mightier than he, alleviated, relieved, retrieved, appealed, petitioned and saved as best he could by his own lights. Who, but a prophet or a martyr could have done much more?" </span></li>
</ul></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Hitler's own words clearly make him an enemy of Christianity, as I have shown. To say that he wanted to create this church or that should arise questions about the beliefs of this church, rather than blind faith that he meant historic Christianity, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">which he abhorred</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">.</span><br />
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."</span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">If Phipps regards Hitler's "Positive Christianity" as Christianity, well ... not much could convince him otherwise.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Phipps says:</span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">In any case, Darwin did not speak of "higher stages" of evolution. This is coming from Hitler's own mind. </span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">This concept is in the mind of anyone who has ever learned about evolution. This is evident from, for example, calling this or that life form "primitive", or Darwin's concept of "favored races", "the higher civilized races", etc.</span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Darwin's theory of natural selection talks of the "survival of the fittest" but it defines "the fittest" as those who survive.</span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Are you sure Phipps is not a closet creationist? He has just confirmed a major creationist charge (although it is a lament that has also been made by noncreationist scientists, as documented amply in Bird's "Origin of Species Revisited"), that Darwinism is nothing more than a useless tautology: "survival of the fittest" = "survival of those who survive". </span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">It doesn't claim that those who survive are superior to those who died, only that some species survive and some don't.</span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">If his claim is true, Phipps has just demolished the foundations of natural selection, which depends on the conservation of beneficial mutation. Not that I'm complaining.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Again, I must re-explain what I clearly stated - the serial killer of my challenge is not mentally unbalanced; he is merely a rational evolutionist who rightly views others as competition. Having this now re-explained, I invite readers to seriously consider this challenge.</span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Wright's claims about morality deriving from evolution are touching, but ultimately vapid. If this were true, our condemnation of Hitler has no more force than Hitler's condemnation of the Jews. For which morality is superior - simply that which survives? What if Hitler or Japan had won? They had moral codes which protected their own people, too. I don't imagine that Phipp agrees that female circumcision is moral, although the cultures that practice it are still surviving.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">As to other cultures being moral, I'm sure you're aware of the Christian position that God has not "left himself without witness," but dispenses "common grace" to all peoples, as C.S. Lewis has written about; and that we do not deny that other cultures and peoples might also have various aspects of the truth, though not the whole truth. This has been the Christian view since ... quite a long time, at least since . However, some views, such as Buddha's, may work out to be quite unpalatable and incoherent, as Ravi Zacharias demonstrates in his new book, "</span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lotus-Cross-Jesus-Talks-Buddha/dp/157673854X/ref=sr_1_20/002-5457947-2068867?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183145811&sr=8-20"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">The Lotus and the Cross</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">". </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Phipps' claim that Darwin and Hitler had opposing views concerning race are simply after-the-fact rationalizations. Historically, Darwinism has always led to racism, as in Australia (aborigines) and America (eugenics, </span><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/otabenga.asp"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Ota Benga</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">, etc.) ... no surprise, because </span><a href="http://www.icr.org/article/55/"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Darwin himself felt similarly</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">:</span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Charles Darwin himself, though strongly opposed to slavery on moral grounds, was convinced of white racial superiority. He wrote on one occasion as follows:</span></div><blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more <b>for the progress of civilization</b> than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."<sup> (</sup>Charles Darwin: <i>Life and Letters</i>, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316)</span></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">That he felt this was a good thing is evident by the fact that he felt this was "progress."