Christianity – Page 89

About Dave

Speaking of atheism… which I’ve been doing a lot lately…

Dave Walker has kindly agreed to post his talk that he gave to JCU’s Society of Atheist Philosophy last week as a series of posts here. It’ll be online as an audio file as soon as I get it off my iPhone (provided the recording actually audibly worked).

Dave works for AFES in Townsville. He has one wife and four sons. He studied sciency stuff at University so isn’t completely ignorant when it comes to matters of science (like I am) and shouldn’t be dismissed on that basis.

This is a photo of Dave in silhouette form.

He is a real person. He has feelings. Be nice to Dave.

October 27, 2009

Degrees of delusion

I’ve been having an interesting debate with some atheists (well I think it’s interesting and this is my blog afterall) over at the Friendly Atheist after the Friendly Atheist himself made this claim:

“Now, how do we shame those people who believe in reincarnation?

Or those people who believe that Heaven or Hell are actual places?

Or those people who believe that a god created the world in a week, that Adam and Eve were actual people, or that Jesus came back to life after being killed and has any ability to cleanse us of sins now?

It’s all the same degree of delusion“

Emphasis mine.

I didn’t like the idea that Christians, who are monotheists, are as delusional as either pantheists those who see God in everything, everywhere (eg Hindus who, crudely speaking, believe in reincarnation because spiritual matter can not be lost), or polytheists who believe in many Gods.

I think as soon as you add the word “degree” into a statement like that you have to show that all these beliefs are equally ridiculous. I think it’s patently clear that they’re not. Mostly because there are certain beliefs that are universally ridiculed – like Scientology.

I think it’s funny that atheists seem quite happy generalising about Christians using the most crazy fundamentalist doctrines they can find while at the same time refusing to allow Christians to generalise about atheists – because they’re all different.

In the discussion I put forward a proposition, which I think was a good one, and as yet nobody has addressed it in their responses… I’ll reproduce it here.

“I often wonder if the atheist cause would be better served by supporting the Christians who are trying to teach other Christians good doctrine rather than throwing out the proverbial baby and bathwater.”

October 27, 2009

More on Moses

While we’re on the subject of Moses…

The Big Mac (which is what I’m going to call Dave McDougall today) made a really interesting link that I’d never noticed today.

We’re doing a series on prayer at the moment (I’m preaching on the Lord’s Prayer next Sunday) and today was on the subject of God saying “no” to our prayers.

God said “no” to Moses when he prayed to be allowed to set foot in the Promised Land in Deuteronomy 3. I always felt a bit sorry for Moses. He worked pretty hard at trying to keep an unwieldy people in line. And I felt vicariously ripped off for him that he had to miss out on the fulfillment of the promise he worked so hard to deliver.

I’ve also always struggled to figure out the significance of his presence at the transfiguration (Matthew 17). He, like Elijah, is a pretty significant Old Testament player. And I thought that could be it. This is where the Big Mac came to the fore this morning. At the transfiguration Moses is present both in the Promised Land and with the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy. Which is pretty special – and now I don’t feel sorry on his behalf at all.

October 25, 2009

Moses v Jesus

I just found this pretty interesting article (though it’s on Fox’s website so it’s probably inaccurate and full of bias) that concluded that Moses is more culturally important to the United States than Jesus.

Which I guess says a lot about some of the religious identity problems plaguing America.

“But as important as Jesus was to Americans’ private lives, he had far less influence than Moses on the great transformations of our public life. The themes of Jesus’ life – love, charity, alleviating poverty – would not make the list of the defining impulses of most Americans.

The themes of Moses’ life, by contrast – social mobility, standing up to authority, balancing freedom and law, dreaming of a promised land – would make any short list of America’s defining traits.”

October 25, 2009

On typology

I’ve had a fair bit to say about typography lately – so don’t get confused here. The first one is about the patterns made by letters, typology is the study of “types” and theologically it’s a way of linking the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Think of the way we use the words archetype and prototype and you’re getting close.

