Take a walk with Francis Chan.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Dawkins Delusion
...His most famous book, The God Delusion, gives only TWO PAGES out of the whole book to address the most famous and credible 'proof' (in the scholastic sense) for God's existence--the cosmological argument. St. Thomas Aquinas is severely misrepresented with the summary that "There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.” (Dawkins, 77).
Seriously, that's what Dawkins believes Aquinas' argument for God's existence consists in. No mention of teleology. No mention of Act and Potency. No mention of Contingency or prime matter. In fact, Aquinas never even uses the term 'physical things' because there was no distinction to be made...this is merely Dawkins imposing on Aquinas his physicalist/materialist view of the world, and it is either because he is intellectually dishonest towards his readers or he is just a twit who is making huge philosophical claims without having studied it seriously in his life. Most educated people, even in the scientific community, would see the error in reading Aquinas and comparing it with Dawkins' summary of him. The pop mob that Dawkins has following him is a different story.
The rest of The God Delusion is filled with ad hominems addressing what so and so Christian scientist said and how they really misunderstand science, and it is filled with arguments against theological ideas, miracles and God, because he is reducible to a teddy bear to get through life for weak people. I believe that Peter Higgs, insofar as I barely know him, is at least aware that there is a significant tradition of reason based arguments for the existence of God... Greek/Catholic/Christian philosophical tradition. How can someone have the intestinal fortitude to write a book addressing the topic of God's existence and ignore the history 'proofs' for God's existence in favor of William Paley and the biggest intellectual clowns that Christendom has had inside (and outside) their walls? They aren't straw arguments, they are simply weak arguments. Unfortunately they are appealing when put in a pop book--popular only because "what a travesty it would be if God didn't exist."
Peter Higgs agreed with some of Dawkins’ thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but was not satisfied with the evolutionary biologist’s way of dealing with believers in God. He said he agreed with those who found Dawkins’ approach “embarrassing”.
The Guardian said: "... Higgs argued that although he was not a believer, he thought science and religion were not incompatible. “The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that’s not the same thing as saying they’re incompatible. It’s just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined....But that doesn’t end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced ... can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past.... He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. “I don’t happen to be one myself, but maybe that’s just more a matter of my family background than that there’s any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two.”
That is light years different than the picture Dawkins presents."
Seriously, that's what Dawkins believes Aquinas' argument for God's existence consists in. No mention of teleology. No mention of Act and Potency. No mention of Contingency or prime matter. In fact, Aquinas never even uses the term 'physical things' because there was no distinction to be made...this is merely Dawkins imposing on Aquinas his physicalist/materialist view of the world, and it is either because he is intellectually dishonest towards his readers or he is just a twit who is making huge philosophical claims without having studied it seriously in his life. Most educated people, even in the scientific community, would see the error in reading Aquinas and comparing it with Dawkins' summary of him. The pop mob that Dawkins has following him is a different story.
The rest of The God Delusion is filled with ad hominems addressing what so and so Christian scientist said and how they really misunderstand science, and it is filled with arguments against theological ideas, miracles and God, because he is reducible to a teddy bear to get through life for weak people. I believe that Peter Higgs, insofar as I barely know him, is at least aware that there is a significant tradition of reason based arguments for the existence of God... Greek/Catholic/Christian philosophical tradition. How can someone have the intestinal fortitude to write a book addressing the topic of God's existence and ignore the history 'proofs' for God's existence in favor of William Paley and the biggest intellectual clowns that Christendom has had inside (and outside) their walls? They aren't straw arguments, they are simply weak arguments. Unfortunately they are appealing when put in a pop book--popular only because "what a travesty it would be if God didn't exist."
Peter Higgs agreed with some of Dawkins’ thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but was not satisfied with the evolutionary biologist’s way of dealing with believers in God. He said he agreed with those who found Dawkins’ approach “embarrassing”.
The Guardian said: "... Higgs argued that although he was not a believer, he thought science and religion were not incompatible. “The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers. But that’s not the same thing as saying they’re incompatible. It’s just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined....But that doesn’t end the whole thing. Anybody who is a convinced ... can continue to hold his belief. It means I think you have to be rather more careful about the whole debate between science and religion than some people have been in the past.... He said a lot of scientists in his field were religious believers. “I don’t happen to be one myself, but maybe that’s just more a matter of my family background than that there’s any fundamental difficulty about reconciling the two.”
That is light years different than the picture Dawkins presents."