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Perhaps </span><a href="http://www.icr.org/article/378/"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Darwin's views on women</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> are better ...? </span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div align="left"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Darwin concludes that men attain,</span></div><blockquote><div align="left"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Phipps' explanation of Hitler's anti-Semitism does not explain how the Jews are not "images of God," nor does it reconcile how Jesus and his followers were Jews. There is probably no help for anyone who finds Hitler's own reasoning cogent; and if anyone truly considers Hitler to be a Christian, then perhaps he is arguing against a phantom institution to no avail. It is strange to see that there are those who are ready and willing to take Hitler's claims about his deeply Christian beliefs at face value, by faith (since his actions and other words, e.g. his aim of destroying the Church, speak otherwise). But faith is not the surpreme virtue.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Perhaps I need to repeat this: Hitler said that religion was an</span></div><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">' ... organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. ... it's impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies ... [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples ... Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion."</span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I submit that he really could not be any clearer. To those who find the task of reconciling his different statements (about being a Christian vs. viewing Christianity as a recently introduced, organized lie imposed upon his people) too daunting, I suggest more effort than simply ignoring one of the two.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Lastly, perhaps it is not accurate to say that Hitler was an atheist. He was perhaps a pagan and surely a Darwinist.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-83802094275906494482007-09-12T08:35:00.000-07:002010-07-27T10:55:40.156-07:00Reply to Chris Smith's "Why Christians Must Steal from Secular Morality"<div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">A reply to "</span><a href="http://caseagainstfaith.com/submissions/steal_morality.htm"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Why Christians Must Steal From Secular Morality</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">" </span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">(Note: this version may be slightly different from the one posted at that site, but not much so.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">In his essay, Chris Smith says that</span><br />
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>The Bible does nothing and can do nothing towards inculcating moral behavior on its own. Christians must steal from secular moral systems, and then merely graft their 'God threats' on top of this moral system. This is necessary. And the reason for this is simple: there is no morality in the Bible and there can be no morality in the Bible, because the Bible holds that 1) ALL 'sins' are equivalent (destroying any moral sense) AND 2) all moral behavior is immaterial, because works cannot save a person, AND finally all people are damned from birth.</i></span></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>In reality, Christians realize that some actions are more moral than others. They realize that moral actions exist in a hierarchy, and that rape is far worse than stealing a pencil. Yet the Bible holds that all 'sins' are equal, as all deserve the same punishment.</i></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">From this we see that the premises of Smith's argument are that </span><br />
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>the Bible holds that 1) ALL 'sins' are equivalent (destroying any moral sense) AND 2) all moral behavior is immaterial, because works cannot save a person, </i><i>AND finally all people are damned from birth.</i></span></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">So if any of these premises are shown to be false, his argument fails.</span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">That (1) is false is evident to anyone who is even passingly familiar with Dante's <i>Divine Comedy</i>, and from his own words. In general, Christianity throughout time have never held all sins to be morally equivalent, although sometimes some are confused by Jesus' words on the subject, as Smith apparently is. Dante's work reflects the normative Christian understanding that there are differing levels of reward in heaven and punishment in hell, because of God's dispensing of true justice. Smith recognizes this: "<i>In reality, Christians realize that some actions are more moral than others.</i>" If Christians believe this, perhaps Smith should have wondered if it is <i>because that's what Christianity actually teaches, and has done so for hundreds of years.</i> One should also wonder how Smith could have missed this, if he had bothered to find out what Christianity <i>actually</i> teaches rather than what he <i>thinks</i> it teaches.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Some are confused by Jesus' teaching about murder and adultery, taking it to mean that hate is equivalent to murder, and lust is equivalent to adultery. However, all he is saying is that even what we are tempted to regard as harmless or lesser or tiny or private, "I'm not hurting anyone" sins are far more serious than we think. He never equates their moral weight.