One of the foundational reasons that I think Jesus is something special is the way he fulfils the Old Testament. I don’t mean just the specific prophecies regarding the coming saviour that atheists are so keen to claim are debunked on the basis of generality or whatever other reasons they give. I mean the way he is the fulfillment of the narrative of the Old Testament. In particular the pivotal characters of the Old Testament. And I don’t see how it’s possible for that to be debunked any time soon. Here’s a cool list from a Tim Keller sermon via the new Evangel group blog…

Jesus is the true and better Adam, who passed the test in the garden and whose obedience is imputed to us.
Jesus is the true and better Abel, who, though innocently slain, has blood now that cries out not for our condemnation, but for our acquittal.
Jesus is the true and better Abraham who answered the call of God to leave all the comfortable and familiar, and go out into the void, not knowing whither he went, to create a new people of God.
Jesus is the true and better Isaac, who was not just offered up by his Father on the mount,but was truly sacrificed for us. And when God said to Abraham, “now I know you love me, because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me, now we can look at God, taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing Him, and say,” now we know that you love us, because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from us.”
Jesus is the true and better Jacob who wrestled and took the blow of justice we deserve, so we, like Jacob, only receive the wounds of grace to wake us up and discipline us.
Jesus is the true and better Joseph, who at the right hand of the king, forgives those who betrayed and sold Him, and uses His new power to save them.
Jesus is the true and better Moses, who stands in the gap between the people and the Lord and who mediates a new covenant.
Jesus is the true and better rock of Moses who was struck with the rod of God’s justice, and now gives us water in the desert.
Jesus is the true and better Job, the truly innocent sufferer who then intercedes for and saves his stupid friends.
Jesus is the true and better David, whose victory becomes his people’s victory though they never lifted a stone to accomplish it themselves.
Jesus is the true and better Esther, who didn’t just risk losing an earthly palace, but lost the ultimate and heavenly one, who didn’t just risk his life, but gave his life to save his people.
Jesus is the true and better Jonah, who was cast out into the storm so we could be brought in.
He is the real passover lamb, innocent, perfect, helpless, slain so that the angel of death would pass over us

It’s not an exhaustive list – there’s no mention of any of the judges or many of the prophets. But until atheists get this, and critique this properly, they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the claim that anyone can “fulfill the Old Testament” given the right mix of intention and coincidence.

October 25, 2009

Six areas atheists and Christians should agree

I had the chance this week to head along to JCU’s Society of Atheist Philosophy (SOAP) meeting where Dave Walker was invited to speak on the reasons he’s not an atheist.

The meeting itself had all the trappings of a Christian meeting. It had a nice positive tone.

Dave did a great job. I’m hoping he’ll turn his three reasons into guest posts.

But here are six areas I think Christians and atheists should agree.

The separation of church and state is a good thing
One of the big branding problems facing Christianity, and one of the major problems atheists have with Christians, is that we’re inconsistent in our approach to politics.

We can’t want to impose Christian morality on people through the legal system unless we’re happy for an atheist government, or Islamic government to do the same to us. If we all believe we’re right and everybody else is wrong we need to make accommodations for this in the way we deal with each other.
Freedom of speech
I’m a bit shocked at how Christians respond when atheists want to advertise or gather. This week two atheist websites were hacked – probably by crazy Christians. Complaints flood in every time an atheist association puts up a billboard or advertises on a bus.

If we want to be free to discuss and promote our beliefs we need to uphold the rights of others to do the same. Even if we don’t like what they’re saying.
Most religious beliefs are crazy
I think it was Peter Jensen who said that atheists are the closest group philosophically to Christians because we’ve both made a deliberate decision regarding the existence of God. We believe there is one, they believe there is none, the rest of society is either undecided, pluralistic, or quasi-spiritual.In most cases we’ve applied logic and reason to the rejection of other Gods. We shouldn’t be overly upset when atheists do that to us. Even if we think they’ve discounted one God too many.

There are also a lot of subsets of Christianity that fit the crazy bill. Anyone who bases a distinctive on one verse in a part of a gospel that is not even in all the original manuscripts (like the snake holders and poison drinkers do) should be considered crazy.