My Original Source:
Their Original Source:
The Guardian Article
And, a link to what the Higgs field ("God Particle") means for Christianity.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Baptism Is Not A Sign But A Means (Sasse)
Part of one of Sasse's lectures found on Pres. Rev. Harrison's Blog:
... "So the question is: What is Baptism according to the testimony of the New Testament? What does it give or profit? What is the relation of Baptism to the faith of the baptismal candidate? Is it necessary for salvation or not? Our first answer must be that, according to the clear teaching of the New Testament, Baptism is “the washing of regeneration.” The ancient church, which always actually identified Baptism and regeneration, and the church of all times with the exception of the Reformed denominations, has understood Titus 3:5 in this sense, and rightly so. There Baptism is said to be “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
In Baptism the Holy Spirit is communicated; we are “all baptized into the one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Those who are baptized have been baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6:3). These are all realities that take place, not alongside of Baptism, but in Baptism. In the New Testament, Baptism with water, inasmuch as it is a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, is Baptism with the Spirit, it is a being born anew and at the same time from above “of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5). Certainly the New Testament knows of no regeneration without Baptism and independent of Baptism. Baptism, therefore, is not a sign but a means of regeneration. To take it only as a sign of a regeneration, that also takes place without it and independently of it, is unbiblical.
The Reformed Church in its doctrine of Baptism, precisely as in its doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, on the one hand rejects the pure symbolism of Zwingli, as though Baptism were nothing but an “ostensible” sign of the Christian profession like the white cross which the confederate attaches to his garment in order to show that he is a confederate; but on the other hand it also rejects both the opus operatum of the Roman sacramental doctrine and the Lutheran and New Testament identification of sign and substance.
Why does it do this? In the final analysis, it is because of the aversion of Calvin and his medieval theological predecessors to the view that an external, physical act can evoke spiritual effects like the forgiveness of sins. But this is, in the first place, a philosophical prejudice, and in the second place it is a misunderstanding of the significance of the Word of God in Baptism. “For without the Word of God the water is simply water and no Baptism; but with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration.” Even in Catholic doctrine the Word as forma is inseparably united with the sacrament; as Augustine’s famous dictum, quoted over and over again by all occidental churches, puts it: Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum [The word comes to the element and it becomes a sacrament; Tractate 80 on John 3; Smalcald Articles III.V.1].
That which separates Luther from the Catholic doctrine of Baptism is best stated in his own words in the Smalcald Articles, where he draws the line between himself and Thomism as well as Scotism at the same time:
Therefore we do not hold with Thomas and the monastic preachers or Dominicans, who forget the Word and say that God has imparted to the water a spiritual power which, through the water, washes away sin. Nor do we agree with Scotus and the Barefoot Monks who teach that by the assistance of the divine will Baptism washes away sins, and that this ablution occurs only through the will of God and by no means through the Word and water. (SA III,V 2-3)
For Luther, everything depends on the close connection of water and the Word:
God, however, is a God of life. Now, because He is in this water, it must be the true aqua vitae that expels death and hell and quickens forever (WA 52.102.9).
But that this presence of God or Christ cannot be any other presence than that in his Word will not need to be proved, we trust, in the case of Luther. All effects of Baptism, in the view of Luther and the Lutheran Church, are effects brought about by the Word connected with the water." ...
Another Baptism article:
More Sasse:
Letter on DogmaticsShe can wait.
The Clerical Uniform
"There are situations in which clothing is very important. I found this out by accident once, when I walked into a furniture store, coincidentally wearing the same sort of shirt as the employees. I had to leave because the other customers expected me to wait on them.
Clothing conveys a message. A business suit says, “Money!” A police uniform says, “Law!” A tuxedo says, “Wedding!” Casual clothing says, “Me!” Clericals say, “Church!” Any of those messages might be valid in different contexts, so you have to make sure you are wearing the right clothes for the occasion. If you wear a business suit in a department store, people will mistake you for the manager. If you wear a tuxedo to a ball game, they won’t ask you to play. If you wear a jogging outfit to a fancy restaurant, your clothing says, “I wandered in here by mistake,” and the staff will treat you accordingly.
The word clericals refers to the special clothing that clergy wear outside of worship services, usually consisting of a white collar on a black shirt...
If you are a pastor and you think you are aggrandizing yourself when you wear clericals, you’ll be disappointed. The congregation quickly gets used to the clericals and they see them as badges of service, not honor. Clericals put you in the same functional category as bellhops, waiters, police officers, airline pilots, and so on. We do not dress to please ourselves, or anyone else for that matter; our manner of dress facilitates our service. It makes our function obvious to strangers. It makes our duties inescapable, and it constrains our personal conduct, because we can’t disappear into the crowd when we are wearing clericals. Clericals mean that visitors don’t have to ask, “Where is the pastor?” They know just by looking.