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">So, nowhere does the Bible teach that all sins are equivalent and therefore deserve the same punishment.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Now on to (2), which is really a mini-argument. He argues that (a) we cannot be saved by works, (b) therefore all moral behavior is immaterial. But (b) does not follow from (a) at all. Just because works are <i>ineffectual</i>, we cannot conclude that they are <i>meaningless</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">It is true that the Bible describes our vain attempts to save ourselves on our own terms are "as filthy rags." But this is a warning that something else of a different magnitude is needed, and our dire need for that something. The price that God himself paid on the cross - the terrible suffering Christ endured - underscores this warning, and has become a timeless, concrete demonstration of God's love for us. It is also a condemnation, for it reveals the hardness of heart that must be willed to reject such a hard-won salvation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Are our works before salvation meaningless? In many of C.S. Lewis's stories and thoughts, he suggests how salvation may even work backward in time to our earlier deeds. In one story in particular, he suggests that even good works done in service of another "god" might be counted as service to the true God. The overarching theme is that God is more generous than we think. Is this true? Seen in the light of the Cross, it's easy for me to believe.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Food for thought: If you believe in "TULIP predestination", perhaps our good works may be symptoms of God's saving power already at work in our lives.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">The claim that "all people are damned from birth" needs more serious consideration. There are several interpretations of this. Certainly most Christians would not believe that stillborn or aborted babies are sent to hell. But are they?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Instead of insisting that they are, we must approach this question (and indeed all others) from the starting point of God's nature: perfectly holy, just, righteous, loving, and merciful. If you believe perfect justice and love somehow demands these babies should be in hell, then you would believe that is their eternal destiny. But I would wager that most of us recognize that this is somehow fundamentally unjust. In that case, we would be reassured that this is not their destiny.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">What, then of us? Could we not apply the same reasoning to ourselves? In light of the above, if we did so, our conclusion would be different, because we have actually (and not just potentially) sinned, and are subject to the real moral laws and consequences of doing so. Just what these consequences might be are another topic, but I would recommend Lewis's <i>The Great Divorce</i> to any serious seeker who wishes to stride beyond the puerile conceptions of hell. (Not meaning that the concept of hell is puerile, but that our concepts of what hell is like may be puerile.) </span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">At this point, some might agree that all Smith's premises for this argument have been shown to be flawed or false. Some will not. But I would like to point out some other ... points. :-P</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Smith claims that "the Bible holds that man is worthless." However, the message of creation in Genesis and salvation through Christ has historically told us the opposite: that man, being made in God's image, has intrinsic worth. (Some argue that it is this worth that necessitates moral punishment for his choices ... but that's another can of worms.) In addition, Christ's suffering and death tell us that we are far from worthless; or that, even if we were, we are now imputed tremendous worth, even if it is undeserved. That's why, as one famous ex-agnostic once observed, it is Christians that run leprosariums, not atheists or humanists, despite all their professions of superior moralities.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">As for his list of supposed moral teachings of the Bible, he is confused about what the Bible <i>prescribes</i> and what it <i>describes</i>. This distinction should rule out many in the list. Others, such as God's commands to wipe out some peoples, deserve more serious thought and should be discussed in a separate thread. But as a starting point I would recommend viewing "Dogville", starring Nicole Kidman. I would not recommend that any aspiring atheist try to grapple with this issue until they have watched this film. (Of course it would be better to take the time to actually study one of many accessible books on Christian theology so that one may understand what one criticizes, but our generation is famously lazy and would rather watch TV. Thankfully there are some things worth watching. Note: watching this film was an ordeal for me, but it raised some very interesting questions.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Smith complains that the Bible teaches that "One is forced to obey, or be destroyed." But what if that is indeed the way morality works? What if the real moral consequence of sin is something terrible that God would rather you'd avoid? One might as well complain that "it's cruel that we are told not to play on the freeway, else we would be destroyed." In that case, the person telling you the rule to be obeyed is doing you a great service. Someone who told you that truth, knowing you would mock them, might even be doing it out of love.