Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Archive for the ‘Debate/Discussion’ Category

May 19th, 2012 by Joel

John Loftus, Quitter

Our good friend, John Loftus, has declared that since he had made no head way in his war on Christianity, he is packing it in. Bully for him. Of course, he says that he is just tired of kicking a dead horse, although it seems that atheism is the dead horse.

You know, I don’t mind people going against the flow – as a matter of fact, I suggest it – but when no one listens to you, you may wish to reconsider your position. I mean, if you are only attracting people like you, then you may in fact be wrong.

Now, for me, I’ve seen Christianity grow, and count the New Atheists (even those whom, um, are tag alongs) as sort of like prophetic figures who are pushing us to greater heights.

People like John have come and gone for a very, very long time and yet Christianity is still here. So, John, we’ll wait for you to come back around to the faith. Good luck. I hope that if he comes back this way again, his arguments are better. They were the same, tired, stuff.

Oh well… You can read his poor, poor pitiful me post here:

Debunking Christianity: Okay, The Time Has Come, I’m Done.

May 19th, 2012 by Joel

Sounds like a great new interdisciplinary field to work in

It’s called Big History. It is about connecting the dots from the Big Bang until today. Ed posted this on Facebook sometime this week. Thought I’d share. Looks real, real interesting, in a panentheistic kind of way:

As humans, we are inherently interested in understanding our origins. Every culture has creation myths that try to explain how the world and its inhabitants came to be. With the rise of science, especially in the last several centuries, we are now in a much better position to appreciate and understand where we came from. It is a fascinating story that takes us from the beginning of the universe to recent times. To understand the major events and patterns of our origins gives us a much better appreciation of our place in the world today. The story of our origins is multi-layered, essentially a long series of origins, each building on the ones that came before it.

This website project, FROM THE BIG BANG TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB™, has been developed by us (Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth) as a critical component of a long-range and multifaceted project to promote science education and large-scale evolutionary thinking. We are the founders and co-directors of THE STONE AGE INSTITUTE® (www.stoneageinstitute.org), a federally-approved non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to human origins research and science education, and are both Professors of Anthropology and Cognitive Science at Indiana University, Bloomington, as well as founders and co-directors of Indiana University’s Center for Research into the Anthropological Foundations of Technology (CRAFT). We are also Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Although our primary research focus over the past three decades has been on the origins and development of human technology during the course of human evolution, we also have a keen interest in physics (we own a first edition of Max Planck’s 1897 book Thermodynamik, which established the foundations of quantum mechanics), astronomy and planetary science (we collect meteorites, which have been exhibited in the Indiana State Museum in Indianapolis), geology, biology, palaeontology, archaeology, and history. We have assembled a personal library of several hundred books on a wide range of topics regarding Deep Time (sometimes called “Big History”), and subscribe to a number of professional journals (including Science and Nature) to keep up with the current state of knowledge in a range of scientific fields.

the Stone Age Institute – From the Big Bang to the World Wide Web – About This Project.

May 12th, 2012 by Joel

That’s an interesting proposition, Penn

PENN

What sayeth ye? How many errors can you spot?

May 11th, 2012 by Joel

The Law of Non-Contradiction Requires an Epistemological Paradox

Rodney and Jason are engaged in a discussion regarding the so-called law of noncontradiction – that law which states that something cannot be both true and false.

I really don’t want to get into a full blown discussion here on ad homs and the such, but the law of noncontradiction is a paradox because it simply cannot be proved unless you have the law first. Therefore, it is not a law but an unproven postulation… which is defeated by God.

God is both immanent and transcendent. He is both here and not here, true and non-true. God is a contradiction. Further, life itself demolishes noncontradiction. By all rights, life should not exist and yet it does. The true laws which life prove false is rather quite remarkable.

Or, we could talk about the bumblebee.

Is it possible to have rationality without this so-called law? Yes, as some scholars have clearly shown. Dialetheism is possible. Let me show you what I mean.

Two simple, generic statements:

  1. It is raining outside
  2. It is not raining outside

Only one of those can be true under the law of noncontradiction.

Except…. that at some point, it is both raining and not raining. Let us take the physical realm first.

I am sitting in my house. Outside my house is the rest of the world. Somewhere out there it is in fact raining. If we are to restrict the outside to the immediate epistemological area, then and only then can we see the enforcement of the law of noncontradiction; however, we must then conclude that only our qualified epistemological area is the only reality present, presenting us a rather non-pleasant psychotic paradox which is an issue we cannot address here.

