Monthly Archives: August 2010
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Illustrated
A new believer named Ronni needed some relationship advice, so she did the only logical thing and turned to Pat Robertson.
Robertson is giving a biblical answer for a change. He’s referring to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
It’s not a blanket prohibition on “hanging out” with unbelievers. How are we supposed to evangelize if we’re not permitted to hang out with unbelievers? The idea of a “yoke” is a rabbinical term referring to various interpretations of the Hebrew bible. A rabbi was said to teach and follow a specific “yoke.” It’s similar in terms to a Christian denomination of today, but not exactly. For example, a rabbi who came up with a new yoke (rather than teaching an existing one) had to have his new yoke blessed by the laying on of hands by two other rabbis.
What “unevenly yoked” means is that a person shouldn’t have a very different set of beliefs than their spouse.
My wife is an Arminian, and I’m a Calvinist. I’ve heard that that doesn’t work very well. But that hasn’t been my experience so far. Calvinists and Arminians agree on the basic premise that faith in Christ alone is what is necessary for salvation, and that is exactly what my wife and I plan on teaching our kids. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is in how the person arrives at saving faith–through God’s action alone (Calvinism) or by God’s response to a free will decision (Armininism).
The real problem for Ronni in the video is that her fiancee is an atheist. It probably isn’t impossible for such a marriage to work, but my concern would be for any future children that the couple would have. How does one decide what religion the children will be raised to believe?
Ronni’s fiancee, as an atheist, probably believes that the Bible is a collection of myths rather than historical facts. He also likely denies the Resurrection (perhaps even the historical person of Jesus). Ronni, as a Christian, is going to want to teach her children about the existence of God and Jesus, that the Bible is a reliable history book, and that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day to defeat sin and death.
I don’t know many atheists who would want their children to be taught such “nonsense.” In that scenario, mom teaches one thing, then dad undermines it behind mom’s back. The kids are going to be confused.
An additional problem presents itself. The church, as a whole, fails in apologetic instruction. I doubt much that Ronni has any way to counter the arguments that her fiancee will expose the kids to: contradictions in the Bible, Jesus never existed, there is no evidence for God, evolution removes the need for God, and other atheist talking points. The kids, in this scenario, are far more likely to be atheists since the atheist is able to present and defend his reasons for being so, while the Christian is left with “You just have to have faith.”
Unless the fiancee is going to agree to not interfere with the religious upbringing of the children, and if he is going to agree to be supportive of Ronni’s Christian faith, then this might be fine. But I don’t know many atheists who are willing to do such a thing. At least, the impression I get from the commenters on this site.
So, what say you, atheists? Am I wrong? Could you be supportive of your spouse if your spouse was religious and wanted to bring the kids up in that religion?
Does the Lunacy of WWGHA Ever End????
The lunacy of the twin websites Why Won’t God Heal Amputees and God is Imaginary never seems to end. In drafting my answers to their issues regarding God’s plan (there’s a video, a chapter of WWGHA, and a proof on GII), I discovered an unpublicized page of WWGHA. It reads:
Therefore, here is an open challenge to James Dobson, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, Antonin Scalia and other prominent leaders in the Christian community:
Appear with me on national TV to read the Bible.
It is that simple. This will be a tremendous opportunity for you to spread the power of God’s word directly to the nation. The Bible is the book that contains the Ten Commandments, the revelation that Jesus is our resurrected savior and the story of our creation. This is God’s holy word to his children. You will simply read aloud from this sacred text. I ask only one thing: Allow me to choose the verses that you will read.
I will not interrupt you or provide any commentary during your reading, nor will you. We will simply allow God to speak for himself through his holy scriptures.
Interesting. It becomes clear what our anonymous friend is up to when he states that he is going to pick the verses. And, in case the naive reader still hasn’t figured out what he’s up to, this should make his agenda very clear:
The problem with the Bible is simple. What God says in the Bible is, in many places, quite offensive to us. As soon as we read the offensive parts of the Bible in public, we all realize that the Bible has serious problems and should have no place in our society.
This is a seriously flawed argument. The problems that would result if this argument were applied consistently throughout society should be obvious. Free speech would be out the window, because we would no longer be allowed to offend anyone. No one who offends people should have a place in society according to the author of Why Won’t God Heal Amputees!
The second problem is defining offensive. My mother-in-law hates the Harry Potter series. She once flew into a rage at the mere mention of J.K. Rowling, and confirmed hating Rowling as the “logical” extension of hating Harry Potter.
I’m a Christian, and I love Christ as much as she does. Harry Potter doesn’t offend me. I’ve read and enjoyed the series, and I like the majority of the movies (#3 and #6, despite being the cream of the crop for the books, were the worst movies). So, my mother-in-law is offended by the Harry Potter series, while I am not. Which one of us is right?
