Category Archives: Theology

This is just . . . WOW! (part II)

In a previous post, I criticized Mark of Proud Atheists for this post. Mark listed 14 things that he simply does not adhere to, given his naturalistic worldview. In all cases, I’ve been finding that Mark misunderstands or mischaracterizes Christianity. Today, we continue exposing his errors on points eight through 14, and offer some concluding thoughts. Read the rest of this entry

This is Just . . . WOW! (part I)

Mark from Proud Atheists does it again! He manages to prove his general and willful ignorance of religion even while attempting to mock it. His latest diatribe is a thoughtful post titled “Dear Christians, ‘I Simply Do Not . . . .‘” It’s a fascinating line of crap from start to finish. Let’s see what we can make of it: Read the rest of this entry

Why Former Christians Annoy Me

Sometimes, atheists annoy me. I don’t normally read Godless Girl, but her post on getting past anger cuts both ways. It’s about relationships:

The more I grow close and friendly with people of other ideas, the better I tend to act and feel towards others who hold those ideas–even if they are delusions or born from ignorance. . . . My point comes down to this: Love people as individuals. See them as more than just “those believers” or “those superstitious weaklings.” Who are they? Why do they have worth and dignity? It’s hard to be angry at people when you understand why they are who they are. Motivations matter, and they come from somewhere. Is it a need for love? A thirst for activity an community? Conformity and social expectation? Depression and fear?

That said, there is one class of atheist that, no matter how close I would grow to one, how I much I could empathize with their position, how much understanding or insight I get into their psyche–I will always be annoyed by. Always.

That class is the former believer.

Why?

Because when they criticize their former faith, they often fall into the exact errors perpetrated by people who wouldn’t know any better. The difference is that they do know better. Especially if they own 3 master-level degrees in philosophy and theology, and repeatedly claim to have studied under the world’s foremost authority on philosophy of religion.

When a person like that makes a fundamental error in theology, it annoys me more than words can say. Because this person knows better. At least, he should.

John W. Loftus, our friend over at Debunking Christianity, posted a (admittedly awesome) video of an octopus killing a shark in self-defense. Loftus muses, “God could not have made all creatures as vegans/vegetarians, could he? Nope. Not a chance. It was impossible for him. Right?

Yep. Completely impossible:

Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. (Gen 1:29-30)

So impossible that everything being a vegetarian was the original plan. Then, that pesky Fall happened, and the plan was altered. After the Flood, we read this:

The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (Gen 9:2-3)

Okay, so it was after the Flood that God made meat eaters. Got it. Looks like Mr. Loftus was wrong. Again.

Finally Doing Something With the Loftus Site!

Since I added the link to my answer site for John W. Loftus’s The Christian Delusion to my sig line on Theology Web, I decided that it might be a good idea to actually put some content up there.

So I answered John’s essay, “Am I Fundamentalist?” here. (Discuss my reply.)

Maybe tomorrow I can start adding some answers to the bonus material. I’m sure I can answer the essay about God and animals (see Gen 9:5 and Rom 8:22; animals are punished for the sins of Adam). Usually, when one defines terms, the will of God becomes clearer. There are multiple things we could mean when we say “God’s will.” But I won’t get into that now; the essay on the will of God could take a completely different turn.

Dilbert on Our Daily Bread: Not What I was Expecting

Scott Adams is one of my favorite authors. I love the Dilbert comic strip, and had owned all of the collections at one time. I also owned all of his hardcover books: The Dilbert Principle, Dogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook, The Dilbert Future, and The Joy of Work. Since money has become more tight, I haven’t made any purchases of either comic collections or Dilbert-themed nonfiction.

Our Daily Bread, for the May 11 edition, quotes Adams from The Dilbert Principle:

When it comes to avoiding work, it is fair to say I studied with the masters. After nine years . . . I learned just about everything there is to know about looking busy without actually being busy.

They used this to point out that Christians are called to a higher standard on the job. According to Ephesians 6:5-8:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

We don’t work for our boss. We ultimately work for God. Therefore, our attitude at work should reflect that. This was challenging to me, because my attitude at work seldom reflects that I’m cheerfully working for God rather than for man.

I caught this in someone’s RSS feed, so all I saw was the title (Our Daily Bread: “Dilbert”) and the first few words, which summarize who Scott Adams is. This isn’t the direction that I figured the post would go in. Scott Adams also dabbled in philosophy in his writings. Though he identifies as an atheist, that’s only because there isn’t a label for what he actually believes.

Laid out in the book God’s Debris (which is available for free), it is a very interesting mix of atheism and deism. I recommend it highly.

I figured that it was this fascinating concept that the Daily Bread article would focus on. Boy was I wrong. Maybe one day, I can examine God’s Debris in more detail. And, maybe I can also pick up its sequel, The Religion War.

Did John Piper Say that God was the Author of Sin?

I’m getting numerous hits from search engines that indicate people are looking to see if John Piper said that God is the author of sin. I can’t find the source of this controversy, or who made the charge, or why people seem to be looking for this topic right now. As near as I can figure, it comes from this article, dated January 1, 1993. Nothing like dealing with current events, right? Read the rest of this entry

Do Christians Read the Bible Anymore?

When I see this:

Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes. Calamities are the result of people’s deeds. We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers. (source)

And this:

Television and radio evangelist Pastor John Hagee believes the recent eruption of the volcano in Iceland stems from Britain breaking God’s covenant.

The day after Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority said the Western Wall in Jerusalem could not be used in Israeli tourism ads in Britain because it is considered occupied territory, Hagee said, the volcano erupted, shutting down Britain’s economy in one day.

