Atheists, and especially those I call 'the village atheist' seem to be long on critiques of theism, particularly Christian theism (because no other theism is really a world-view threat), but very short on reasons why their belief is credible, has justifiable warrant, or even interest.
Next time you meet one, ask "Why atheism?" And don't accept a 'no evidence for God' argument. They must have a positive reason for their belief. Don't let them get away with turning the tables.
It will probably come down to the explanatory power of Evolution getting rid of a need for God. But that itself is in adequate. Evolution has to explain how it all started from nothing (there can be no 'big bang' without a 'big banger'; and I'm not accepting the 'big bang' by this remark), and how life arose. Then, how life-information arose, and how self-conscious mind arose such that our belief in other minds is warranted.
Tough call, in my view, such that a non-personal origin is less credible than a personal one.
Friday, January 31, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Hi to dead people
Some churches in Australia have taken to the habit of opening their services, not with a call to prayer, such as this Advent text:
But that bit of grammatical humour is not the worst of it. This is a paean to an anachronistic view of the European settlement of Australia and is a highly politicized statement that seeks elevate one group of Australians over the rest. It also reflects a pagan world view completely at odds with the revelation of God.
I think of:
I can only regard this as blasphemous...and as rejection of our Lord. Not Christian! Separating people, not bringing them together. Again. Not Christian!
Other commentators: Pellowe and Powell
Just wondering...did Joshua paid his respects to the Canannites, the traditional custodians of the Promised Land, and their gods and priests? I do note, however, that whenever the Israelites tried to bunk down with the Canaanite religion, they ended up in Babylon.
What the welcome to country is (translated from the Noongar by Richard Walley):
The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. (Isaiah 40:5)but with this one:
We acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land we meet upon and their Elders past, present and future.Future? How does one 'acknowledge' someone from the future? I can only imagine this came from watching too much Dr Who.
But that bit of grammatical humour is not the worst of it. This is a paean to an anachronistic view of the European settlement of Australia and is a highly politicized statement that seeks elevate one group of Australians over the rest. It also reflects a pagan world view completely at odds with the revelation of God.
I think of:
- Psalm 8:9 O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth!
- Psalm 24:1 The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it.
- Hebrews 10:19-25 encouraging one another
- 1 Corinthians 11:20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, (castigating them for Not meeting to join in the Lord's Supper)
- Matthew 18:20: For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst
I can only regard this as blasphemous...and as rejection of our Lord. Not Christian! Separating people, not bringing them together. Again. Not Christian!
Other commentators: Pellowe and Powell
Just wondering...did Joshua paid his respects to the Canannites, the traditional custodians of the Promised Land, and their gods and priests? I do note, however, that whenever the Israelites tried to bunk down with the Canaanite religion, they ended up in Babylon.
What the welcome to country is (translated from the Noongar by Richard Walley):
May the good spirit watch over you. You’re looking at the land of my people, we call Whadjuk. Later on when you go home to your country, may the good spirit take you safely home. May the spirits of my people and the spirits of your people watch over us now.If that's not paganism....
Sunday, January 26, 2020
The sermon after the reading
The sermon after my reading was not on murder; but something more interesting: the Sabbath.
The picture gives it away; the Sabbath is the pivot in the 10 Commandments between knowing God, and behaving in consistency with knowing God; behaving in a God-like, or God reflective manner, congruently with us being in Gods image (Genesis 1:26, where he defines our relationship with the rest of the creation, and it is not for worship, but for 'ruling') : that is, made to be God-like, and in relationship with God.
Just for clarity:
1. Don't worship other gods
2. Don't misrepresent God
3. Don't slander God
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honour your parents
6. No murder
7. No adultery
8. No stealing
9. No lies about others
10. No lust after others' things.
The first three are about God and our understanding of and relationship to him.
The fourth is part of our being like God. When God finished creating, he 'rested'. As Genesis 2 shows us, as the account zooms into man's creation detail, the resting is for relationship: God walks in the Garden seeking his creatures. Genesis 3:8. Alas, broken!
Thus our Sabbath is for relationship: for relationship with the ones God wants us to relate to (him: 1-3) and those around us (commandments 5-6, telling us what it is to relate in reflection of God).
God 'rested' to enjoy his creation; we are to 'rest' to enjoy God...and his creation; that is each other.
The picture gives it away; the Sabbath is the pivot in the 10 Commandments between knowing God, and behaving in consistency with knowing God; behaving in a God-like, or God reflective manner, congruently with us being in Gods image (Genesis 1:26, where he defines our relationship with the rest of the creation, and it is not for worship, but for 'ruling') : that is, made to be God-like, and in relationship with God.