What about Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series? I was hooked on that series from page one of The Golden Compass, and quickly purchased the remaining two before I was halfway through that book so that there would be no interruption in reading the series. It is perhaps my favorite trilogy of all time, and I’m sorely upset that the proposed movie series was a dud.
The books declare that the universe winked into existence from nothing-nothing (H/T to Francis Schaeffer for that term); that “God” was really just the first angel (perhaps a corruption of Col 1:15?), claiming to the inhabitants of the randomly-formed universe that he created them; that “God” is evil and Satan is good, since Satan is fighting for freedom from divine subjugation; and The Amber Spyglass features the death of “God” and the success of Lord Asriel’s rebellion, the purpose of which was to destroy God and set up a new heaven. Should I be offended by this, given that it is the complete antithesis of what I believe?
Many Christians are offended by those books. But I happen to love the series and plan to reread it someday–and I never reread books. I hate rereading and never do it unless the book is beyond awesome. The only other book I have ever deemed worthy of rereading is The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I have read three times already and likely will read again someday.
Who’s going to decide if I’m right to love His Dark Materials? Who’s going to decide if my mother-in-law is right in deriding Harry Potter?
Who decides what is offensive and therefore has no place in civilized society?
The critic may retort that we just know without the need to rely on an outside judge. Really? Well, under an atheistic worldview, there is no ought; only what is. Admitting that we will just know that the Bible (or anything else, for that matter) is offensive presupposes an objective moral standard which binds us all to certain sensibilities. Such a thing is a natural consequence of the theistic viewpoint, but is a serious obstacle to pure naturalism–which the atheist often argues. To argue that society will just know that the Bible is offensive presupposes theism and works against atheism.
Without presupposing an objective moral standard, it is impossible to appropriately define offensive. Therefore, this challenge is based on seriously faulty grounds, and should be dismissed.
New Theme!
After years of Andreas09, I have decided that it is time to give my site a makeover.
One of the recent updates of the WordPress software made it is possible to customize menus. Before that update, the theme itself controlled what menus appeared. Fine for WordPress.org users, since they can mess with the code of the themes. But for us WordPress.com users, that is irritating, since I can’t monkey with the code of the themes and I don’t only want to link to internal pages with menus. I want to link to my donation site and e-book sales site by menu rather than on a sidebar widget.
I thought it was time to change themes, since I’ve had the same theme for the better part of four years. I think that this is the theme I’m going to stick with for the time being (though I might change my mind–I’m back and forth between this one and the Freshy theme). I thought this theme had customizable menus when I selected it, but I was wrong. But I can have a widget below the title, so that’s the next best thing!
Let me know if you like the new theme in the comments below. If you don’t care, feel free to put that in the comments below, too.
Three Videos are Up!
I’ve resolved to do at least one proof or video per week. It looks as if I’ve outdone myself this week, as I’ve put up three videos in the last two days!
First, I took on “Why Does Every Intelligent Christian Disobey Jesus?” The video lists five commands that Jesus gives Christians but that allegedly no Christian obeys. Only one of the commands is a legitimate command, which is to love everyone. Another was given to a single person in a special circumstance and not meant to be a general command. The other three were never given by Jesus anywhere in the Bible. Verses have to be ripped grossly out of context to make them into commands. Read the answer here.
 |
| ANSWERED! |
Second, I took on the short video “Proving God’s Plan is Impossible.” Even though it was one of the shorter videos, the refutation took quite a bit of work. The video pokes at God’s eternal decree, twisting it to mean that murders shouldn’t be punished and rapists should be rewarded since they are only following God’s will. It fails on many levels, primarily when one realizes that there are twin purposes in each action. God has an overarching good purpose for all he decrees, but the intent of the moral agent who performed the action cannot be overlooked. God’s purpose is always accomplished, but the rapist or murder still committed a heinous sin and God won’t overlook that.
 |
| ANSWERED! |
Third and finally, I took on another short video, “Proving the Pope has Never Read the Bible.” Even though this video is half the length of the usual 10 minute videos that GII puts out, it still required a lengthy answer. To suggest that the Pope has never read the Bible is just ludicrous. Just to become a parish priest requires a master’s level degree in theology, and most bishops have the equivalent of one or more doctorates. The life of the presbyter is centered on the teachings of the Bible, and how much more central the Bible must become to at the episcopal level.
Further, the examples of gratuitous violence given by the video to suggest that God is repulsive are taken out of context. “Violence” is unwarranted force against someone who doesn’t deserve it. By reading the context of the stories, one realizes that God is punishing humans for their sin in each one, he is not simply committing an act of capricious murder for the fun of it. God is not a serial killer.
Well, that’s been my night. The short videos have produced unexpectedly lengthy answers. I can hardly wait to see the length of answer that I have to develop when tackling the full-length 10 minute videos!