Clericals also have other advantages. They communicate to the congregation that you are not a proxy child, a potential date, a worldly expert, or a bosom buddy. It allows you to focus on the job of pastoring, without slipping and sliding into those role conflicts and boundary issues your denomination keeps warning you about.
A friend of mine, who was ordained in the United Church of Christ, was required by his ministerial association to wear a clergy shirt with a tab collar while he was traveling. He thought it was a huge imposition on his personal liberty, until he obeyed. On the airplane, he heard a confession, reassured a frightened traveler, and calmed a terrified child. He was delighted that a routine air flight had turned into pastoral ministry. If you are clergy and you’ve never worn a clergy shirt to visit people in the hospital, you should try it. The clergy shirt means you don’t have to explain what you are or why you are there. The staff extends you all necessary courtesies, and even delirious patients know right off what you are. You can get in after visiting hours and quite often you don’t have to pay for parking, even if you’ve never been to that particular hospital before. Of course the catch is, you have to be on your best ministerial behavior the entire time you are there, so this is not something you should try if your self-discipline is weak.
If I called the police because of a burglary in my house, I would not be reassured if the police showed up driving a sports car with his kids in the back, and wearing jeans and loafers. If I am in distress because of a crime, I want the police to arrive in a police car and I want them to be wearing freshly pressed uniforms. If I have just been through a burglary, I don’t need a buddy, I don’t need a narcissist expressing himself in his clothing, I need a policeman. I need a policeman who will carry out the law, not his self-expression. I couldn’t care less about who he is personally; I called him as a representative of a greater force. Similarly, if I am on my deathbed, facing the greatest spiritual crisis in my life, I don’t want a buddy to come express himself. I want a properly uniformed and equipped minister of God who subordinates himself to his ministry, and who confidently and authoritatively represents God.
Our parishioners deserve nothing less."
Overcoming the Rising Tide of Excuses (Outdoor Leadership)
Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” (Matthew 8:21)
The thermometer hovers just above freezing. Raindrops pitter patter endlessly on the roof and deck. The sun rises only to be hidden behind low clouds. It’s dreary. I observe the beach below the bluff once again submerged below the rising tide. The sun and moon align gravitationally to push and pull the waters of Puget Sound across the rocks and driftwood I want to play on with my family.
I know how to recognize dreary. My preferred outdoor adventure ranks sunshine superior to overcast and drizzling. I’ve had the blessing to live in Colorado where the average number of sunny days peaks over 300. I currently reside in the Valley of the Sun.
...
AWAKE
I awake early to jog in the chilly, drizzling rain. I suit up as best I understand: wool beanie, fleece gloves, wind and water proof jacket with hoodie, tights, fleece top, and Thinsulate socks. I’m unsure if my running shoes will sufficiently repel moisture considering they’re covered with a breathable mesh.
Regardless I push past the misconceptions mounting in my mind. I overcome the resistance.
The night before, I carefully plan out my route through the countryside. My 4 year old suits up similarly to join me for the first quarter mile. She’s wired for adventure.
In the quiet of the morning, I’m immediately met with the sound of a trickling brook and enjoy the presence of a young doe. I observe the stillness of the water in the sound. I make note of a crevasse I had not seen among the thick blackberry bushes of summer. I stop to visit with a small herd of steers chewing hay. I marvel at the architecture of the old barns built in the late 1800’s.
This is not the first time I’ve come to appreciate the satisfaction of stepping beyond my inclination toward comfort, control and certainty. I regularly find myself having to impede my prejudices.
RISK TO BEHOLD GOD’S PROMISES
“Stepping out” awakens my consciousness. Unfamiliar stimulus through outdoor recreation triggers a deeper awareness of God’s nearness and his guidance in my life.
The habit of overcoming conflict in my mind develops as the strengthening of muscle. Dread must be torn so that a new resolve of courage grows in its stead ready to encounter the unknown and embrace the uncomfortable.
Outdoor adventure continually proves to be an intense practice field and proving ground for exercising faith in my spiritual life.
I wonder how often I allow the rising tide of excuses to put off the blessing of joining God in His work to bring back the stray, strengthen the weak, give sight to the blind, heal the sick, or release the captive. When called,
• Will I act like Jonah ignoring God’s directive to Nineveh (Jonah 1:3)?
• Will I find lame excuses not to attend the Great Banquet because I’m busy, self-satisfied and preoccupied (Luke 14:15-24)?