Let us consider the metaphysical realm. Immediately outside my home, it is not raining. Yet, it has rained in the past and will rain in the future. Being that Time is an illusion, we are only experiencing our epistemological reality in a temporal state which, in of itself, does not exist. Give that Plato believed that we are living in the cave of shadows and that life is but a mimesis of the Ideal, or rather that, designs above are the real and we the poor reflection. The idea, the frame, then, which exists is real. Therefore, we do know that it will rain once more outside my house, or in my qualified epistemological reality, and if we know that, then it is already raining although we are not experiencing it in our temporality.

I’ll sum this up quickly:

  1. The Law of Noncontradiction Disallows a reality to be true and untrue at the same time
  2. Given the nature of the world and the rest of the cosmos, we can prove that what is true in one approximation is not in another.
  3. To allow, then, noncontradiction is to require that one qualifies his or her epistemological reality into a self-sealing reality which then becomes a paradox in of itself. Therefore,
  4. There is no such thing as the law of noncontradiction unless it is restricted to only a well-defined epistemological reality set by the legislator and thus removes, further, the ability to test the law allowing that the law, as it is untested and thus unverifible, is both true (within the epistemological reality) and false (without the epistemological reality)

I love me some Aristotle and Plato, but if we consider them relevant to Christianity fully, then we should read Aquinas as authority, and if Aquinas, them we should swim the Tiber. 

May 3rd, 2012 by Joel

I’d rather be in the Ivory Tower rather than in the pulpit

It all started, as it usually does, with something Daniel Kirk wrote, namely this:

Dear pastor, it is not enough to huddle with your buddies over beer or in your internet discussion room and talk about what a bunch of sexist bastards your fellow pastors are in your denomination.

If you are not working to change what women can do, you are promoting and sustaining the sexism that you deride in private.

If you are not opening up space in your church for women to preach and teach, you are promoting and sustaining the sexism that denies the truth of your women’s identity in Christ.

My liberal-friend-in-hiding Daniel wrote this in reply,

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with Dr. Kirk. This is an issue that needs action. But reading these rants as a pastor, and actually doing something about it, I get tired of the bully pulpit.

My own little ‘Roo wrote this,

Pastors are among the most bullied people of any vocation. Because our roles are undefined or ill-defined everyone and anyone thinks they have a right to tell the pastor what they should and shouldn’t be doing. This subtle form of bullying comes from all quarters (even other pastors)…

…But our job as pastors is to pastor not be activists. Whether it is this or any other issue

The Joker to my Robin, Brian LePort, writes,

What is odd about these two posts is they reinforce the very clergy-laity divide that I assume Thompson and Stevens disdain. These posts assume that pastors do the heavy lifting and someone who teaches in a seminary classroom has no idea what it is like to do ministry.

The downfall of Jim Wallis was when he forgot to be a pastor. We need pastors – but we do not need pastors cramming things down our throat. Now, is Kirk right? Yes, but only broadly so.

What gets me about LePort (LePort!!!!!!!) is that I’m not sure what posts he is actually reading. I don’t get that from the two pastors at all. Instead, their points of easily made – being a pastor is not an active thing, but a passive thing. Seminary professors and others are actively engaging everyone – because they are paid to do so. They are paid to, from time to time, cause a little controversy. Publish a book. Do something different. Oh boy. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that Seminary Professors are any less any important or somehow deceptive, but their mission and callings are different. While I do not dismiss his role as associate pastor or interim youth leader, they aren’t exactly the same thing as pastor. Indeed, Brian had someone between him and the door. The pastor rarely does not, even in an episcopal setting. Further, he was in San Francisco. Not exactly the same type of people there as in the rest of the world. Further, while class room teaching can indeed ministry, not all ministry is pastoral. Does the seminary professor have the same responsibilities to the student as a pastor does? No. They don’t have to answer to the person if by their actions, they destroy the faith of some and push them out, only to find them later in a gutter somewhere, without hope and without faith. Yes, that does happen in classrooms, but honestly, isn’t that the goal of the classroom? A little bit of deconstruction and pushing into the right direction? Teachers aren’t pastoral – and THEY SHOULD NOT BE – but they can minister. Pastors, on the other hand, must be pastoral.

You know, one the things that I think modern academia has destroyed for us is that seminaries are for pastors and ministers. They should be for nearly every church member, if possible, especially for those taking lay roles.

