Thursday, April 26, 2007

A Young Woman at Virginia Tech Showed us the Way


BLACKSBURG, Va. (April 26) - A senior at Virginia Tech  said moral responsibility led her to add a stone for gunman Seung-Hui Cho  to a memorial for his 32 shooting victims that was set up at Virginia Tech late last week.

"We did not lose only 32 students and faculty members that day; we lost 33 lives," senior Katelynn Johnson wrote in a letter.




Katelynn Johnson was a credit to the nation, her school and her family when she choose to remember Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter,  Surely, his death was a tragedy too.  Her actions demonstrate a high sense of empathy for her fellow student.  She spoke for many of us who mourned him too.  I believe that the Jesus who asked for forgiveness for those who crucified him would ask the same for Cho.



Tags: , , , ,


Powered by Qumana


Science and Faith-Richard Dawkins and the Challenge of Science to Traditional Faith

Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion on traditional views of the Judao-Christian faith.  His razor sharp mind in deadly to believers particuliarly ministers who have deal with troublesome issues in the Bible by simply never talking about them.  Dawkins has lifted the vail.  In the video link above, he gives examples of problem issues.


The second part of his speech answers questions from the audience.  There, his serious answers to questions of various quality puts him far above lessor minds in universities all over America. 


Thanks to the internet more of his work is available online.        


Dawkins Links


Tags: , , , , , ,


Powered by Qumana


Thursday, April 19, 2007

Postmodern/Emergent is pomo

Pomo sounds like a four letter word but it really refers to postmodern/emergent theology. I found a website dealing with this viewpoint. I think it will and perspective to the label.

So I am an Emergent/Postmodern-we'll have to discuss that

A few days ago, I took a quiz on the internet that said I have an "Emergent/Postmodern" religious view.  That was interesting to me since the age of Google loves labels.  Now, I can contact those who think like me and find those who do not.  Great discussions are sure to follow. 




Emergent should really be emerging, of course.  My religious view has everything to do with discussion and searching.  I want to know what other people think about religion and culture.  I want to know what they believe.  I am inclined to reject opionions that deny any other possible world view.  At any rate, do a search on emergent/postmodern and see what comes up.  I suspect you will reach a dynamic discussion. 




Tags: , , , , ,




Powered by Qumana




Friday, April 13, 2007

Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura (Church Authority and the Bible)

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS



Solo scriptura is beset with numerous theological problems, the most significant being the problem of the canon. The canon is the list of books which are inspired by God. According to adherents of solo scriptura, the Bible is the only authority because its books are inspired, but the Bible nowhere includes an inspired list of inspired books. What this means is that solo scriptura can assert that Scripture is the only authority, but it cannot define with any absolute certainty what Scripture is. When adherents do attempt to define and defend a particular canon, they cannot do so using the Bible as their only authority. In order for solo scriptura to be true, the Bible would have to include not only all of the inspired books of the Bible, but also an inspired table of contents telling us which books were really inspired. However, even this would not be enough, for we would not know that the table of contents was inspired apart from an extra-scriptural divine intervention or another inspired document telling us that the original list was inspired. Of course then we would just move the problem back another step, and so on into infinity.


Most proponents of solo scriptura simply ignore the problem of the canon as if the Bibles they hold in their hands dropped whole and complete from heaven. Yet this is not what happened in actual history. The individual books of Scripture were written over a period of one thousand years. Even the New Testament books were written over a period of decades and only gradually found their way to all of the churches. Numerous apocryphal gospels and epistles were written, some of which were considered authoritative in certain churches. It took time for the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books that we have today to be universally recognized. The doctrine of solo scriptura presupposes a complete and closed canon that it cannot account for or defend on its own principles. This fundamental self-contradiction is one of its most obvious flaws.


The doctrine of solo scriptura also reduces the essential doctrines of the Christian faith to no more than opinion by denying any real authority to the ecumenical creeds of the Church. We must note that if the ecumenical creeds are no more authoritative than the opinions of any individual Christian, as adherents of solo scriptura must say if they are to remain consistent, then the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ are no more authoritative than the doctrinal ideas of any opinionated Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ become as open to debate as the doctrine of exclusive psalmody in worship.


It is extremely important to understand the importance of this point. If the adherents of solo scriptura are correct, then there are no real objective doctrinal boundaries within Christianity. Each individual Christian is responsible to search the Scripture (even though he can’t be told with any certainty what books constitute Scripture) and judge for himself and by himself what is and is not scriptural doctrine. In other words, each individual is responsible for establishing his or her own doctrinal boundaries — his or her own creed.