“That’s coincidence, like the flood was a coincidence. That’s coincidence, like the Red Sea was coincidence. That’s coincidence, like the earthquake and the Resurrection was coincidence,” Hagee told about 3,200 people at Lancaster County Convention Center on Thursday night as part of John Hagee Ministries’ Rally and Prophecy Seminar. (source)

I really wonder about the intelligence and the sanity of the preachers ordained by God to minister to his people. I’ve answered this point before, but only in general terms. Since these two are speaking specifically about disasters, I thought I’d take a look at the words of Jesus regarding a disaster in his day, the fall of the Tower of Siloam.

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Lk 13:1-5)

It is often the temptation of us ordinary mortals to try to attribute some sort of meaning to the meaningless. But it isn’t always the case, bibically or otherwise, that a disaster leading to death or destruction of a country’s economy is the result of sin. Look at Job; he was righteous in God’s eyes, yet God allowed tragedy after tragedy to befall the poor guy.

Jesus, who would have been in a position to know why God allowed that tower to collapse and kill those 18 people, didn’t ruminate on the sin of those people. Instead, he called his hearers to repentance, asking them if they thought that they were somehow better than those who were caught in the disaster.

Of course they aren’t. No one is better than anyone else; we all are sinners (Rom 3:23).

Instead of being arrogant and acting as if he knows better than Jesus why a particular disaster befell the U.K., perhaps Hagee should follow in Jesus’ footsteps more closely. Use this event to highlight God’s impartiality: “Do you suppose that those caught in the volcanic eruption were worse sinners than you? Repent, or you too will perish.”

Wow!

Steve Hays (I’ve disagreed with him in the past) of Triablogue has posted twice about this comment from Ben of Arminian Perspectives:

Wrong. J.C. has never said that God is dependent on our choices. What he has said is that God’s knowledge of our choices is dependent on those choices. How could it be otherwise? If God never created us, would he know anything about us? Of course not. So God’s knowledge of us is dependent on their being an “us” to know something about.

Fascinating. And dead wrong.

The key here is the sentence “If God never created us, would he know anything about us? Of course not.” As a Reformed thinker, I don’t agree with Molinism, but there is something to Molinism’s levels of knowledge that is important here.

The first level of knowledge is God’s natural knowledge. This includes all that ever could be created, without restrictions. Without this knowledge, God would simply not be God.

The second level of knowledge is middle knowledge, that which God knows will come to pass given the right circumstances. This represents how humans will exercise their free will, but middle knowledge is not dependent on God’s action or inaction. It grows out of the act of creation itself.

The third level of knowledge is God’s free knowledge, which is God’s ability to intimately know every aspect of the world that he created. And I should mention at this point that this description of Molinism is extremely simplified; and likely inaccurate on at least a few points.

Note that us Reformed philosophers grant God both natural and free knowledge, while denying that middle knowledge is even necessary to explain divine sovereignty versus man’s free will.

God’s divine foreknowledge, even in a system like Molinism that is needlessly complicated, doesn’t depend on human movements subsequent to the act of creation. God knows what is possible before a single act of creation is undertaken (natural knowledge), and he knows what will follow from any act of creation (free knowledge) given the circumstances that a creature finds him or herself in (middle knowledge).

No one denies this–not the Molinist, not the Calvinist, not the Arminian. Except for Ben. So maybe this wasn’t facetious after all?

Reverse Hypocrisy

I’ve spent so much of my time reviewing atheists and skeptics that I’ve forgotten part of my mission is to point out inconsistencies in the doctrine and practice of other Christians. I saw an article in my hometown newspaper, The Blade, that contained an amazing quote by a professed Christian.

Normal hypocrisy is something that we see all the time. Basically, it is a fundamental difference between the way you think and the way you act. In other words, thinking like a Christian but not acting like a Christian. Ted Haggard is a great example. He preached against homosexuality, but resigned from the ministry in disgrace when it was revealed that he had a gay lover.

In Saturday’s edition of The Blade, I saw an example of reverse hypocrisy. This would entail acting like a Christian but not thinking like a Christian. Local woman Alesia Prater was robbed at gunpoint by now-convicted felon Rebecca Olinger. At Olinger’s sentencing, Prater was allowed to speak and said:

She’d have been better off asking me for money rather than pointing a gun at me. As a Christian, I have to forgive her. I don’t like that I do, but I do. (source)

Hmmm. That’s interesting. Prater not only feels obligated to forgive her assailant, but she doesn’t like doing it. And she vocalizes it. She’s doing it out of obligation for the sake of being a Christian.

Well, that’s just wrong. Read the rest of this entry

Eternal Security

Eternal security, also called “perseverence of the saints” and better known as “once saved, always saved (OSAS)” has drawn the attention of Ben, who goes by kangaroodort on the blog Arminian Perspectives. Ben has noted an item from Jeff Paton on the August of 2009 George Sodini debacle. Ben and Paton both believe that the Sodini is the textbook problem with eternal security.

Sodini, prior to his killing spree, wrote the following on his blog (December 31, 2008):

“Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!”, as pastor R— K—- [redacted by raincoaster] would proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him. Call him at [redacted by raincoaster]. If no answer there, he should still live at [redacted by raincoaster]. In any case, guilt and fear kept me there 13 long years until Nov 2006. I think his crap did the most damage. (cited here)

Note that Sodini states “you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven.” The pastor convinced him of this. A quick scan of his church’s website (the doctrinal statement wasn’t available when I went there, but they did have a table of contents) appears to confirm that it teaches OSAS. So, it is very possible that Sodini believes that his ticket is punched and he will go to heaven regardless of his beliefs and practices leading up to his death.

Paton appears to be blaming the mass murder itself on Sodini’s complete misunderstanding of the OSAS doctrine. Witness: Read the rest of this entry

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started