• Will I tell God as Moses did that I’m not eloquent of speech (Exodus 4:10-14)?
• Will I tell God I’m not mature enough to speak on His behalf (Jeremiah 1:4-10)?
I get that I’m practiced at risk taking. But, I don’t hold the “immunity idol.” I crave satisfaction from my efforts as much as the next person, a by-product of pride. However, God does not promise me or you success. He promises we will encounter Him. I’ve come to learn, what I truly crave, the greatest satisfaction I long for, is a fullness of His goodness in my life on earth as it will be in heaven.
Be it rain, sleet, snow, or hail...
Jesus said, “Follow me.” – Matthew 4:19
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Super Inc. Log
Here is a quick go-to list for the weekly Superhero devotions
Actually, CLICK HERE for Super Inc. Cinema.
Make sure to check out the Facebook group too!!
Series':
5. Gods Among Us Series4. The Spider-Man Series
3. Dark Knight Series
2. Avengers Vs. X-Men Series
1. Fallen Son
All Super devotions listed in chronological order:
73. The Godkiller
72. A Life of Disaster (Marvelous Man)
71. The Comic Book Liberation Festival
70. The Convention (A Place to Fit)
69. Peace and Prayer (Oratio and the Immortal Iron Fist)
68. The Crossroads of Hell (Age of Ultron)
67. Christmas?!? (Watchmen)
66. Καιρός (Watchmen)
65. Compromise (Watchmen)
64. The Face in the Rorschach (Watchmen)
63. A Dark Humor (Watchmen)
62. Silk Spectre (Watchmen)
61. The Watchmaker (Watchmen)
60. Insane Deadpool
59. Blind Spot
58. Icemen (Cold Love)
57. The Child Within (SHAZAM!)
56. The In-Between Moments (Punisher & Thor)
55. Becoming Someone Else (Superior Spider-Man)
54. Found You! (Gods Among Us)
53. God on Earth (Gods Among Us)
52. Desert Deception (Gods Among Us)
51. Ozymandias | BROKEN
50. A Scarlet Spider Christmas
49. God of Light (Gods Among Us)
48. Creation (Gods Among Us)
47. Trapped by Time (That Dastardly Fiend)
46. A Volstagg Thanksgiving
45. Τετέλεσται
44. Worldly Temptation: The Absolute Evil is Here!
43. X-Men Transfigurations!
42. Minimum Carnage
41. Watchmen
40. The Fall to Faith (A v X: Uncanny 18 & Round 12)
39. Gambit and the Power of Influence
38. Rémy LeBeau (Gambit)
37. Planting Seeds (Weeds of Faith)
36. San and Creation
23. Tests (Two-Face)
11. Trust (Webbing)
10. The Twin (Kaine)
2. Green Will
Becoming Someone Else (Superior Spider-Man)
Have you felt it? Anything different? Your world has changed. Have you noticed?
In a story-arc beginning with ASM #698, the near-dead Doctor Otto Octavius (Doc Ock) managed to swipe bodies with Peter Parker. This left Pete stuck on Riker's Island trapped in a body not of his own.
As the story continued, Pete was able to use one of Ock's back-up plans to break out of jail with the help of some villains. But, as the year drew to a close so did the life of Puny Parker. In a last-ditch effort, Pete attempted to do something he swore that he would never do: kill.
As his time of death in his old decrepit body drew to an end, Doc Ock captured all of Pete's friends and family in the guise of protecting them. Parker believed that the only way to protect the world from the villain who had taken over his body would be to kill him.
Otto: "Think about it. How much time do you have left? Minutes? Seconds?"
Pete: "More than enough to put an end to you."
Otto: "Ha!... You never had the stomach for this game. Where I, on the other hand--"
Pete: "--would go to any lengths. I-I can't allow that. Not with that body. [Not with my body.]"
Otto: "What?! What do you think you're--?"
Pete: "Ending this. Here and now!"
And, with that, Pete jumps out the window, pushing Ock out with him.
Ock uses webbing to catch their fall, but Pete's frail body couldn't take it. As he lies on the ground, dying, both men realize how intertwined their memories have become. Although it is really Ock in Pete's body and Pete in Ock's, both of them have retained some of the other's memory. Pete's entire life flashes before both of their eyes.
Otto remembers when he was bitten by a radioactive spider. He recalls that he was there when his Uncle Ben died. He was the one who failed to stop the killer. He was the one unable to save his beloved Gwen Stacy and her father. He was the one who had learned (the hard way) that with great power must also come great responsibility.