If the ecumenical creeds have no real authority, then it cannot be of any major consequence if a person decides to reject some or all of the doctrines of these creeds — including the Trinity and the deity of Christ. If the individual judges the Trinity to be an unbiblical doctrine, then for him it is false. No other authority exists to correct him outside of his own interpretation of Scripture. This is precisely why solo scriptura inevitably results in radical relativism and subjectivity. Each man decides for himself what the essential doctrines of Christianity are, each man creates his own creed from scratch, and concepts such as orthodoxy and heresy become completely obsolete. The concept of Christianity itself becomes obsolete because it no longer has any meaningful objective definition. Since solo scriptura has no means by which Scripture’s propositional doctrinal content may be authoritatively defined (such definition necessarily entails the unacceptable creation of an authoritative ecumenical creed), its propositional content can only be subjectively defined by each individual. One individual may consider the Trinity essential, another may consider it a pagan idea imported into Christianity. Without an authoritatively defined statement of Christianity’s propositional doctrinal content, neither individual can definitively and finally be declared wrong. Solo scriptura destroys this possibility, and thereby destroys the possibility of Christianity being a meaningful concept. Instead, by reducing Christianity to relativism and subjectivity, it reduces Christianity to irrationalism and ultimately nonsense



Or, it reduces Christianity to a constant discussion and effort to arrive at the truth of a proposition.  Discussions were how the Church was founded in the first place.  Discussions about the canon, what books would be in the Bible. Discussions about the divinity of Christ.  Discussions about the authority of bishops.  Discussions by people with no official authority but their belief in truth revealed to them.  Official Authority will never like that situation.  Official Authority slapped the face of Christ for the sin of being the Son of God.



"And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death."Then they spat in His face, and struck Him; and some slapped Him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?" (Matthew 26:63-68 RSV)



Official Authority judged Jesus's  statement as untrue and therefore blasphemy. Twelve apostles appointed by someone with no 'official authority'  judged otherwise.


Tags: , , , , , ,




Powered by Qumana


Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura (Church Authority and the Bible)

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS



Solo scriptura is beset with numerous theological problems, the most significant being the problem of the canon. The canon is the list of books which are inspired by God. According to adherents of solo scriptura, the Bible is the only authority because its books are inspired, but the Bible nowhere includes an inspired list of inspired books. What this means is that solo scriptura can assert that Scripture is the only authority, but it cannot define with any absolute certainty what Scripture is. When adherents do attempt to define and defend a particular canon, they cannot do so using the Bible as their only authority. In order for solo scriptura to be true, the Bible would have to include not only all of the inspired books of the Bible, but also an inspired table of contents telling us which books were really inspired. However, even this would not be enough, for we would not know that the table of contents was inspired apart from an extra-scriptural divine intervention or another inspired document telling us that the original list was inspired. Of course then we would just move the problem back another step, and so on into infinity.


Most proponents of solo scriptura simply ignore the problem of the canon as if the Bibles they hold in their hands dropped whole and complete from heaven. Yet this is not what happened in actual history. The individual books of Scripture were written over a period of one thousand years. Even the New Testament books were written over a period of decades and only gradually found their way to all of the churches. Numerous apocryphal gospels and epistles were written, some of which were considered authoritative in certain churches. It took time for the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books that we have today to be universally recognized. The doctrine of solo scriptura presupposes a complete and closed canon that it cannot account for or defend on its own principles. This fundamental self-contradiction is one of its most obvious flaws.


The doctrine of solo scriptura also reduces the essential doctrines of the Christian faith to no more than opinion by denying any real authority to the ecumenical creeds of the Church. We must note that if the ecumenical creeds are no more authoritative than the opinions of any individual Christian, as adherents of solo scriptura must say if they are to remain consistent, then the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ are no more authoritative than the doctrinal ideas of any opinionated Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ become as open to debate as the doctrine of exclusive psalmody in worship.


It is extremely important to understand the importance of this point. If the adherents of solo scriptura are correct, then there are no real objective doctrinal boundaries within Christianity. Each individual Christian is responsible to search the Scripture (even though he can’t be told with any certainty what books constitute Scripture) and judge for himself and by himself what is and is not scriptural doctrine. In other words, each individual is responsible for establishing his or her own doctrinal boundaries — his or her own creed.


If the ecumenical creeds have no real authority, then it cannot be of any major consequence if a person decides to reject some or all of the doctrines of these creeds — including the Trinity and the deity of Christ. If the individual judges the Trinity to be an unbiblical doctrine, then for him it is false. No other authority exists to correct him outside of his own interpretation of Scripture. This is precisely why solo scriptura inevitably results in radical relativism and subjectivity. Each man decides for himself what the essential doctrines of Christianity are, each man creates his own creed from scratch, and concepts such as orthodoxy and heresy become completely obsolete. The concept of Christianity itself becomes obsolete because it no longer has any meaningful objective definition. Since solo scriptura has no means by which Scripture’s propositional doctrinal content may be authoritatively defined (such definition necessarily entails the unacceptable creation of an authoritative ecumenical creed), its propositional content can only be subjectively defined by each individual. One individual may consider the Trinity essential, another may consider it a pagan idea imported into Christianity. Without an authoritatively defined statement of Christianity’s propositional doctrinal content, neither individual can definitively and finally be declared wrong. Solo scriptura destroys this possibility, and thereby destroys the possibility of Christianity being a meaningful concept. Instead, by reducing Christianity to relativism and subjectivity, it reduces Christianity to irrationalism and ultimately nonsense