Most people who read Revelation as though it’s a literal description of what’s going to happen (even though it is introduced as a vision) can also rightly be labeled crazy.
Pluralistic relativism is a dumb idea
If there’s one idea that truly unites atheists and Christians it’s the idea that we can’t all be right. Both groups make absolute claims. All religions make contradictory claims. Even the monotheistic Abrahamic religions that are theoretically following the same God make claims that can not be reconciled. Islam teaches Jesus didn’t die. Judaism teaches Jesus isn’t the Messiah, and that he didn’t rise. We can’t all be right. We can’t pretend that we are.
Morality is not dependent on belief in God
Atheists are capable of doing good things. The group contributing the most money to developing small businesses in developing countries on Kiva is an atheist society.

Christian statements about morality are slightly confused, which in turn confuses atheists. There are two definitions of good at play in the Bible. One describes actions. It’s “good” to feed the hungry. The other describes our nature. Where nobody can be “good enough” for God.

It’s true that Christians believe that all goodness, and good actions of people come from God. Whether you’re a Christian or an atheist. And that good atheist actions come because they too are made in the image of God.

But you don’t have to believe in God to be good.

To throw further confusion into the mix – not even Christians are “good” in the complete sense. And nobody is good (or righteous) except Jesus.
Science is a great tool for understanding the world
Christianity’s stance on science (particularly in America) is confused and confusing. Science has no scope to prove or disprove God, unless you think the Bible (written before the scientific method was developed) somehow seeks to be a scientific textbook.

Science teaches us about the way God does things. It reveals more about the world we live in. Christians should love science. Not fear it. The reason some Christians fear it is the same reason someone attacked by a vicious dog fears all dogs. Science handled badly is dangerous.

What Christians shouldn’t like (and one of Dave’s points) is the idea of naturalism – that only what we can sense and test is real. This is a philosophy that embraces science as a sword. It’s not science.

For more fun with Google autofill check out my new blog…

October 24, 2009

On sticks and logs

Here’s a little story, picked up by the Friendly Atheist, that highlights why getting people who think they’re Christians to rightly understand how Biblical law works, how it should (or mostly shouldn’t) be applied today.

At the very least we should be able to point out that the law was written for the Jews, who were God’s people. So that they could be different to the people around them. It wasn’t written for the Jews to impose on everyone else.

An American redneck decided to use a little bit of Old Testament sanctioned force to bash a homosexual man.

He even has a tattoo that proclaims the need to understand homosexuality as an abomination.

Now, it’s all well and good emblazoning that sort of verse on your arm. But, as even atheists know, this is problematic given a verse that appears just a chapter later…

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28″

We need to fix this kind of thing if we want to (rightly) argue that God’s intention for relationships between humans is for sex to occur in a marriage between a man and a woman. And that Christians should not be practising homosexuals (because the New Testament reaffirms God’s intentions and understandings of sexual expression).

Even Answers in Genesis can understand that this definition of marriage applies to Christians – they commented on a recent story where a judge in the US ruled that an interracial couple could not marry because the Bible forbids it… Which is strange.

What the Bible does say in the Old Testament is that Jews (the people of God) should not intermarry, and in the New Testament that Christians should ideally marry Christians – but that if two non-Christians marry and one becomes a Christian they should stay married.

Here’s what Ken Ham said (again mentioned in an article on the Friendly Atheist) when he was asked about interracial marriage in the Bible. It’s somewhat convoluted, but at the end of the day it is useful. From the Answers in Genesis website…

At AiG we have always taught that biologically there is only one race (Adam’s race), however, spiritually, there are two races (the saved and unsaved). It is the two spiritual “races” that God clearly instructs in His Word not to mix in marriage. In other words, when someone asks me “does the Bible deal with interracial marriage?” I answer, “it sure does, it makes it clear the saved ‘race’ should never knowingly marry the unsaved ‘race’—and that’s all the Bible teaches about ‘interracial’ marriage.’” Biologically, there is no such thing as “interracial” marriage as there is only one “race”—we are all descendants of one man, Adam.