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Relatedly, Smith says, "Christianity can only undermine matural [sic.] morality....through it's infantile use of external threats." Again, the above applies - you can hardly fault someone for warning you about real dangers. What is infantile is ignoring real threats because we don't like them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Kohlberg's system is cute, but like all other purely secular systems, it falls flat on its face in the face of (no pun intended) the Serial Killer Challenge, as I have described elsewhere. The killer has logically decided that Darwinism implies that we (or at least those in the know, wink wink) compete to extend our gene pool at the expense of others. He has captured and securely immobilized you, and has given you two days to convince him not to kill you. You present Kohlberg's system. The killer has seen its ilk before, and recognized that these frameworks are purely artificial with no more imperative force than someone saying "I don't like broccoli", and are just someone else's imaginary obstacles to his logical, Darwinist goal to be top dog - and slits your throat. He eats some fava beans and continues with his plans for his forced impregnation of as many females as he can.</span><br />
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Sometimes belief in hell has produced these terrible effects, but this is due to bad teaching. The doctrine <i>has</i> been abused. But <i>abusus non tollit usus</i>: the abuse does not annul the proper use.</span></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">When the doctrine of hell is abused, that abuse serves the very purposes of hell (fear, despair and hatred) instead of the purposes of heaven (faith, hope and love).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">On the other hand, fear is sometimes good and necessary. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (</span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Prov 1:7<span style="color: black;">), though it is not the end. (Love is that.) George MacDonald said, "When there are wild beasts about, it is better to feel afraid than to feel secure." Fear is reasonable and useful even in little things; what is more reasonably feared than hell, if it exists? (</span>Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 1994 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Smith says that "True morality is internal." Many of us would agree, at first blush. But the problem is, whose insides are the standard? Who decides which rules are fair or unfair? Who decides what price is to be paid for social order? Who decides what counts as order? Does the Animal Farm system of the former Soviet Union count as order? Does majority rule? Who dictates that a valid morality should include such sentimental things as "inclusiveness and responsibility to others"? Who demands that a better morality includes "concern for all nature"? If my internal morality is different from yours, then what? In the end, it degenerates into rule by threats and force.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">However, Kohlberg does us a service in suggesting why the Bible tells us about punishment and reward - we may need it to get started. Most Christians start out with wanting to avoid hell. Some then want to do good for rewards' sake; some skip this and go on to the last stage, doing good for its own sake. This has also been the historic Christian teaching. (By "historic" I of course do not mean simply that it was taught at one time or another by some Christian or other, but that this has been the Christian view throughout the history of the church.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Finally, some thoughts on hell for those who have never dared open a book on Christian theology (from Kreeft).</span><br />
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 16pt;"><i><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Hell seems contrary to justice as well as love. For the punishment does not seem to fit the crime here, either in quantity or quality. What is the relation or proportion between hell's unthinkable, infinite, eternal torments and earth's thinkable, finite, temporal sins? The same sort of relationship as fifty years of torture to a three-year-old's theft of a cookie. How can finite sin justly merit infinite punishment? How can temporal sin merit eternal punishment?</span></i></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 24pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><span style="color: black;">Reply:</span></b><span style="color: black;"> There are three charges here:</span></span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; text-indent: -24pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">(a) Temporal crimes do not merit eternal punishments,</span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; text-indent: -24pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">(b) Finite crimes do not merit infinite punishments, and</span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; text-indent: -24pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">(c) Mild crimes do not merit such intense punishments.