Or, it reduces Christianity to a constant discussion and effort to arrive at the truth of a proposition.  Discussions where how the Church was founded in the first place.  Discussions about the canon, what books would be in the Bible. Discussions about the divinity of Christ.  Discussions about the authority of bishops.  Discussions by people with no official authority but their belief in truth revealed to them.  Official Authority will never like that situation.  Official Authority slapped the face of Christ for the sin of being the Son of God.



"And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death."Then they spat in His face, and struck Him; and some slapped Him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?" (Matthew 26:63-68 RSV)




Official Authority judged Jesus's  statement as untrue and therefore blasphemy. Twelve apostles appointed by someone with no 'official authority'  judged otherwise.


Tags: , , , , , ,






Powered by Qumana


Sola Scriptura-or-the Bible says it, I Believe it

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that divides Protestants and Catholics at the core.  Basically, it is the belief that the Bible is the ultimate authority.  It holds that a layman, who follows the teaching of the Bible, has more authority than the highest authority in organized religion.


The article linked above give extensive background on this discussion.


Powered by Qumana


Philip Pullman's Myth of Religion

Philip Pullman




Philip Pullman is a great thinker on religion in our lives.  He relates what it has done, how it works and how we might relate to hit.  I recommend that you click on the video link, watch his movie and consider his thoughts yourself.


For more of his thoughts, you can watch this additional film.




Tags: , , , , ,




Powered by Qumana




Christians have difficulty asserting God governs history



Quote Link


As Christians, we believe God is in charge of all life – even technological “advances”. God has a purpose for us to discover what we discover, at the time and in the way we discover it. This is good news, because God knows much better than we do what is best.

At the same time, this is a hard truth to hold onto. It’s counter-cultural. As theologian Miroslav Volf puts it –

“It is increasingly difficult for Christians to [assert that] God governs history and that the salvation of the world can, let alone must, come from God. And the more God is pushed out of our world, the more difficult it will be to address this loving God in prayer and thanksgiving, and to stand before this holy God in awe and reverence.”






Yes, it is difficult to assert that God governs history.  If you do, then you are left with a God that is responsible for history.  You are left with a God to explain situations and events that can be explained more and more by known processes and experiences.  If modern biology can explain the creation of life by common processes, and if death and sickness disappear more and more thanks to comprehension of those processes, the common view of God will recede in the minds of many. That process seems to be taking place today.




Tags: , , ,








Powered by Qumana




Philip Pullman dismisses CS Lewis as "blatantly racist and sexist"


The Whitbread prize-winning children's writer Philip Pullman has dismissed his best-selling predecessor CS Lewis as "blatantly racist" and "monumentally disparaging of women".
Pullman, attacked by a rightwing columnist as "the most dangerous author in Britain" and "semi-satanic", is celebrated for a trilogy which deliberately takes an opposite line to CS Lewis's Christian tales. In Pullman's world, the universe is ruled by a senile, viciously sadistic deity who has to be deposed in battle so that its inhabitants can join with angels in creating a "republic of heaven".


His impassioned discussion of imagination, spirituality and the poverty of modern secularism chimed with the themes of a 65-minute lecture given to one of the festival's biggest audiences by the archbishop.



A republic of heaven! What an interesting idea!  Pullman can't mean a republic though.. He must mean a democracy.  Republics have representatives who assume the power of the individual and make decisions for him.  Better a democracy where all have a voice in what is approved and disapproved. 


That idea stands the test if biology takes us past the point of being able to create ourselves.  That idea would make God alive and visible.  That idea makes each idividual responsible for themselves. 


We have no idea where current discoveries in biology will lead us.  We can't say what life is.  Without knowing what life is, how do we know what death is? Some regard life as information.  Information that is made physical and actual by being expressed in material and actuated by energy.  As biology takes us closer and closer to knowing what that material and energy are, will we be able to create ourselves.  Some say no! In fact, they scream it, but the test is upon us.  We will have an answer.  Suppose the answer is a creature that is created by us, that looks talks and acts like us and claims to have a soul.  A creature made by man from common materials and energy. 


Yes, a Republic of Heaven can stand in that world.  A vastly superior, creator God would have to be explained in that world  for sure!Tags: , , , , , , , , ,




Powered by Qumana