Great Quote from John Piper
Cover via Amazon
Whenever a Christian converses with a non-Christian about the truth of the faith, every request of the non-Christian for the proof of Christianity should be met with an equally serious request for proof for the non-Christian’s philosophy of life. Otherwise we get the false impression that the Christian worldview is tentative and uncertain, while the more secular worldviews are secure and sure, standing above the need to give a philosophical and historical accounting of themselves. But that is not the case. Many people who demand that Christians produce proof of our claims do not make the same demand upon themselves….If the Christian must produce proof, so must others. (Desiring God [Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1996], pp. 273-274)
H/T to Jason Engwer of Triablogue.
Blog for WWGH Summed Up in the Comments Section
The Blog for WhyWon’tGodHealAmputees has a post on the declining condition of Evangelical Christianity here. As of this writing, there are three comments that sum the entire blog up perfectly.
First, from Burebiesta:
Got admit American Christianity is not well in America. Just like the Hebrews in the OT, when things went well they turned there back on God. America is doing the same.
Anne Rice did not turn her back on Christ, she denounced all the false Christianity which is wise. being aware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The Tea party bomb is just a delusion. No evidence there but when you can’t beat their arguments drop the race card on them. A favorite of the real racist that make up the Black caucus and the Black panthers which as we all know are components of the DNC.
It is a good idea to read the links since our moderator really likes to twist his posts to the point of a pretzel.
Next, from A Christian Guy:
As far as Rational thinking goes, this video is far from it. Every verse and quotation from the bible was taken extremely out of context.
“Our moderator really likes to twist his posts to the points of a pretzel.”
Completely so.
Finally, from Charles:
CG,
If you think that video is twisted visit the godisimiginary sister site. I can’t believe anyone takes any of it seriously but some like to reference it.
Agree, agree, agree. The video in question, “Why Does Every Intelligent Christian Disobey Jesus,” had to be one of the most egregious examples of strawman argumentation ever constructed! Though it scarcely needed a response (intelligent people would see it for the steaming pile of excrement that it is), I did reply here.
Another E-book Refutation of TCD
J.P. Holding, Nick (aka ApologiaPhoenix) and others have joined together in another e-book refutation of Loftus’s The Christian Delusion. I have no other details, other than the title appears to be The Cowboys Who Talk Through Their Hats.
As with most of Holding’s new material, it probably won’t be free. Holding’s work (especially his e-books) is very reasonable (usually given away free with a subscription to his E-block newsletter–$8 for an annual subscription), however, and is worth it. I have a lot of respect for his Theology Web cohorts that contribute to the work as well.
Hopefully this is out soon and is of the quality that I come to expect from Holding’s work.
Explain this to Me. . .
I didn’t think that it was even possible, but my local library has not one, but FOUR copies of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No wonder it’s rated one of the top ten library systems in the nation. It even has books that aren’t worthy of stocking!
Either way, I will obtaining one of the blessed four copies shortly to begin a refutation of it on the new site dedicated to refuting His Noodliness.
Animated Mischaracterization of Calvinism
I read the blog of James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, quite frequently. Through it, I discovered this video. It’s amusing.
Patty feels that it accurately represents Calvinism. She writes:
I was probably one of the most radical Calvinists of all. I would and did stand flat footed and state unwaveringly that all five points of the TULIP were infallible and that those who were not elect were going to glorify God simply by their depraved lives and their eternal damnation. I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God’s capricious picking and choosing. I had been taught that since it was Tradition that taught us that children were not guilty of actual sin until after an age of accountability that we should reject that idea along with the whole of Catholic Tradition. So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become “regenerate” and be saved. If your head is spinning right now, don’t feel alone. I can’t believe I once believed this rubbish either.
So, while Jim’s folks have a cow about this video and bluster about bearing false witness and all, I have to say I found the video not only funny, but also an accurate representation of my own former Calvinist beliefs. I’d say they were also Jim’s but he would just tell me I’m wrong like everyone else is wrong when they find fault in him. Whatever. (source)
Of course, the video does not accurately represent Calvinism. I was toying with the idea of picking through this video and showing how badly it misrepresents Calvinism, but TurretinFan has done that for me. He said everything that I would have said, so enjoy his short but excellent refutation of the video.
This is an Interesting Comment
I’m trying to figure out the meaning of Amos Keppler (@hoodedman)’s Twitter status:
@antitheistangie There is no lack of people criticizing Islam. I see it as my task to be among the few criticizing christianity #atheism (source)
Is this guy on some kind of cool psychedelic drugs? What does he mean to be “among the few criticizing christianity?” Since when is there a shortage of people criticizing Christianity? Every atheist blog I’ve read criticizes Christianity in the bulk of their posts. I assume that the ones I haven’t read do the same (and there are a lot of atheist blogs–the Atheist Blogroll is currently boasting 1,132 members).
Yet, they claim not to be anti-Christian. They claim to be anti-religion. However, even when the chance arises to criticize another religion, they don’t.
In conclusion, this dude needs to get a clue before opening his mouth again.
Back Rome Again 