</span></div></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 24pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><span style="color: black;">a. </span></b><span style="color: black;">Eternity is not quantitative. It is not more time, or even endless time. It is another <i>dimension</i> than time, just as time is another dimension than space. Whatever we make of ourselves in time is destined to be "fleshed out" into the dimension of eternity. To use a crude image, if we make squares of ourselves in time, we are cubes eternally; temporally blueprinted triangles go to the sculptor to become eternal pyramids. The relation between earthly choices and eternal rewards or punishments is not like the relation between crimes and prison sentences, but like the relation between a foundation and a building. It is not external but internal. In a sense, heaven or hell is the same thing as earth; the same life, the same person, only with another dimension—somewhat as life after birth is the same life, the same person, but with more dimensions. Souls in time are like boats on a river, all destined for the ocean of eternity. It is a structural internal necessity, not an imposed external reward or punishment.</span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 24pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><span style="color: black;">b. </span></b><span style="color: black;">Hell's punishments are <i>eternal,</i> but not <i>infinite.</i> Only God is infinite. Souls, sin and punishment are all finite. Just as one saint is more saintly, more great-hearted, more loving, and therefore more able to contain God's joy in heaven than another, and in this sense is naturally "higher" in heaven than another, so one sinner is "lower" in hell than another (i.e., more deep-set in despair and pride and hate). There are limits.</span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 24pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><span style="color: black;">c. </span></b><span style="color: black;">The intense images of physical torture are meant to suggest something beyond themselves: the privation of God, source of all joy and meaning. The unimaginable thing suggested by the imaginative images of fire is more awful, not less, than the literal misinterpretation of the images. Physical pain comes in degrees of intensity; the privation of God is total.</span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 24pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Hell's punishment fits sin's crime because sin is divorce from God. The punishment fits the crime because the punishment <i>is</i> the crime.</span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-31613714069530598412007-06-26T12:58:00.001-07:002007-06-26T13:03:18.296-07:00Some thoughts on Regeneration Before Faith (or vice-versa)<style> P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> <div style="text-align: left;"></div> <style> P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> <div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Our church just underwent a mini-crisis regarding whether the church's official position is rbf or not. I had previously shared my own journey from fbr to rbf, "kicking and screaming."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Note: rbf = Regeneration before faith; fbr = Faith before regeneration)</span><br /><br />What is clear is that there are two camps, both composed of brothers and sisters who are serious about their faith and service. How do our respective positions affect our service and devotion? In what ways will they differ? Both sides suspect the others' views will theoretically prove detrimental, no matter how slightly, but in reality I expect we will serve and worship in almost exactly the same way. rfbs will think that bfrs may not care about evangelism as much as they, but this is not the case; and bfrs may think that fbrs have a lower view of God's sovereignty, but I very much doubt that this is ever in their minds.<br /><br />The best resolution of this issue is for those who hold this issue to be so important to, as Pastor ___ suggests, get together to study the Scriptures, with the appropriate study helps. I hope this will happen sometime in the future. I can understand some apprehension about being "dominated" by our fearsome pastors, but we have nothing to fear from trying to understand and discern the Scriptures for ourselves with the benefits of scholarship. I am sure we have enough knife-fighters and martial artists to maintain order. <span style="font-style: italic;">(inside joke)</span><br /><br />I received a couple of comments yesterday to the effect of "Oh, you're a Calvinist." However, as Pastor ___ described his own position, mine is due to a study of the Scriptures only, trying to see how the Scriptures cited by both sides can be made into a coherent whole. (I had read R.C. Sproul's book about election and TULIP some years ago, but I would be hard pressed to remember it; and, in any case, after reading it, I had the same objections to his presentation as do the fbrs.)<br /><br />My intent in adopting fbr was honorable enough; I thought that rbf could lead, theoretically, to a kind of spiritual apathy. If God has chosen, why do we need to do anything? And I was defending God against charges of being cruel or arbitrary or unfair, charges which arose when considering rbf. I could interpret or explain away many passages that seemed to support rbf. "Dead in trespasses and sins" didn't convince me; could just be a metaphor. Paul could just as well have written, "choking in trespasses and sins ... drowning in trespasses and sins ..." However, I could not harmonize my view with some very significant passages. "<span style="font-style: italic;">You did not choose me, but I chose you</span> ..." (Not to mention a whole chapter, Romans 9).<br /><br />The weight of the Scripture began to erode my view. Finally it seemed that I was upholding fbr only because of the supposed implications of fbr, rather than the Scriptures. Could it be that I was wrong, then, about those implications? (Maybe.) Could the reality actually be (far) more complex than that? (Yes.) Does the hawk take flight by my wisdom and spread his wings toward the south? (No.)