But, moving on…

One of the things about activism is that it causes enemies. It does, let’s be honest. It is difficult for me, if I’m on a picket line somewhere, to set the next Sunday morning with someone that I was lobbing bottles and road apples at the week before (um, metaphorically speaking, of course). Further, a pastor who is an activist will often times push people out – and they are usually the very people who need the change the post. Why make pastors choose between being pastoral and activist? Let them be pastoral.

So, here’s the thing. Pastors to be a good pastor cannot always be the speaker. A pastor is to guide and protect. Let one of the sheep step in and do some damage, rough some stuff up, unsettle someone’s Christianity (TM) (C) (R)… then let the pastor guide the congregation into making the right decisions.

Pastors do too much – let us, the ones in the pew, the lay leaders, lay ministers and others who do not have to provide care for those that we might dearly oppose – be a little pushy.

April 20th, 2012 by Joel

Can the Autodidact be Good Scholars?

I remember, and I can’t find the name, of a 16th or 17th century Englishman who was self-taught in Greek enough to publish a pretty good translation of the Septuagint. Then, you have the self-taught guys like Scofield.

But, can the self-taught be good scholars?

I think so, but they need to, at some point, be trained. I mean, if a teacher doesn’t become a student, then said teacher will never be able to learn anything more than what they can teach themselves.

What do you think?

April 15th, 2012 by Joel

It has all happened before and it will happen again

20120415-134109.jpg

Going around on facebook….. #meme

April 7th, 2012 by Joel

What Constitutes a Biblical Scholar?

Is it a phd?

A book?

Presenting at a professional conference?

A new discovery?

Knowing stuff?

An agenda?

Thoughts?

April 6th, 2012 by Joel

Um, is your academic field of study really real?

Gawker post it… I think it’s pretty funny -

1. Physics
2. Astronomy or other Space Science
3. Philosophy
4. Engineering
5. Math
6. History
7. Chemistry
8. Biology or other Life Science
9. Foreign language (Useful type)
10. Computer Science
11. Agriculture
12. Geology or other Earth Science
13. Architecture
14. Literature
15. Law
16. Geography
17. Music
18. Economics
19. Study of Some Foreign Place or Culture
20. Archaeology
21. Anthropology
22. Religion or Theology
23. Art
24. Education
25. Foreign Language (Useless type)
26. Political Science
27. Drama or Film
28. Phys Ed, Sports Management or other Major Designed For Athletes
29. Journalism or “Communications”
30. Business
31. Psychology
32. Sociology

All Academic Fields of Study, Ranked by Realness.

It’s in response to an op-ed by Julian Friedland, which in part states:

So what objective knowledge can philosophy bring that is not already determinable by science? This is a question that has become increasingly fashionable — even in philosophy — to answer with a defiant “none.” For numerous philosophers have come to believe, in concert with the prejudices of our age, that only science holds the potential to solve persistent philosophical mysteries as the nature of truth, life, mind, meaning, justice, the good and the beautiful.

Sorry, but I disagree…. Philosophy is still the mother of all knowledge. Necessity is the mother of invention. Invention, science, would not be needed or known, without necessity, philosophy.

April 4th, 2012 by Joel

Patrick Greene to convert to Christianity

Greene, an Air Force veteran from San Antonio who has a history of activism related to atheist causes, threatened in February to file a lawsuit against Henderson County, Texas, if they did not remove a Nativity scene in front of the courthouse, Malakoff News reported.

But he was forced to drop the lawsuit after doctors told him that he had developed eye cataracts and was in danger of losing his vision, according to the Houston Chronicle. Shortly thereafter, Greene’s failing vision forced him to quit his job as a taxi driver and he was left with the challenge of supporting himself and his wife of 33 years.

That’s when Jessica Crye, a Christian woman who read about Greene’s troubles in the paper, went to members of her church and asked if they would be willing to donate money to help Greene. They ended up raising $400 in donations for Greene, which left him “flabbergasted that Christians would help atheists,” the Athens Review reported at the time.

Both Christians and atheists alike ended up donating to Greene through a fundraising account he set up on the site GoFundMe.com.

It’s that compassion that Greene says compelled him to start rethinking his religious beliefs. He told the Christian Post that after thinking deeply about Christianity and reexamining his views on evolution and animals, he decided to start practicing the religion.

via Patrick Greene, Longtime Atheist Activist, Announces Conversion To Christianity.

I dunno. I ain’t saying nothing….

Enhanced by Zemanta