A nice little piece from Surviving the World to balance up the nice things I just said about science…
I think it’s funny. And it’s what I suspect most fence sitters – both on the theistic and atheistic sides – think.
A nice little piece from Surviving the World to balance up the nice things I just said about science…
I think it’s funny. And it’s what I suspect most fence sitters – both on the theistic and atheistic sides – think.
So, although I’m (possibly temporarily) retired from arguing with atheists, I’ve been nominated to present a little seminar at college on things not to say to atheists.
I reckon I’m pretty good at saying things they don’t like – some right, some wrong…
Here are some things I think you shouldn’t say:
But I’d love to hear from you, dear readers (especially any atheists hanging around) about what us Christians shouldn’t say to atheists (within reason – we’re allowed to say “you’re wrong, and it’s not very nice to call our beliefs a crazy delusion”).
Any pointers from your experience – otherwise I’m just going to be rehashing things from this post and this one (and the comments therein) – and possibly these ones from Pharyngula and the Friendly Atheist.
Put two or more Christian men in a room together after one of them has just used their gifts to serve the kingdom and its almost inevitable that there’ll be a session of “iron sharpening iron”… it’s biblical.
I think the notion is healthy. But I think at times we can jump straight into thinking of one another as a robust elemental substance. We can forget that it’s person sharpening person – and sometimes assume that our critique is what they want to hear almost immediately. I suspect sometimes we’re geared up to be “iron” and the other person is a little more brittle. Even in designated “critique sessions” we jump straight in as though our criticism is ordained and automatically appropriate. It’s not always the case.
I’ve been sitting on this post for a while – just in case anybody who has critiqued me thought I was talking about them. It’s born more out of my own desire to provide “constructive” feedback after every talk I hear.
He’d cook fish over an open fire. And possibly bake bread. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be anything like this atheistic parody.
I probably shouldn’t be laughing at this.
From the PR point of view this idiom is pretty stupid. Some publicity is not good publicity, but in terms of establishing a brand you could argue that Paul fathered this idea in his letter to the Philippians, in chapter 1:18…
“15Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”
Christian television is pretty lame. Especially Christian prank shows. Especially Christian prank shows that prank people on the basis of their beliefs about the rapture. And yet. This actually made me laugh.
I’m all for looking good while in the pulpit. Dressing badly can be an unhelpful distraction. But I’m colour blind and have no fashion sense. I walk into some shops and can’t tell where the women’s clothes end and the men’s clothes begin. Walking around Brisbane’s inner city I can see that this actually isn’t such a big problem anymore, and I could, if necessary, pull off (though probably not remove) a pair of women’s jeans if I was that way inclined…
Anyway, help is at hand. Beauty Tips for Ministers seems mostly aimed at women (as in women ministers) from a “unitarian” (read liberal stand for nothing denomination in the states) background – but fear not, there’s advice for men too… and for Bible college students, and for what to wear to assembly, and for what to wear to a job interview, the list is seemingly endless… there’s even advice on how to pull off moving to a new climate:
“Moving to a new climate almost always creates problems with the hair and complexion. You may find it useful to stick with the most gentle products for awhile (Cetaphil cleanser, fragrance-free moisturizers and eye cream) to let your skin calm down. Stay hydrated. Do not panic and start slapping all kinds of chemical treatments on your face, which will only exacerbate problems: stick to a simple routine of cleansing, moisturizing and gently exfoliating. Use a good eye cream and sunscreen year-round. See the BTFM archives for TONS of product reviews of skin care products.”
I’ll no doubt be much more compelling next time I preach because I’ll have done away with the frumpy me, and be looking good…
I’ve spent a fair portion of my time in the last two years entering arguments with atheists online. These are different to arguments with atheists in real life. Steve Kryger at Communicate Jesus has posted a couple of thoughts on this matter lately – and even been roundly panned by an atheist blog for his trouble. Steve’s posts:
My motivation for doing so has been twofold – on the one hand, I don’t like seeing people bagging out Jesus without anybody mounting a defense, and on the other, I realise that people google for all sorts of things and read blogs and their sycophantic comments to help make up their minds. I want to present Jesus as an alternative worldview to militant atheism.
But I’m on the verge of giving up. Here are eight lessons I’ve learned (at times the hard way) from arguing with atheists that have left me close to pulling the pin on this particular avenue of evangelism.