<br /><br />With you, it may begin or end simply with this choice: which has more priority, my human experience and objections and reasons, or God's revelation? I can't rationally explain Creation or the Trinity or the Incarnation, but I believe them, not because of one or two cryptic verses, but because of the combined weight of Scripture. What, then, about rbf?<br /><br />There was also a huge problem, in my mind, with grace. The Scripture says, repeatedly, that there is <span style="font-style: italic;">no reason whatsoever</span> for us to boast about being saved. But why did I choose Christ, and that other person not choose Christ? Was I smarter, more childlike, more honest about myself, more open to the truth, more humble? If so, I was saved because I was, in some teeny, tiny way - better. And if so, there was <span style="font-style: italic;">some </span>reason to boast - not that I would, of course, nor would any of us. But still, there it was - a reason to boast. Salvation by merit. Teeny, tiny merit, but merit nevertheless.<br /><br />Unless even that faith was from God. (Eph 2:8-9)<br /><br /></div>As my original view slowly gave way, my mind still resisted the conclusions and implications. As I examined the basis of my objections, I saw that <span style="font-style: italic;">it was my view of God</span> which led to the implications which made rbf seem arbitrary and fatalistic. Or, to put it another way, when I was saying that rbf was arbitrary and unfair, <span style="font-style: italic;">I was really saying God was arbitrary and unfair</span>. I had to ask myself, "Does God do things that don't make sense?" No. "Does God elect or not elect people willy-nilly, by throwing dice?" No. "Does God will for as many to be saved as is possible?" Yes. Once I started from the <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">certainty </span>that God is not arbitrary but is loving and merciful and wise beyond my understanding, my objections began to fade.<br /><br />Now allow me to say this: the mystery is that our <span style="font-style: italic;">experience </span>seems fbr. We never knew when or how God started his work in us. <span style="font-style: italic;">As far as we were concerned</span>, our choice was freely made. And all our other choices are, in our experience, free. As I mentioned, human experience does not negate the Scripture, but the juxtaposition of the two - regeneration and real choice - does magnify my awe of God and the subtlety of his ways, which are truly higher than ours.<br /><br />Lastly, I talked with a fbr-er (you know who you are!) before the meeting, and he mentioned that it was interesting that my "journey" to rbf was so arduous, and that I was dragged into it "kicking and screaming" showed that it's a hard thing to accept. Well, it was hard for me, but I know many kinder and gentler souls for whom it was easier. But at the end of the conversation, I'm sure we both knew that we were both still nuts, but still brothers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-47017852161906006642007-06-13T08:12:00.000-07:002007-06-26T13:14:46.145-07:00Christian Songs that Need to be Rewritten, #1: Prince of Peace(by Michael W. Smith)<br /><br /><span class="normal"><blockquote><br /> You are holy (You are holy)<br />You are mighty (You are mighty)<br />You are worthy (You are worthy)<br />Worthy of praise (Worthy of praise)<br /><br />I will follow (I will follow)<br />I will listen (I will listen)<br />I will love You (I will love you)<br />All of my days (All of my days)<br /><br />I will sing to (You are Lord of Lords)<br />And worship (You are King of kings)<br />The King who (You are mighty God)<br />Is worthy (Lord of everything)<br />I will love and (You're Emannuel)<br />Adore You (You're the Great I am)<br />And I will bow down (You're my Prince of peace)<br />before You (Who is the Lamb)<br />I will sing to (You're my living God)<br />And worship (You're my saving grace)<br />The King who (You will reign forever)<br />Is worthy (You are ancient of days)<br />I will love and (You are alpha, omega)<br />Adore You (beginning and end)<br />And I will bow down (You're my Savior, Messiah)<br />Before You (Redeemer and friend)<br />You're my Prince of Peace<br />And I will live my life for You </blockquote><br /><br />What's wrong with it, you ask? Look at the lyrics. What is it about? The title and chorus say "Prince of Peace," but <span style="font-style: italic;">the rest of the song is totally generic and not about this at all!</span> There's <span style="font-style: italic;">nothing else</span> in the song to tie it to the idea that "You're my Prince of Peace." You can substitute <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>other name or title of God instead and it will still be as relevant as "Prince of Peace" - in fact, many other choices would be <span style="font-style: italic;">more </span>suitable.<br /><br />A critic compiling his list of the 100 worst pop songs ever used this criteria to include Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire": a list is not a song. Is this a fair criticism? I think it is in this case. There are too many worship songs which are just endless and meandering lists of God's names and/or attributes. There are exceptions when the list is beautifully set to a suitable melody, but this isn't one of them.<br /><br />It may be OK as a private worship or meditation, but it's not focused or coherent or polished enough for corporate worship.<br /><br />We need to worship with our minds, not just with catchy or upbeat tunes.