Friday, May 23
Episcopal Hierarchs Blame The First Amendment For Income Inequality & Unemployment
Critics Of Transhumanism Denounced As Not Christian
Similar to the logic where the early Christians were persecuted for being atheists.
Click On The Headline
Lessons In Apologetics #10: Naturalism & The Supernatural
In the chapter "Naturalism & The Supernatural", Geisler examines the argument against acts of God classified as miracles. The basic argument, presented in its textbook form by David Hume, is stated in the following manner: "(1) A miracle by definition is a violation of (or exception to) a law of nature. (2) But the laws of nature are built upon the highest degree of probability. (3) Hence, a miracle by definition (as an exception) is based on the lowest degree of probability. (4) Now the wise man should always base his belief on the highest degree of probability. (5) Therefore, the wise man should never believe in miracles (266)."
The variations of this argument that have been developed over the decades and centuries since the time of Hume share a number of assumptions. The first is the assumption that the universe operates in accord with repeatable norms which we refer to as natural law. The Christian also shares this belief as God has chosen these to imbue the physical creation with what we perceive as order and what causes events contradicting these principles to stand out as events worthy of special attention.
However, it is beyond this point that the Christian and those that believe God does not intervene in the creation must part company. The naturalist essentially pursues two lines of reasoning that the Christian cannot endorse.
One principle basically eliminates miracles by definition. This is accomplished by postulating that whatever occurs in the natural world is a natural event. We as finite individuals might not be able to explain or understand why something happened in the way it did, but that does not mean there is not some kind of reason within a closed system to account for the phenomena in question without having to appeal to an interdiction by an outside higher source.
The other major assumption underlying arguments against the miraculous is that miracles do not occur because such events would be a violation of the probabilities natural laws are derived from. While natural laws are descriptions of what transpire in most instances, the sincere researcher aspiring to the distinction of scientist must study the events that actually take place and not sweep away those that do not conform to preconceived notions as to what is and is not possible. It is only by carefully scrutinizing these instances out of the ordinary that the researcher is able to uncover either explanations that fit within the normal operation of natural systems or rather the intervention of an intelligence beyond that which mortal minds are not generally accustomed to interacting with.
Even though the Christian must accept and defend the notion that natural laws as we understand them are not so inviolable, neither should the Christian go to the other extreme and herald every unexplainable occurrence as an undeniably direct intervention by the hand of God. As Geisler deliberately points out, there is a set of criteria an event should be evaluated by before the Christian accepts it as a miracle (280-282).
Foremost, the investigator seeking to determine the nature of an event contradicting normality must ascertain if its origin is possibly Satanic. Scripture warns that in later times there will be deceitful signs and wonders that would deceive the very elect if that were possible. The Christian must always let God’s revealed message rather than experience be the final court of arbitration.
Secondly, the Christian must be careful to distinguish between miracles and anomalies. For example, if someone appears to die on the operating table, is hauled off to the morgue, and seemingly comes back to life several hours later, though there would be reason to rejoice and look to this as a gift from God, there still might not be sufficient grounds to declare this a miracle. This is because such an occurrence could very well be an anomaly firstly because the event may have a cause which may be naturally explainable but at the time beyond the boundaries of our scientific understanding. And secondly, there is not necessarily any moral or theological claims connected to the unexpected healing.
To help the believer through this confusion, Geisler provides a number of guidelines an alleged miracle must measure up to in order to be categorized as such: (1) A miracle must be an exception to the normal pattern of events. (2) A miracle involves some kind of theological truth claim as an act of God would not contradict what God has revealed about Himself. (3) A miracle must also have good moral impact as God would not violate his standards. (4) And lastly, miracles suspend normal patterns rather than violate natural processes (282).
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, May 22
A California Christian school finds itself in a heated legal quandary. The question at hand is whether or not the civil rights of educators were violated when they were terminated from their positions for being Roman Catholic. The school claims students should only be exposed to teaching in compliance with the sponsoring church’s doctrinal statement. The fired teachers insist that they did not attempt to manipulate students into embracing Roman Catholic peculiarities. In all fairness, unless the teachers were deceptive about their denominational allegiances or switched teams mid game, the school ought to be punished for extending an offer of employment only to snatch it back once revivalistic fanaticism sweeps through the institution.
Wednesday, May 21
Lessons In Apologetics #9: Theism
However, Geisler does not leave readers dangling by requiring them to embrace Theism simply for the lack of another viable alternative. Instead, Geisler provides an argument more positive in its orientation incorporating analytical and evidential components.
The argument is stated as such: "(1) Some things undeniably exist. (2) My nonexistence is possible. (3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another. (4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence. (5) Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists. (6) This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect. (7) This infinitely perfect being is called "God". (8) Therefore, God exists. (9) This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures. (10) Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists."
