two or three . net

Richard Dawkins is right ... kinda

It's not often I agree with New Atheism spokesman Richard Dawkins. However in this BBC video clip, he details a problem within Christianity (despite it having the feel of a SNL Jack Handy spot). The ardent atheist explains his opposition to the religious identification of children (calling small children "Christian child," or "Muslim child," not so surprisingly he left out "atheist child).

I somewhat agree with Dawkins, despite his refusal to include his own philosophy in his list. A faith must be adopted by an individual on their own. That would be why Baptists and other similar groups of Christians rejected infant baptism.

While Dawkins may prefer to speak of a blind watchmaker, I think this is more an instance of him being a blind squirrel.

Objectivists, subjectivists, and realists

A good friend of mine has wandered full force into the positive thinking, humanistic, Dale Carnegie type of success training that is popular in professional circles these days.  Now, I don't necessarily disparage it, and there is a lot of good stuff to learn.  But sometimes, the overly simplistic, boiled down talking points lack sophistication, and give an unbalanced idea of what is good and bad.

Case in point? Change Your Questions, Change Your Life: 10 Powerful Tools for Life and Work, which lists the characteristics of Judgers (bad) vs. Learners (good). Now granted, I only skimmed the book, but the charts below reveal what I think is our culture's buy-in into subjectivism, and our rejection of any objective morals or truths.

Theological Liberalism as measured by your doctrine of Hell

Al Mohler has suggested that we can use a church or individual's theology of hell as a measure of their theological liberalism.  He also mentions that there is a characteristic 'slide' from the orthodox (read 'biblical') view of hell to the liberal view that abhors the idea as cruel and unjust (odium theologium).   Here you go.

1. Orthodox Belief: You believe in and preach the doctrine of Hell
2. Silence: You stop mentioning it because you find it offensive
3. Reduction to Consequentialism: A doctrine is revised and retained in reduced form - something like consequentialism, as opposed retributionism (God is actively punishing evil)
4. Positivism: Essentially, don't worry about it, we're not even sure if hell is real or what it means.  Just be as positive as possible - focus on being a good person and hell will take care of itself.
5. Liberalization of the Doctrine:  Changing the doctrine from eternal to denying that hell is everlasting, arguing for a form of annihilationism, or conditional immortality.
6. Denial of Biblical Accuracy:  Basically, yes the Bible teaches eternal Hell, but the Bible is wrong. 

New Atheists heart Old Fundamentalists

When I think of horribly unpersuasive spokespersons for their views, I think of Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins. Both see the absolute worst in those with whom they disagree and feel the need to constantly speak their mind when no one wants to hear it. So why would I be surprised when Dawkins actually defended Robertson's Haiti idiocy? New York Times columnists Russ Douthat explores what he calls "the symbiotic relationship" between new atheists and fundamentalists.

Jesus: Prophet, Priest & King

Recently, I heard Pastor Mark Driscoll explain how the three facets of Jesus' ministry (Prophet, Priest and King) tend to be over-emphasized depending on your religious leaning. I thought he made excellent points that spoke to virtually everyone who would call themselves a follower of Christ.

What can we do to REALLY help Haiti?

While the tradgedy of Haiti rightly moves us all to help, there are some reasons to think about what kind of help Haiti needs in the long term, not just in this emergency, in part because Haiti has been in crisis almost continually for decades.  Perhaps the way we have been helping them IS NOT WORKING.

A few facts to consider (sorry, no time for footnotes, you can correct me if you need to):

• Since 1992, the US alone has poured in over $3B dollars into Haiti, and the UN has done more on top.
• Haiti's population is only 10M, so how much money has been spent per capita?
• The current earthquake in Haiti was about the same strength as the big Loma Prieta quake in CA.  Some 60+ people died in CA, while the body count in Haiti is now easily over 100,000
• Some experts say that the reason that Haiti's economy hasn't grown (besides the rampant corruption and thuggery) is it's dependence on foreign aid

Massachusetts: A bellwether for the country?

As Newt Gingrich pointed out today in What's Going on in Massachusetts?, Scot Brown, the GOP challenger in Massechusetts in the run for former Senator Ted Kennedy's seat, raised $1.3B this past week alone, and is now neck and neck with the liberal candidate.  This is remarkable because MA might be the most liberal state in our nation, and if it is having this trouble, this might be a sign of what's to come in the midterm elections.

One of my friends thinks that it's just a reflection of conservative angst, not a movement or trend.  Newt and I disagree with him.  We see it, albeit with hope, as a sign of what is really happening - the nation is finally waking up to the false promises (read "lies") of liberal economics and policy in general.

Avatar merely a modern Pocahontas story? You bet!

Got this from twitpic - awesome!  And for the record, I really liked Avatar.

 

Another reason why abortion is a crime: Patrick Henry Hughes

This story is so amazing, I just had to share it.  I know I sullied the inspiration of this by mentioning abortion, but I just have to say that such 'handicapped' children are murdered by their parents more often than not today. This Dad is a hero, and so is his boy.

Hypocritical left race practices

Sure, both sides play politics, but liberals do it best.  Here's their decision chart.  Enjoy.

 

The Third Jihad

Promoting a new documentary along the lines of Obsession, featuring interviews with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, M. Zudhi JAsser, Walid Phares, Tom Ridge, Mark Stein, and more.