<br /><br />Update: one sister points out that the alternate title of the song is actually "You Are Holy." That actually worsens the problem, as "</span><span class="normal">You're my Prince of Peace" then ambushes us, jumping out with no context</span> - unless you could simultaneously follow the women's part, which mentions "Prince of Peace," and which is written as a driving, monotonous, throwaway part. Someone else said it's a fun song to sing.<br /><span class="normal"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-33673899326876129982007-01-13T11:12:00.000-08:002007-01-13T11:19:07.293-08:00Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-Itself-Exploring-Realm-Living/dp/0195125002/ref=cm_cr-mr-title/102-0864796-1271361">Life Itself: Exploring the Realm of the Living Cell</a><br />by Boyce Rensberger<br />Edition: Paperback<br /><br />A fascinating look at the mind-boggling complexity of cells - miniscule factories seemingly totally controlled by and communicating with each other through the interaction of amazing molecular machines.<br /><br />Even more mind-boggling is the author's blind faith that this arose through chance and evolution, thus such intellectually and scientifically vacuous statements like, "evolution solved this problem by" ... useless sops to fundamentalist Darwinism, and totally useless scientifically. Nowhere are such statements elaborated upon; the existence of the first cell is assumed, thereby glossing over one of the greatest frustrations in current biology. He sprinkles such religious statements liberally throughout, instead of questioning, as Behe did in "Darwin's Black Box." However, his accounts of the scientific details of the cell are fairly clear and fascinating, with some neatly done illustrations; and so this book becomes, unwittingly, a perfect companion to Behe's "Darwin's Black Box."<br /><br />His scientific rigorousness is spotty - but not unusual for an evolutionist. In keeping with outdated evolutionist "science", he presents Haeckel's now-discredited, faked embryo drawings as proof of evolution ('Embryonic fraud lives on', New Scientist 155(2098):23, September 6, 1997).<br /><br />But the further one reads, the more the skeptical mind is inclined to question, "How," "When," and "Why". For example, he describes the intracellular transportation network early on. This leads us to question, when reading that this molecule or that vesicle has to move from here to there, just how does it do this, what means of locomotion does it employ, and how is this orchestrated purely in terms of proteins and such? He does a generally good job of anticipating these questions, although each answer adds to the implausibility of the system developing by chance. But the more interesting question, "How did these systems originate?" is glossed over with "It evolved."<br /><br />Elsewhere, he says that the processes of life are "no more mysterious, though often far more complex and wondrous, than the crystallization of water molecules into snowflakes. ... their formation is obviously no miracle." A strangely scientifically naive view (but not uncommon among fundamentalist Darwinists), he has ironically missed the point of his own book.He does not realize that his very own descriptions of the workings of the cell, to the open, skeptical mind, most certainly do point to a miracle.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-1165902482254531662006-12-11T21:28:00.000-08:002007-01-13T11:01:38.837-08:00Where did God come from? (Or: Who created God?)This question is supposed to be the be-all, end-all of questions that are supposed to trump all discussions against theism. Our inability to answer this question is supposed to show that theism and atheism have at least equivalent problems concerning origins.<br /><br />However, the atheist position is much weaker. The atheist claims that everything, including the complexity and apparent design of the universe, arose from nothing, in a naturalistic fashion, <em>where no such mechanism is observable or has been observed</em>. It is claimed that this is the same position the theist is in: that the origins of God, from whom all complexity and design flows, is also a mystery.<br /><br />But if our origins are naturalistic, it is wholly unexpected and unexplainable that the natural processes which gave rise to our universe are still wholly unknown and, even worse, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">unimaginable</span>, whereas it is not unexpected that the God who is outside of and indeed the creator of this complex universe is not open to our scientific investigation. The atheist's position is born from the absurdity of <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">a priori</span> denial of God; the theist's view can be defended as a logical deduction from the staggering complexity of the creation, as described by Behe and others, that so far has resisted all naturalistic and scientific explanation, as the very laws of physics (and therefore chemistry) have been shown to work against chance formations of life's molecules in primordial soups and so on. The fact that some scientists insist otherwise does not make their view scientific; real science, not just dogmatic assertions, wishfull thinking, or irrational faith, must support their claims, and to date this is just not the case.<br /><br />Moreover, the rational being must accept that even if we cannot explain God's origins, it matters only that he exists, and that he may or may not have revealed himself and his moral demands in some manner or other, and that our choices may have eternal consequences. Even if we posit, as some do, that God was once a man, or some sci-fi (or sci-non-fi) notion of how he came to be, the only thing that matters is which revelation of him can be trusted, if any. And if he claims that he is outside of time and was never a mere mortal, that is something we will have to investigate.