Borrowing from Descartes' conclusion "cogito ergo sum", Geisler posits that, in order to deny that one exists, one must exist in order to do so. From reflections upon the nature of our own existence, one concludes that our nonexistence is possible. For even though we do not like to admit it, there was a time when the world was at least able to hobble along crippled without us in it.
We know that whatever has the possibility of not existing is currently caused to exist by another. Each of us resulted from the physical union of the genetic material of our respective parents who in turn came from the union of their parents, etc, etc. However, physical laws such as those of thermodynamics point out that this chain must have a cause that does not need to be caused. To accomplish this, the uncaused cause would need to be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all perfect. Anything less would be unable to be this uncaused cause.
It is appropriate to call this cause "God" since it possesses the attributes traditionally assigned to divinity. Therefore, God exists.
Geisler further argues that the God affirmed by this proof is the God described in the Bible because there can only be one infinitely perfect and changeless eternal being. However, at this point in the apologetic task Geisler is careful to point out that, "This does not mean that everything the Bible claims that this God said or did, he actually said or did. Whether or not what the Bible says about this God is another question. What we conclude here is ... the God described in the Bible exists; second, whatever the Bible claims for this God that is not inconsistent with his nature, it is possible that he did indeed do and say (250)."
Having reached this conceptual plateau, the apologist can rest for just a moment before he must begin the sectarian and denominational wrangling to make the case that the Christian path into fellowship with God is indeed the correct one.
by Frederick Meekins
Insufficiently Brainwashed Bob Jones University Students Placed On "Character Probation"
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, May 20
It was claimed that there is no quicker way to clear out a church than to preach election and predestination because doing so supposedly separates the sheep from the goats. Within that statement is also the assumption that non-Calvinists are going to Hell. However, why is someone obligated to remain in a congregation that will do little more than create mental despair and emotional depression? Because in such congregations, not only is one constantly berated and belittled for the least little offense but are constantly beaten over the head that God created you for no other reason that to let you fall into the Hellfires of eternal damnation.
Monday, May 19
Spiritual Preparation: Standing On God's Word
Saturday, May 17
Pecksniffs Of Providence
Part of this disdain usually stems from certain misunderstandings as to the nature of the Christian religion.
One common complaint often arises when Christians in media are required to present and disseminate information regarding less than pleasant realities or discuss the implications of said events and ideas.
Christians in mass communications, as a result, are accused of fostering a negative tone. They are then admonished to take a "distinctively Christian approach to the news" or "work to supply ... a uniquely Christian news flow."
Usually this means either mimicking the spin taken by more traditional secular news sources or confining one's coverage to more acceptable religious fair such as bakesales, choir robes, and sermons so inoffensive in nature as to be devoid of any real theological content.
Employing such a standard, the Bible itself would have to be tossed out with the other offending publications.
John 8:32 says, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Biblical figures did not embrace this notion in some abstract sense without any bearing on everyday life.
The prophet Nathan did not hide behind the false distinction between the public and private lives of government officials when criticizing King David's shortcomings with Bathsheba. Paul did not back down from the Athenians on the Acropolis or the Jews on the Sanhedrin.
It may come as surprise, but not all criticism of rigorous Christian and Conservative media stems from the leftwing of the theological and ideological spectrum. A great deal is in fact generated by those classifying themselves as Fundamentalists.
Even though he does not usually address issues considered distinctively religious in nature, Rush Limbaugh's social and political philosophies are close enough to those regularly found among civically engaged Evangelicals that many of the criticisms leveled against this particular radio personality by Fundamentalist researcher David Cloud in his O'Timothy magazine and website readily apply to Christian mass communicators who address issues of the day in their publications and broadcasts.
David Cloud argues that Rush Limbaugh is in violation of Scripture by disrespecting and stirring up discontent against divinely appointed rulers.
In support of his case, Cloud quotes verses such as Titus 3:1-2 among others which says, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work. To speak evil of no man..." As well as from I Peter 2:13 which says, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake; whether it be the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for punishment of evildoers."
To utilize these verses in condemnation of Conservative media is to misunderstand the nature of the current American political system.
Those opposed to Christian social and political engagement often point out that these passages were written at the time of the Roman Empire. But in all due respect, what of it?
The United States is a completely different political animal. In the Roman Empire, power and authority were vested in the Emperor. In the United States, the people have assented to place final authority in the Constitution. The President, members of Congress, judges, and an increasing array of public officials manning the bureaucracy are merely servants under the Constitution and answerable to the American people through the Constitution, a major clause of which guarantees the citizen the right of free speech.