1. Don't worship other gods
2. Don't misrepresent God
3. Don't slander God
4. Remember the Sabbath
5. Honour your parents
6. No murder
7. No adultery
8. No stealing
9. No lies about others
10. No lust after others' things.
The first three are about God and our understanding of and relationship to him.
The fourth is part of our being like God. When God finished creating, he 'rested'. As Genesis 2 shows us, as the account zooms into man's creation detail, the resting is for relationship: God walks in the Garden seeking his creatures. Genesis 3:8. Alas, broken!
Thus our Sabbath is for relationship: for relationship with the ones God wants us to relate to (him: 1-3) and those around us (commandments 5-6, telling us what it is to relate in reflection of God).
God 'rested' to enjoy his creation; we are to 'rest' to enjoy God...and his creation; that is each other.
Reading for Sunday 26 Jan 2020
I'm reading at our service today: Exodus 20:2-17.
Note, it is 'you shall not murder', and not 'you shall not kill'. Big difference, particularly in the light of Romans 13:4.
Note, it is 'you shall not murder', and not 'you shall not kill'. Big difference, particularly in the light of Romans 13:4.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
The let people down project.
When I was in high school, the school Christian club was great fun. I was on the committee when in senior years, and participated in conducting meetings.
What we didn't do was equip each other to defend our faith, to understand and deal with the questions, to develop rhetorical skills and understand how to debate by questioning, for the serious detractors, and how to flick off the fools.
Still the same, based on what my younger friends tell me.
Apart from understanding the issues that interest young people and their illumination with biblical and faith information, the opportunity needs to be taken to give Christian young people knowledge about such issues as:
What we didn't do was equip each other to defend our faith, to understand and deal with the questions, to develop rhetorical skills and understand how to debate by questioning, for the serious detractors, and how to flick off the fools.
Still the same, based on what my younger friends tell me.
Apart from understanding the issues that interest young people and their illumination with biblical and faith information, the opportunity needs to be taken to give Christian young people knowledge about such issues as:
- the reasonableness of belief in God
- the unreasonableness of atheism
- why being a Christian is existentially rational and indeed, essential
- the popular propaganda that distorts church history and its rebuttals
- the popular misunderstandings of Christian faith and their corrections
- the asserted conflict between 'science' and Christian faith (really, evolutionary materialism and Christian supernaturalism).
The Bible doesn't have verses
I was pleased to come across a talk by Greg Koukl (he called it an hour of "mentoring"; being Australian, I'd call it an hour of talk....Americans and their terminology! One mentors another in a dyadic relationship, it's not a 1:10,000 thing) where he pointed out that the Bible doesn't have verses.
Good call, Greg. It doesn't. At least, the Holy Spirit didn't inspire 'verses'. They are just a handy reference system applied to the text retrospectively, by a fellow with the bright idea in the 1550s. Good idea too. We have systems of references in legal documents, legislation, textbooks. In some legal documents, you will even find every line of text numbered, so a reference system is a useful feature for the Bible.
But the point is, the verse and chapter divisions mean nothing to the meaning of the text. Some people, even some Christians, seem to think that the Bible is a collection of 'verses', of sayings just strung together. It is not. Its a collection of literature: regular literature as in history, narrative, poetry, correspondence, instructions, declamations, (there's even some humour, 'rule the fish' sticking in my mind for that one)...so you just don't go verse harvesting to suit your immediate need.
As Peter says, there is no 'private interpretation' of Scripture, Stanley Fish's reader-response theory is out the door as far as the Scripture is concerned (indeed, as far as any text is concerned).
Good call, Greg. It doesn't. At least, the Holy Spirit didn't inspire 'verses'. They are just a handy reference system applied to the text retrospectively, by a fellow with the bright idea in the 1550s. Good idea too. We have systems of references in legal documents, legislation, textbooks. In some legal documents, you will even find every line of text numbered, so a reference system is a useful feature for the Bible.
But the point is, the verse and chapter divisions mean nothing to the meaning of the text. Some people, even some Christians, seem to think that the Bible is a collection of 'verses', of sayings just strung together. It is not. Its a collection of literature: regular literature as in history, narrative, poetry, correspondence, instructions, declamations, (there's even some humour, 'rule the fish' sticking in my mind for that one)...so you just don't go verse harvesting to suit your immediate need.
As Peter says, there is no 'private interpretation' of Scripture, Stanley Fish's reader-response theory is out the door as far as the Scripture is concerned (indeed, as far as any text is concerned).
Friday, January 24, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)