Pete: "You wanted to be Spider-Man. Well guess what? It's more than the powers."
Otto (as the memories flood over him): "Please. No more. It's too much. I can't... ... can't go on."
Pete: "Yes. You can you'd be surprised how much you can do. How many things are worth fighting for."
Pete's last breaths draw him to only one other conclusion. There is one frail hope. One small glimmer of a future. He knows that however crooked Otto had been before, the world needs him now. The world still needs Spider-Man. Although, Parker had been defeated, his last thoughts turn from regret and sorrow to a weak faith in his one-time nemesis.
Otto: "I-I don't want this."
Pete: "Too late. Careful what you wish for... Spidey."
Otto: "Tell me. Why do I--How can I do this?"
Pete: "Because you have to. Because... with great power..."
Otto: "... must come great responsibility. I understand."
Pete: "You better. You're Spider-Man now."
Have you felt it? Anything different? Your world has changed. Have you noticed?
I mentioned Heraclitus a couple of weeks ago. History would know him as "The Weeping Philosopher." Perhaps it was because although he lived in a culture that stressed "permanence," he proclaimed that there was no such thing. He would say that everything has changed, changes, and will change. "One cannot step into the same river twice."
But, even in his dreary philosophy, there was still something that never changed. He called this "Logos." Heraclitus saw Logos as the main balancer of the universe, a fire that bonded and worked all things together. It was "the principle of life and intelligence," the source of everything.
Although, Heraclitus was no theologian, John used the same word to describe God. In this ever-changing world, the Lord is the only constant. Time cannot even hold Him. And, then He became flesh. This was not only to guide us back to Him, but also to give us worth; to redeem us by His sacrifice.
But, even in his dreary philosophy, there was still something that never changed. He called this "Logos." Heraclitus saw Logos as the main balancer of the universe, a fire that bonded and worked all things together. It was "the principle of life and intelligence," the source of everything.
Although, Heraclitus was no theologian, John used the same word to describe God. In this ever-changing world, the Lord is the only constant. Time cannot even hold Him. And, then He became flesh. This was not only to guide us back to Him, but also to give us worth; to redeem us by His sacrifice.
Your world has changed. Have you noticed?
While even Heaven and Earth shall pass away, God remains the same. Ever-loving, ever-merciful, and never-ceasing. He is the rock. He is the cornerstone. He is the only safe raft to cling to as we leave this dying island.
What does this mean? We should give everything to Him (it is His already after all). I'm not talking about (just) money. I'm talking about work, time, life. And, more importantly, the things we care about the most. "I have held many things in my hands, and have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess" (Martin Luther).
Wait, this sounds too much like "works righteousness." If I know anything about God, the punchline is that He does it all. In reality, we're pretty helpless. We were sinners by birth. Still, "we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ." "So we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."
"BUT if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!" The question here arises because we know that we already have been changed. This change wasn't some obscure secular one (just like all the others). But, finally, we have been made holy and clean by the blood of the Lamb. Christ has changed us by redeeming us, making us worth something. BUT we continue to sin. Does this mean that Christ has led us to sin? "Certainly not!"
"For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God." The Law has crushed us, broken us, and left us for dead. "I have been crucified with Christ." We've changed. It wasn't "works righteousness." It wasn't by deeds or merits. In fact, it wasn't by our own means at all. Christ has changed us through His death and resurrection. He has led us to this path of securing everything in Him, our faith, our hope, our life.
"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." It is only through His grace that we are allowed to hear Him, know Him, and cling to Him... even in this ever-changing world.
Have you felt it? Anything different?
Just as he always has, Peter Parker has resembled us: The normal, average, failure of a person who tries his best to be a decent guy and never sees himself on par with all of the others. And, it is in this attempt, this catastrophic failure of falling out of a skyscraper and dying close to impact that gives us perspective. It shows us where we are with the law. "By works of the law no one will be justified." This shows us how empty we really are. We are in our last breaths. Humanity itself is slipping away.
There we see him: Someone who knows us better than we even know ourselves. And, we're tired of trying. We can think of only one other conclusion. One other place to put our trust (besides ourselves), somewhere safe, somewhere final. We have one frail hope. One small glimmer of a future.
As our life fades like the memory of our last breath, we have finally put our trust in something someone secure. He has great power and we are his responsibility. He can take care of us and do what is right. Now, we must live in him.
"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me."
It's a new year, are you ready?
**The panels and the pictures in the book are priceless. I highly suggest getting the comic; I can't really do it justice here. And, the Bible verses were from Galatians 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)