Rush Limbaugh and his fellow conservative media personalities are in no sense undermining authority duly constituted in the American context.
According to Marvin Olasky in Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism, such writers are practicing a craft that can be traced in this country back to the days of the Puritan forefathers.
One early American commentator steeped in the Judeo-Christian worldview Olasky quotes sounds strikingly similar to one of the many cogent conservative voices one might find along the radio dial or on the editorial page in our own day. William Leggett wrote in the New York Evening Post during the 1830's regarding government redistribution schemes, "A government administered on such a policy may be called a Government of Equal rights, but it is in its nature and essence a disguised despotism."
It has been said that one ought not unnecessarily discover the sins of others. However, it becomes one's obligation to expose these transgressions when they hit one's pocket book or come to impact the physical and/or moral well-being of one's family or country.
If anything, the actions of mass communicators taking these kinds of stands are more in compliance with the moral order than those taken by government officials who transcend the bounds of their delineated authority in the pursuit of individual aggrandizement or the imposition of freedom-curtailing ideologies.
If Conservative and Evangelical mass communicators are to refrain from criticizing government leaders since to do so would be speaking evil in violation of I Peter 2, then by what right does a pastor have to chastise the shortcomings of the congregation? Like the pastor calling for a return to righteous living, the commentator is simply admonishing wayward officials to return to the principles of just leadership.
Critics of Evangelical cultural involvement have also failed in understanding the multifaceted threat faced by Christianity for the soul of America. David Cloud asserts in the O' Timothy article, "Limbaugh does not understand the root problems with America's ills, which are spiritual and moral rather than political."
The assessment of the nature of the problem is correct, but it fails to account for the fact that the nature of totalitarianism is to infect and smother all areas of existence. Under this system of social organization, those involved with the administration of political affairs take it upon themselves to exert control over those aspects of existence considered more spiritual in nature.
Limbaugh and others like him do not necessarily advocate political answers to nonpolitical problems. What they do insist upon is for political leaders to disentangle themselves from other social spheres and to return to America's founding principles.
David Cloud continues, "The Christian's primary business is to preach the Word of God to the ends of the earth and to be ready for Christ's return." He also adds that what we need are preachers and not radio entertainers.
Such statements reveal the kind of ignorance regarding the nature of Christian and Conservative media and mass communications alluded to earlier. It also exhibits a serious failure in realizing that not everyone is called to promote God's message in the same way.
Ephesians 4:11 says, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."
While it is the duty of every Christian to promote the saving message of Jesus in their own way, not everyone is to do it in the same way. Broadcast personalities and print correspondents can address topics and issues not necessarily appropriate coming from behind a pulpit such as the threats posed by terrorism or the intricacies of education policy but that do have bearing on the implications of God's will for man in the world.
Even though Christ's return is imminent in that it can occur at any time, there is a world to occupy and evil to hold at bay in the meantime. Certain Christians excuse their social quietism on the grounds that prophecy predicts conditions will grow increasingly more evil. Did they ever stop to think such foretold apostasy was the result of Evangelicals abandoning the culture willy-nilly to the forces of the adversary without a fight?
This self-imposed dichotomy between the sacred and the profane advocated by certain brands of fundamentalism was not the position taken by the Protestant Reformers who saw all of creation and culture as part of God's handiwork to be enjoyed by His children.
Therefore, all labor undertaken in His honor was to be as equally important. Be it as a farmer behind the plow or as a preacher in the pulpit. Somewhere along this spectrum there must be room for Christian commentators, broadcasters, and journalists who look to both the concrete realities of this earthly life as well as to the eternal principles by which the affairs of the universe are governed.
by Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 16
Obama Administration Denies Entrance To Nigerian Christian Victimized By Jihadists
Thursday, May 15
Italian Bishop Calls For The Acceptance Of Homosexuality, Abortion & Euthanasia
Lessons In Apologetics #8: Atheism
Atheism is the worldview that believes that God does not exist. Those embracing this perspective tend to do so over both objective and existential reasons.
Those claiming to embrace Atheism for objective reasons often concentrate their attacks on the more scientific approaches to the existence of God such as the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument for the existence of God holds that all contingent things must have a cause and that this cause is at the minimum Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause and preferably the God of the Christian faith as expounded by Aquinas when he adapted these propositions for Christian usage. Atheists raise their hands and say hold on a moment to what they see as presumptuous conclusions.
From the Christian perspective, since God exists beyond what we perceive as time, He is sufficient or necessary to jumpstart the universe and get the temporal ball rolling. However, the Atheist has no metaphysical problem with an infinite chain of causality. Yet the laws of thermodynamics might dictate otherwise as these fundamental principles of physics hold that there is only a finite amount of energy available within a closed system.