Luke / Challies Letter Series - an atheist talks to a Christian about working together

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism is engaging in a letter exchange with Tim Challies.  I have taken it upon myself to answer Luke's letters, since I am not Tim Challies, and see things a litle differently.  Luke has not answered my responses, but perhaps he may.  Here's the Series links, in chronological order

1. Luke's First Letter
2. My First Response
3. Tim's First Response
4. Luke's Second Letter
5. My Second Response
6. Tim's Second Response
7. Luke's Third Letter
8. My Third Response
9. Tim's Third Response

Movie predicted the underwear bomber

One of my favorite movies, panned by the easily offended leftist critics, was An American Carol, a mocumentary making fun of Michael Moore (played hilariously by Kevin Farley, Chris Farley's brother).  Watching it again, I re-enjoyed the mini-mocumentary buried in the Bill O'Reilly interview, in which people are subject to long lines at airport security due to the Christian fundamentalists. 

As people have to strip down to their skivvies, and other's have cavity searches, two passengers complain about the reason - the Christian "underwear bomber."  Who knew that some crazy Muslim (redundant?) would actually do exactly that.  Enjoy the predictions of Islamic idiocy, couched in liberal anti-Christian idiocy.

Why no empirical test for God? Perhaps quantum science will provide it

Atheists are full of good questions, one of which was recently broached at Common Sense Atheism in the post A question online theists refuse to answer? - that question is

“Can you prove to me that God exists in a way that will also show that Zeus does not?”

I initially responded by citing my series on Pascal's Wager, explaining that, while there is no direct empirical evidence for the existence (or non-existence!) of God, there are plenty of other methods for showing a difference in the believability of the various Gods. 

One atheist responded that I had missed the point, writing:

What you *really* want here is an experimental test. Show us this goddy thing, and let us fire protons at it…

So let me take another stab at it - rather than giving him the sensible argument I gave (there is no empirical test, but that does not mean that we don't have other methods by which to distinguish between metaphysical claims), I'll try another valid one - that is, empirical science is not yet able to measure the spiritual - it can barely quantify, measure, or understand the psychological realm, so what makes us think we can evaluate the spiritual?

Letter To Tim Challies / Luke - Part II

In the six part interchange between Tim Challies the Christian and Luke the atheist, it looks like Tim took a different approach than me, which seems to take offense at Luke's confident declarations of Biblical problems.  I agree with Tim a little, such declarations are a bit too definitive and value-laden to allow for discussion of cooperation within an umbrella of mutual respect, but I also agree a bit more with Luke that they were spoken in context of his personal journey and feelings in his 'deconversion' process.

So Luke also went sort of in Tim's direction, although I think he is trying to redirect things back to 'how can we work together?' which I tried to address in Letter To Tim Challies / Luke - Part I.  Luke has written a second Letter to Tim Challies, to which I now respond.

Letter To Tim Challies / Luke - Part I

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism is engaging in a letter exchange with Tim Challies which should be really great.  I am not Tim Challies, but I endeavor to be.  All I need is to publish my own book and read a few hundred books to catch up, right?

Anyway, here is my response to Luke.  I know that he may not have the time or the desire to answer me as well, since I am less influential.  However, I think Luke asks good questions, and I have praised his blog before, as well as trolled commented on it.

So here's my response to Luke's first letter.

Mark 12:41-44 - At the bottom

Here is my sermon from 12/06/09 entitled At the Bottom.  Based on Mark 12:41-44, it covers these main points.

1. Turn towards God, not away
2. Do not worry
3. God is doing something new
4. Put God first
5. Give what you have

At the bottom

God's cartoonist - Jack Chick

You either love or hate 'Chick Tracts' - this documentary is interesting.  Imagine this - over 1 Billion of these have been printed, in over 100 languages.  Jack Chick may be the most successful cartoonist, in numbers of items sold, ever.  And yet, he is not that well known. 

Why the unconverted can't tell a Pharisee from a Christian

The problem with humanists is that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. They call it 'humility' to suspend judgment, yet they judge others in matters that suit them. They want compassion for all, but any hint of truth they dislike coming from the mouths of others equals Phariseeism. The real truth is, they can't tell a true Christian from a Pharisee. To them, Paul was a Pharisee when he condemned sins (of course, he was a Pharisee before conversion).

The essence of Phariseeism is that keeping of the rules makes one righteous. A true Christian knows that this is not so, yet he seeks moral purity because he loves God and hates sin. He hides in mercy and gives it to others, but also seeks to live and declare the truth to save himself and others from sin.

An unconverted 'Christian' flees from the truth and towards truthless mercy because he, remaining uncoverted, still wants his sin more than God. He can not preach against sin, except that of 'judging others' because he himself is still living in it, powerless to transcend or fight it without the indwelling spirit, and must make excuses for himself.

In being 'graceful' (truthless) with others, he may pass this off as generosity, but he is mostly excusing himself from continuing in sin. And until the supernatural power of God does convert him, he can do naught but try to fool himself and others that he is really Christian.

Are you a Christian because of your experiences, or because of logic?

In Why do some Christians become atheists?, I discussed five reasons why some Christians may have abandoned faith to become atheists - some noble reasons, some not.  The ensuing commentary helped me see that these same principles can be applied to any faith or anti-faith decision.  Here are those now six ideas, but I wanted to also ask the question - is Christianity primarily or first a decision of the heart or head?  I argue that, to the chagrin of logicians and empiricists, Christianity is a religion of the heart - that is, conviction of the intuition and conscience, not an intellectual decision of the mind.

You are a Christian because (choose all that apply):

1. You were raised that way, and have never seriously considered any other viewpoint, nor seriously questioned your faith.
2. You made an emotional decision to become Christian during a dark time in your life.
3. You felt a deep conviction and a reality in the presence and peace of God that led you to receive Christ.
4. Your conversion was based on the first good argument you heard, and you came from a position of weak ideological commitment - again, you may have never seriously considered any other viewpoint.
5. You are caught up in the novelty of your new Christian world view mostly because it is different, and will leave it when the novelty wears off.
6. Reason and experience have led you to your conclusion that Christianity is true.