I’m not sure that Ham’s stance would extend to the unsaved being able to enter into any marriage they want…

But at the end of the day we (Christians) need to make sure our house is in order before throwing stones, literally or otherwise.

They even provide this helpful infographic.

October 19, 2009

How to fit in at a pentecostal church

Everyone knows, that apart from my wife, all the really good looking Christian girls go to pentecostal churches.

If you’re a young man hoping to lure a princess away from the Pentecostal Castle to a more moderately expressive church then you need to know how to fit in on your covert visits.

This video will help…

Via David Ould.

October 18, 2009

On the stupidity of pluralism

There’s an evangelical Christian quarterback in the NFL who paints bible verses in his eye paint. The stuff they put on their faces to avoid glare.

An American sportswriter can’t handle the idea that this quarterback believes that Jesus is the only way to avoid hell. So he wrote a feature on it. This is a triumph of pluralistic dumbness. The writer asserts that the player’s view that his way is the only right way is wrong – thus placing his own “enlightened” views over the players – and being the intolerant fool he is accusing the player of being.

If there’s one thing that annoys me more than the new atheists and their anti-dogma dogma it’s the pluralists and their confusing inconsistencies.

“But should we be pleased that the civic resource known as “our team” — a resource supported by the diverse whole through our ticket-buying, game-watching and tax-paying — is being leveraged by a one-truth evangelical campaign that has little appreciation for the beliefs of the rest of us?”

But wait, there’s more dumbness…

“But there’s a shadow side to this. If their take on God and truth and life is the only right one — which their creed boldly states — everyone else is wrong.

Really? You’re only just figuring that out. It’s pretty much what Jesus says. You know, the “I am the way” bit, where he says “no one comes to the father except through me”…

Not a mere abstraction, this exclusiveness sometimes morphs into a form of chauvinism and mistreatment of non-Christians. Witness the incident with the Washington Nationals baseball team in 2005, when the Christian chaplain was exposed as teaching that Jews go to hell.”

How dare the church teach that anyone go to hell… oh, but wait, that’s what the Bible says… you know, that those who aren’t Christians (which is their choice) go to Hell.

Freedom of religion does not make a value judgment on the religions people adhere to – all religions are not equal. All people have equal rights to choose what religion they adhere to. And the state shouldn’t make quality judgments on these religions (unless they’re pursuing them for tax fraud).

Our pluralism is a defining and positive reality of American life — but not one that is much valued by those who define the faith coursing through the veins of sports culture.

If America’s lifestyle is defined by pluralism and not freedom then they’re getting a lot of things wrong.

I don’t know why I read that article. I knew it was going to be stupid.

October 16, 2009

Driscoll’s apologetic

Mark Driscoll has been invited to write occasional columns for the Washington Post. In his first he was asked how to best present the gospel to atheists and skeptics.

His answer, as his answers always are, was beautifully Christocentric.

Q: What makes the best ‘case for God’ to a skeptic or non-believer, an open-minded seeker, and to a person of faith and Why?

Answer
Jesus.

Christianity is not first and foremost about a sacred place to pilgrimage to, a philosophical system to ponder, a moral code to live, a religious tradition to honor, or an impersonal god to experience. Rather, Christianity is about a person who claimed to be the only God and said he would prove his unprecedented claim by living without sin, dying for sinners, and conquering death through resurrection.

It’s a nice opener. The gospel in a nutshell. And he doesn’t shy away from addressing other areas, but he starts with Jesus. And that’s worthy of respect. More respect than others who like to sit on their blogs and throw stones because they don’t like his sense of humour…

His conclusion is helpful too…

“And so while there is no “best case” for presenting God, there are false ways of presenting God: as anyone in addition to or other than Jesus Christ. As Christians, our goal is never to lie to people by only telling them what they want to hear, or manipulating them to feel what they want to feel. Instead, we want to respect them enough to tell them the truth, and love them enough to do so in a way that is compassionate. We care more about the truth and the love than having the “best case.”