So even though the Atheist may not have an intellectual objection to a material universe that is infinitely old, such an assumption smashes eventually against the hard wall of reality. However, seldom has that ever stopped anyone adamant about adhering to their favored delusions no matter what the evidence might say.
The next set of arguments for Atheism against belief in God center around a set of moral objections. All must confess these have crossed our minds at low points in each of our lives.
The most objective of these centers around the nature of goodness and God's relationship to it. This argument was developed by Bertrand Russell (218).
The moral disproof for God states that good must result because either God decrees it or He does not. If good is good simply because God says it is and no one can argue against Him since He is the biggest guy on the cosmic block, good is not really good since God has willed it so arbitrarily. However, if God declares something good because of its own inherent nature or compliance with a standard beyond Himself, doesn't that mean that the standard rather than God is ultimate? Thus, at best, God ends up being demoted to the status of Plato's less than omnipotent demiurge.
Geisler counters, though, that this is really putting the ethical cart before the theistic horse. Geisler writes, "Rather than flowing from God's arbitrary will, the moral law may be seen as rooted in God's unchangeably good and loving nature, then the apparent dilemma is resolved (226).” Thus, good is something God is rather than something God decides or does. This brings to mind verses such as John 8:58 where God proclaims “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Other moral objections to the existence of God are a bit less ethereal and considerably more visceral and marked by the pain those leveling them have experienced or witnessed living here in an obviously fallen world. One such objection raised by Albert Camus in The Plague uses the backdrop of an epidemic to make the point that theism is inherently anti-humanitarian. The story posits the dichotomy that, if one assists the suffering, one is siding against God by interfering with the work of His judgment, and if one wants to be in His will and not stand in His way, one is therefore opposed to human well being (221).
Other related objections to God over the problem of evil dismiss His existence all together. A number of Atheists deny the existence of God on the grounds that, because people often suffer disproportionately to what they have done wrong, an all powerful and all good God does not exist. It is argued a God possessing these attributes would not allow evil. But because evil is rampant, that is proof that either God is not all powerful and cannot do anything about evil or that He is all powerful but does not do anything about the evil in the world because He is not good enough to care.
Though it is not always a comfort to someone that has befallen an overwhelming tragedy such as the murder of a loved one, the existence of evil does not by default disprove the existence of God. It does, however, toss the apologetic ball into the theist's court to provide a plausible reason as to why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow suffering to exist.
Known as "theodicy", these explanations attempt to reconcile the simultaneous existence of both God and evil. It is at this point that the theist must counter claim that the evil in the world is solvable or redeemable. The Christian especially can point out that God has indeed done something about the evil by sending His only begotten Son into the world to do something about this tragedy in the most personable of ways.
If the Atheist presses this objection too vigorously, the wily apologist ought to turn the argument back on his unbelieving compatriot. To even make the claim that God does not exist, because the world is not as good as we think it would be if He really did, is actually an indirect argument that He really does.
For to argue that things are not good enough is to assume some kind of standard exists beyond the earthly fray we find ourselves in. If this material universe was all there ever was, the highest good we could ever know is what we see around us and we’d be unable to criticize anything as the “is” automatically becomes the “ought” in such a context.
Yet there is a deep dissatisfaction that compels most human souls onward towards a better world. Romans 2:14-15 says, “...when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..." Secondly, Atheists claiming disbelief in God because, in their view, He has not done enough to stop or prevent suffering in the world often want to have things both ways. These theophobes not only deny God over the imperfections they see in the world but then hypothesize that, if God existed, man would not be free because human freedom would be, as Geisler puts it, "circumscribed by his divine determination (231)."
However, it is because God loves us so much and respects us as individuals that in the vast majority of instances He does not directly interfere with most actions but rather permits their outcome to propel the world onward to His ultimate plan for all of His creation. Geisler writes, "If love is persuasive but never coercive, then allowing men to freely determine their own destiny would seem to be the loving way to make them (231)."
Unfortunately, some are in such a state of rebellion against God that they take this animus out on others. Foremost among such deeds would no doubt rank murder.
Some would respond that, if God really loved the innocent, He would intervene to prevent this crime. However, as C.S. Lewis hypothesizes in The Problem Of Pain, for our own benefit God has created a world that operates in the vast majority of instances by a series of repeatable and verifiable principles.
For example, according to this moral "steady-state theory", I am able to pick up a knife to either slice a steak or slit my neighbor's throat for the purposes of providing man with a rational world where we will not go mad. Faced with such, the Christian must embrace Romans 8:28 as a comfort in a world that often does not seem fair to our finite minds.
By Frederick Meekins