Some bonus reflections – if you’re familiar with online bookmarking services like Digg and Reddit you’ll know that they are full of atheists who like to post, share, and comment on articles relating to atheism. There is almost no Christian presence (that I’ve found here). Christians need to come to terms with discourse on the Internet – because it’s, like it or not, a form of community. And a nexus for people looking to discuss new ideas. Sending people in to these forums “solo” doesn’t work. Constructive conversations in this format need more than a lone voice. I don’t know how you arrange a “team” approach – but that might be worthwhile.
If you’re an atheist who arrives here and thinks “these claims are all generalisations with no substantiation” – I can, if requested, point you to different threads (mostly on my blog, on the Friendly Atheist and on Pharyngula) where situations have arisen. Here’s one example, with a follow up, here’s a post I wrote that created quite a lot of atheistic consternation, and the response on Pharyngula. Or check out guest poster Dave’s three fantastic posts on why he’s not an atheist…
I’m not giving up arguing online – though I won’t spend as much time and I’ll try to establish my commitment to arguments early in the discussion, but I’d much rather chat over a beer in a pub where there’s not the ability to hide behind a computer screen and thousands of kilometres. Non verbal communication is important. And it’s much harder to be nasty to a person if they’re right in front of you (incidentally this is why you should always do radio interviews in studio rather than over the phone).
UPDATE: Hermant from the Friendly Atheist has kindly responded to my list. I’ve posted a response to his response in the comments on his blog.
I’d also like to make a small amendment to point 4 – atheists (as a general rule – not all atheists) also pay no regards to “medium” a blog entry is to be deconstructed, analysed and critiqued the same way a scientific hypothesis or peer reviewed journal is. They disagree with a sentence without paying any regard to the paragraph it builds. They interpret things they disagree with at extremes – for example – I put quotation marks around the word “Christian” above as a shorthand way of describing those who take the Christian label (making no actual judgment on whether they are Christian or not – I think you can be a Christian and be very wrong about things). And it is interpreted in the following manner:
“Oh, and putting Christian in smarmy little “scare quotes” whenever you’re using it to describe a person whose actions you disapprove of? That’s what we call a “cop out.” The claim that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is flawlessly correct and that ANY judgment you make about whether a person is or is not a Christian places YOU in a position of purported omniscience. Talk about hubris!”
That might be one way to interpret such punctuation – the traditional usage is to indicate direct speech.
I’m on of those bandwagon jumping fanboys who thinks that my Bible College principal knows everything. I’ve also been wondering what the early church’s position on ancient wrestling was – a sport that was essentially the same as UFC – it barred eye gouges and groin shots. Paul seems to allude to fighting in his analogy in 1 Corinthians 9:26… but while googling for an answer to an unrelated question I found this statement from B.W. Winter…
The early Christians faced this question just as we do. Entertainment in their day involved the Roman spectacles, chariot races, gladiatorial fights and those sorts of things. Some of these activities encouraged a perverse interest in violence and sex, so in that sense, they were unhelpful to a Christian’s growth. Should a Christian be aware of what is going on in the wider culture in terms of entertainment? I don’t think we can be ignorant of it. However, what most people are unaware of is that many of these forms of entertainment have a subliminal effect on our thinking. This means that we need to be very selective about what we choose to entertain us. It’s easy to stumble if you simply want to be amused and suspend your critical faculties. I may sound like a bit of a killjoy, but I think it’s important to be evaluating films as we watch them. Too many Christians fail to do this, and stumble. If you suspend your critical faculties, it’s possible to assimilate all sorts of ungodly ideas and behaviour.
Seems relevant – though I think the “perverse interest” is the key. I think it’s possible to watch UFC without being perversely interested in violence. But I think there’s a real danger that this isn’t the case.
One of the key passages in building my theology of sin is Romans 14 – the idea that different actions will be sinful in different contexts depending on the people around you (ie if you cause your brother to stumble by exercising your freedom).
Here’s a little prooftext that fits in nicely with my “everything is sin” framework. Romans 14:23b in particular.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Here’s one that doesn’t fit so nicely…
4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
And another passage that helps frame my approach to righteousness…
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Then a couple more passages from Romans. Chapter 2…
“12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, 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, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”
And Chapter 7… which again is pretty important to my model…
13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Here’s one for the “bankcard is the devil” conspiracy theorists out there – the ones who think that the interlocking “b”s on your card are a 666…
“Visa, the world’s largest credit card network, can predict how likely you are to get a divorce. There’s no consumer-protection legislation for that.”