<br /><br />As to the objection that we cannot obey or worship or interact with a being we cannot fully apprehend, this is silliness. We do so throughout our lives, with people, especially as regards the opposite sex. We relate to people whose ultimate origins and internal workings we may not fully or even partially understand. We drive cars without fully knowing their origins or design or internal workings. We use MRIs without knowing the full picture of quantum mechanics. It is irresponsible to use similar ignorance as an excuse when approaching the subject of God and our eternal destinies.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-1164609128414037562006-11-26T22:24:00.000-08:002007-06-26T13:16:12.114-07:00The Jonah MysterySo I was listening to a sermon on Jonah when a question came to mind. Well, two questions.<br /><ol><li>Why did the Ninevites respond to Jonah's message?</li><li>How did they know that judgment had been averted?</li></ol>What was it about Jonah or the current situation that made them respond to such a wacky message? Did they have a basic knowledge of and fear of God? Did Jonah's strange arrival generate a fearful following? Or was there some visible, physical threat, such as a plague, atmospheric/astronomical anomalies, distant rumblings from enemy nations? Or was the king having scary dreams?<br /><br />So they're repenting in sackcloth and ashes. How did they know that God had pardoned them, unless there was a threat of the abovementioned variety that could be visibly or experientally "turned off"?<br /><br />Update: <a href="http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/0232.html">Found this</a>:<br /><blockquote><p>This city was spared. Why did they listen to Jonah's message? Well, I think this would always be a mystery to us were it not for clues supplied by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. In the Gospel of Luke in chapter 11, our Lord refers to this account: "For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation." (Lk. 11:30) He said, "Jonah -- the man, the prophet -- was himself a sign to the city of Nineveh, and in just the same manner, I, the Lord Jesus Christ, will be a sign to the whole generation." He referred to Israel but he meant the whole race of man beyond that; and as Jonah was a sign to Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation. </p> There are Bible scholars who feel that what happened to Jonah was that his features were changed by his experience in the whale's belly.</blockquote>That seems to work. Another view is that it was Jonah's "resurrection" from the dead, or being coughed up on the beach from the fish, that was the sign.<br /><br />Still doesn't answer how they knew that the crisis had been averted, though.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35721522.post-1161800731243981512006-10-25T11:25:00.000-07:002007-01-13T11:12:47.716-08:00Darwinist's Nightmare: The Serial Killer Challenge<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/post_33.html">Heather MacDonald says</a>, "In the personal sphere, conservative atheists and agnostics lead lives as ethical as those of any believer. The Golden Rule and innate human empathy provide ample guidance for moral behavior."<br /><br />True (I hope). However, here is the key: as long as they choose to. They have no foundation for recommending that belief to others. For example, my serial killer challenge, which I posted on numerous forums some years ago: you are in a basement, immobilized, with a Darwinist serial killer who does not believe in God. He kills others to reduce their gene pool and maximize his own. (His reproductive strategy is another matter.) He is not crazy; he is entirely rational. He is, like Hitler and Stalin, simply taking Darwinism to its logical conclusion.<br /><br />He challenges you to convince him to not kill you. (You have, say, two days, after which he will kill you.) How would you do so?<br /><br />Responses usually start off with societal contracts and other things which, I explain, the killer isn't concerned with. He doesn't care if society breaks down. He is totally confident in his own intelligence and ability to survive. His only other concern is evading the law - something which he believes he can do indefinitely. In any case, his progeny - his genes - will live on.<br /><br />Most atheists, after a couple of failed answers, resort to "I kill him." Well. That underscores the frail underpinnings of simply <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">wanting </span>everyone (or, in most cases, everyone <em>else</em>) to follow the Golden Rule - cuddly (except the part about punishing those who <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">don't</span> follow it), but naive. </div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><br /> </div>However, it's at least <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">possible </span>to <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">rationally </span>argue a Christian theistic viewpoint that will convince this killer to spare you. There is no shortage of angles from which to tackle this - historic, moral , logical, legal, scientific, etc. And <em>Christianity is the only worldview for which this can be done</em>.<br /></div><a href="http://get.live.com/messenger/overview" target="_new"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0