God does not baptize our way of life. It is precisely our way of life and the consequences thereof that God washes away.
There is no need whatsoever for a Christian to be concerned about national security. Your nation is truly unassailable. No force on earth or in heaven could ever jeopardize the security of its borders. Even should Hell itself release all its fury, your nation will stand. It is crucial to remember that your nation is first and foremost the kingdom of God, and that is where your citizenship truly lies.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Something to keep in mind.
We fail to realize just how deeply the practice of slavery
and degradation of women are built into our psyche. Bending another to our will is the most
natural thing in the world. It is
evolutionary. It is the most powerful
rising to the top. In the same vein, so
is the degradation and subjugation of women.
Men are stronger and can force women to do what the man wills. The Bible was written in and to a world where
these values were in full force. We, on
the other hand, are enjoying 2,000 years of fruit of the kingdom
of God
Because the point is not for men to treat women as equals
but for men to see women as equals.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Who created God?
This from Christianitydisproved.com:
It is now up to the Christian to answer the question: Who created God? "Surely, nothing as complex and intricate as a supernatural intelligence can be the result of mere “chance.” Therefore, there must be a super-designer who designed God. But a super-designer [God 1] would require a super-super designer [God 2], and so on ad infinitum … If an orderly universe requires an explanation, the positing of a god does not provide it." (Smith 1989, p.150)
"The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) ... raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can't the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused?" (Dennett 2006, p.242)
While there is no knockdown argument for or against the existence of God, this particular argument is from all sides, idiotic. The universe consistently shows us that everything has a cause and effect. At first glance this would lead to the conclusion/rebuttal above. Whether or not god exists, both sides of the argument have to agree on at least one particular, namely that god is not part of the natural world the same way a tree is (or a star, or background radiation). God is by definition supernatural. This does not mean merely that god is natural plus, but that god does not exist in, nor is god defined by the universe which god created. The assumption is poorly made here that however god's existence is defined, that existence somehow operates under the same "rules" as the natural universe.
Whether or not god exists, the understanding of god is that god exists apart from the natural universe and exists outside of time in a way that we are unable to understand. Words such as "forever" and "eternity" and "pre-existing" are used not because they are good definitions of the supernatural but because they are the closest we can come to understanding what being outside time means. Most theists would agree that god exists before time. But this is in itself a metaphor because the word "before" is temporal. Again, this is the best way of understanding and communicating something that we only understand for fleeting moments.
The point is that whether you say, "If God is self-caused, then the universe could be as well," or, "The universe had to be created, therefore God had to be as well," you have merely committed a non sequitur.
This is of course no argument for the existence of God (though from nothing, nothing comes still is). But many people are taken in by such foolish arguments. What must be understood here is that if you make or believe this argument, you are in no way talking about God. Anselm's definition of God is helpful here: God is "that than which nothing greater cane be conceived."
One more point to be made here: 99% of the time, atheism argues against bad theology, which is good in many respects, since curing bad theology would do the world good regardless. But the statement, "God is self-caused" is misleading in a weak theology sort of way. To say God is self-caused is to imply, however subtly, that God was not, then was. This makes the same mistake mentioned before in that it encapsulates God within time. It is acceptable to say such things only if we truly understanding that it is merely a simile in that it is like God is self-caused. This is not remotely the worst theology against which atheism argues, but it is important here.
It is now up to the Christian to answer the question: Who created God? "Surely, nothing as complex and intricate as a supernatural intelligence can be the result of mere “chance.” Therefore, there must be a super-designer who designed God. But a super-designer [God 1] would require a super-super designer [God 2], and so on ad infinitum … If an orderly universe requires an explanation, the positing of a god does not provide it." (Smith 1989, p.150)
"The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) ... raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can't the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused?" (Dennett 2006, p.242)
While there is no knockdown argument for or against the existence of God, this particular argument is from all sides, idiotic. The universe consistently shows us that everything has a cause and effect. At first glance this would lead to the conclusion/rebuttal above. Whether or not god exists, both sides of the argument have to agree on at least one particular, namely that god is not part of the natural world the same way a tree is (or a star, or background radiation). God is by definition supernatural. This does not mean merely that god is natural plus, but that god does not exist in, nor is god defined by the universe which god created. The assumption is poorly made here that however god's existence is defined, that existence somehow operates under the same "rules" as the natural universe.
Whether or not god exists, the understanding of god is that god exists apart from the natural universe and exists outside of time in a way that we are unable to understand. Words such as "forever" and "eternity" and "pre-existing" are used not because they are good definitions of the supernatural but because they are the closest we can come to understanding what being outside time means. Most theists would agree that god exists before time. But this is in itself a metaphor because the word "before" is temporal. Again, this is the best way of understanding and communicating something that we only understand for fleeting moments.
The point is that whether you say, "If God is self-caused, then the universe could be as well," or, "The universe had to be created, therefore God had to be as well," you have merely committed a non sequitur.
This is of course no argument for the existence of God (though from nothing, nothing comes still is). But many people are taken in by such foolish arguments. What must be understood here is that if you make or believe this argument, you are in no way talking about God. Anselm's definition of God is helpful here: God is "that than which nothing greater cane be conceived."
One more point to be made here: 99% of the time, atheism argues against bad theology, which is good in many respects, since curing bad theology would do the world good regardless. But the statement, "God is self-caused" is misleading in a weak theology sort of way. To say God is self-caused is to imply, however subtly, that God was not, then was. This makes the same mistake mentioned before in that it encapsulates God within time. It is acceptable to say such things only if we truly understanding that it is merely a simile in that it is like God is self-caused. This is not remotely the worst theology against which atheism argues, but it is important here.
Friday, February 1, 2013
A more rational argument for atheism is needed.
I have to admit, I think a lot about atheism. I read a fair amount of articles geared in that direction. I look at news stories on the subject, listen to podcasts, watch speeches, and occasionally read books. Okay fine. The problem I have with them is that none of them (that I have seen) amount to anything more than a straw-man argument. They argue, without fail, against not only weak theology, but extremely bad theology. For anyone that considers themselves an atheist, they should stop listening to atheists that write books. If you really want to make a "rational" decision, spend more time investigating what Christians (and, in all fairness, any religion) really believe. A good way to do this would be to ask what Christians have historically believed. By historical, I don't mean within the last hundred years or so, I mean start at the beginning and move towards the present.
This highlights two very important things. 1. Every "rational argument" against faith has been discussed and shown flawed from a very early stage. (google "church fathers" if you really want to investigate.) 2. Much of what we in this day and age call, "Christian" is very far removed from what Christians have traditionally believed and practiced.
Along with these two there is the realization that though many of the surface characteristics and beliefs are similar, the underlying beliefs, understandings, and rationale are often very different.
There are many reasons to be an atheist, I suppose. The intellectual garbage that is produced at the forefront of the movement doesn't even recognize good scholarship, let alone rational discussion and thought. Do yourself a favor and take your life seriously enough to investigate what you are or are not believing.
This highlights two very important things. 1. Every "rational argument" against faith has been discussed and shown flawed from a very early stage. (google "church fathers" if you really want to investigate.) 2. Much of what we in this day and age call, "Christian" is very far removed from what Christians have traditionally believed and practiced.
Along with these two there is the realization that though many of the surface characteristics and beliefs are similar, the underlying beliefs, understandings, and rationale are often very different.
There are many reasons to be an atheist, I suppose. The intellectual garbage that is produced at the forefront of the movement doesn't even recognize good scholarship, let alone rational discussion and thought. Do yourself a favor and take your life seriously enough to investigate what you are or are not believing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)