I’ve been wondering, given recent experiences with atheists right here, how to move the debate away from discussing theism/atheism towards Christianity/atheism. It’s a great tactic the atheists have adopted to avoid dealing with Christianity specifically. It’s much easier to dismiss a non-specific deity on the basis of dismissing all deities (Christians do something similar all the time, by rejecting all other Gods) than it is to actually dismiss the specifics of the deity people are actually putting faith in. But it’s a case of moving the goal posts to suit the game you want to win.

The temptation, when discussing the existence of God in the theism/atheism paradigm is to throw our lot in with other theists (Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc) and see them as allies – when a better, more Biblically consistent model is the one Driscoll advocates. Using an apologetic based on Jesus.

That’s why I’m a Driscoll fanboy. That, and the description he gives himself in his byline on the article.

“A nobody trying to tell everybody about Somebody.”

October 16, 2009

How to host a book burning

I have a new ambition in life… I want to write a book and have it burnt by the Amazing Grace Baptist church. You do too. You may not know it yet, but you’d be in great company. And if you go along you get BBQ or fried chicken – because they’re not works of Satan.

This video has been doing the rounds. It’s a news report on the Amazing Grace Baptist book burning – their list includes books by Billy Graham (a heretic), Mark Driskol (sic) (probably a heretic), and any version of the Bible that is not a King James. Because it, and only it, is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God. I’ve always wondered what research the KJV only mob do to come to the conclusion that it was produced by better translators than our modern translators. I think I’ll try to contact this pastor guy and ask him. He has a church of 15, so he’ll have time. After the book burning of course…

October 16, 2009

YouTube Tuesday: the Auto Tune edition

Better late than never…

Some science… with Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan

Some news…

Some advertising…

And finally, a joke you can play on your minister…

October 15, 2009

Giving notice

I was a little bit surprised that so many people spoke out in defense of announcements at church. I want to be clear that I’m talking about things that are generally covered in the “news” section of a church bulletin, and hopefully these days the church’s website and Facebook page*.

Announcements are dead wood. They should be cut. Like a pine forest. They should just be printed on literal dead wood.

I don’t buy into the whole “seeker sensitive” style service where everything is run for visitors and the people who are part of the church family are ignored. But if you’re spending 10 minutes reading out the handout that everybody is holding already** that’s 10 minutes of wasted time. You could, though I wouldn’t, fit three more songs or one long prayer in that time. There are myriad things that can be done in ten minutes that are more beneficial to church life than boring advertisements for things that are no doubt already boringly described in your boring newsletter.

You know what happens when church is boring – people fall out of windows and die. And Paul isn’t going to pop in and resurrect the poor souls that expire during your overly long promo of the church working bee.

* Here are some great tips from Mikey for how churches (and in fact any organisation) should use Facebook. He’s much better equipped than me to comment on this matter… I’ve only got 27 fans on my Facebook fan page after a week of relentless self promotion… you could become one now. It would make me feel special…

Here are some more Facebook friendly resources I found through Church Marketing Sucks… an e-book called “Facebook for Pastors” and a set of general principles on using Facebook for your business.

**And while I’m on that note – what’s with churches (not just ours, though it’s guilty here) being so miserly about the number of handouts they print. One per couple? Per day? Are you serious? My attendance isn’t worth 5 cents to you? You’re expecting me to “give generously” when the offering comes around and yet I have to share the handout…

I also miss handouts with sermon outlines written in them.

October 14, 2009

On simplicity

A nice reminder that perhaps you don’t need to pad your product or service with every feature imaginable.

This is how I think church services should be approached too. Get rid of the clutter and noise (like announcements) and just do the essentials.

From stuffthathappens.

October 13, 2009

Sign language: Friend request

Some church signs – like the famous St Barneys sign (that prompted a tit for tat with a pub) – start discussions amongst people, which I am sure they’re meant to do.

Some are stupid and do the church (locally and universally) a disservice.

I remember around election time in Brisbane a few years ago a church had “give to God what is right not what is left”.

Sadly I can’t tell if I like these or not – what say you readers?

From here.

October 12, 2009