Spooky. How do they do this, and why do they care? Good questions. Basically they want to make sure you’re going to pay your debts. They’re mining your data people (but hands up those of you who didn’t know this already). The real conspiracy theorists grow their own vegetables, pay cash only, or barter, and they walk around in dark sunglasses and beanies because of all the secret cameras that are watching their every move… and they don’t join “frequent fliers” clubs, or have loyalty cards, or location tracking mobile phones… and they never use Google.
Companies are building profiles on you – and they no doubt make for really interesting reading. I bought a pair of socks, some deodorant and a razor two nights ago. What does that say about me?
“Cardholders who purchased carbon-monoxide detectors, premium birdseed, and felt pads for the bottoms of their chair legs rarely missed a payment. On the other hand, those who bought cheap motor oil and visited a Montreal pool bar called “Sharx” were a higher risk. “If you show us what you buy, we can tell you who you are, maybe even better than you know yourself,” a former Canadian Tire exec said. “
You better start buying felt pads for your furniture even if you don’t need them. Your credit rating depends on it…
But don’t worry. You too can play this game – finding out things about yourself that you didn’t know before.
The New York-based startup Hunch offers personalized recommendations after users answer a series of questions that give the site a sense of their tastes. Do you live in the suburbs? Do you like bumper cars? Are you more likely to spoon or be spooned? Out of this examination, Hunch generates a “taste profile” for each of its users.
Hunch then looks for statistical correlations between the information that all of its users provide, revealing fascinating links between people’s seemingly unrelated preferences. For instance, Hunch has revealed that people who enjoy dancing are more apt to want to buy a Mac, that people who like The Count on Sesame Street tend to support legalizing marijuana, that pug owners are often fans of The Shawshank Redemption, and that users who prefer aisle seats on planes “spend more money on other people than themselves.”
That’s some useful data right there. But you can game the system, if you’re game. You can take advantage of the “generosity” of Casinos by playing like a poor person if you’re rich… and you’ll score a free dinner.
“With its “Total Rewards” card, Harrah’s casinos track everything that players win and lose, in real time, and then analyze their demographic information to calculate their “pain point”—the maximum amount of money they’re likely to be willing to lose and still come back to the casino in the future. Players who get too close to their pain point are likely to be offered a free dinner that gets them off the casino floor.”
This is all from a review of a book called “Super Crunchers” here at an eerily titled blog – “The Daily Beast”… Spooky.
Databases are the future, friends. The future. So be afraid… as Revelation 13 so clearly says (regarding the beast):
“16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.“
You know what’s even freakier. This post has 666 words.
Many Christians (myself included) automatically default to the cross when answering that question. I’ve decided it’s unhelpful. The cross by itself is insignificant (symbolically) – Jesus could have died on anything, they could have drowned him, burned him, or drawn and quartered him – the cross was just a functional means to putting Jesus to death. The resurrection (as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15) is where it’s at for Christians. If there was no resurrection I wouldn’t be a Christian – and Paul says I wouldn’t be atoned for either.
The empty tomb is a heaps better symbol. It just doesn’t look as good on a necklace.
There’s a bit of a difference between “died and was raised” and “died, AND was raised” – I think too often we fall into the latter category – and indeed change our emphasis to “DIED…and was raised” – I don’t think Paul does that in 1 Corinthians 15, and I don’t think the creedal confessions do that either.
I’ve been thinking about this after a news report called Good Friday the most significant day of the Christian calendar, and following a couple of conversations, one in the real world, and the other at Gary’s blog where he warns about “bait and switch” gospels.
Your thoughts?
I’m listening to my sermon from a couple of weeks ago. I don’t mind the sound of my voice – I listened to myself a lot while I was at uni. But I hate my inflections. I can’t tell if the poor enunciation is a result of the recording or how I speak.
I also mispronounce a bunch of words. I might have to start doing the AAP thing and putting the correct pronunciation of names and stuff phonetically in brackets. I also stumble when I leave my manuscript. And I do this weird mumbling thing when I am using a “joke” that I’ve written into the script. As if I’m concerned that it shouldn’t be there. I guess if I’ve put it in to begin with I should just hit it hard.
Anyway. The talk is up here, on the Scots website.
Feel free to have a listen. It’s 26 minutes of your life you’ll never get back. I speak fast so there’s a fair bit crammed into it.
Here, to waste the next five minutes of your life, is the life of Jesus, from the cradle to the grave, rendered in 8 bits and 10 seconds. Your mission is to collect 12 disciples.
Some screenshots…