|April 28, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, Love, Malthusians, philosophy, politics, Secular Humanism|
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51)
|April 28, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, evolution, human rights, morality, pro-life, Secular Humanism, speaking engagements|
Tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. CST I will be presenting on this topic:
Just Politics? Religion and Abortion and Apologetics: Examining the idea that supporting abortion is merely a political view but opposing it is a religious view and the role of world view in the question.
Summary: Pro-choicers often frame their argument by casting their position as a civil rights issue and the pro-life position as a religious issue- and people should not impose their religion on others. Common sense would suggest that as two sides of the exact same coin, if one position is a religious issue so too is the other. Lying beneath the issue is this question: “Is there any belief that is merely political? What separates a ‘religious’ ‘belief’ from any other?” This leads into a conversation about apologetics, and whether or not the Christian faith is grounded in reality- and the consequences whether one answers in the affirmative or the negative.
|April 27, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, literary apologetics|
|April 26, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christian Short Stories, Jesus, literary apologetics, Love, philosophy|
Readers of this blog know that I have an interest in Antony Flew, having even had the honor of corresponded with him. Click here for a list of posts I’ve written regarding Dr. Flew. The short story below may be understood better by some if you read this particular post of mine where I discuss […]
|April 24, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, Creationism, evolution, General, intelligent design, scientism, theology|
This article discussing emerging church staff positions crossed my desk and caught my attention. According to the article, prevailing trends in society and in the Church (Institutional) we can see these positions being developed or created:
The Network Administrator
The Multicultural Children’s Director
The Chief of Staff
The Operations Pastor
The Creative Arts Director
The Boomer Director
The Spiritual Growth Pastor
I think this list, though not portrayed as comprehensive, is probably pretty accurate. Given my background, I noticed that one position is not mentioned: Apologetics Director. I think that is pretty accurate, too.
I find this to be pretty interesting and indicative of the state of the Church, Inc. today. Not to take away anything from the positions mentioned above or positions that may already exist, but we live in a society where Christianity is being deliberately attacked at a number of levels. At the same time, the culture itself represents challenges to Christianity less intentionally, in the form of hundreds and even thousands of new world views for Christians to encounter and have to deal with.
|April 21, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Bible Reliability, Blog, Jesus, theology|
Apologetics315 is publishing an essay series on the veracity of Christianity. I was asked to contribute an essay. That essay was published today. You should take some time to check out the other essays, too.
Much ink has been spilled in defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and I myself have spilled my fair share. Similarly, the stunning explosion of the Christian Church within the Roman Empire has been raised as a phenomenon that requires explanation and a dead man rising from the dead is the best one. These efforts are valid, but their weight cannot be appreciated without first knowing the context behind the arguments. We must understand the Jewish people, their history and religion.
|April 21, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Bible Reliability, Blog, General, Jesus, Secular Humanism|
To begin with, Mr. Pulliam, the blogger, says, “even if the gospels do record eyewitness testimony, that is no guarantee of their accuracy.” Responding to a book on the subject, Mr. Pulliam says, “Bauckham maintains that the gospels are reliable history because the accounts contained in them are either from eyewitness testimonies or very close to eyewitness testimonies.”
If Bauckham really presents his argument in this fashion it will be the first that I’ve heard it that way. I would think that it is pretty foolish to infer that simply because the gospels are (or are derived from) eyewitness testimonies that makes them reliable. That would be pretty dumb. Eyewitness testimony needs to be checked out, just like we need to check out the information that comes to us by any other epistemological method.
Who has suggested otherwise? Bauckham? On Mr. Pulliam’s telling… but given the weakness of eyewitness testimony which Mr. Pulliam putatively has proven- Mr. Pulliam’s recounting of Bauckham’s position cannot be simply trusted since this recounting is, of course, eyewitness testimony: Mr. Pulliam’s.
|April 19, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog, Christianity and Culture, General, literary apologetics|
A few years ago I published a post contending that the Church needs to create apologetics positions within congregations, but kept the post private and pass word protected. It was originally intended to be read by a narrow audience, so keep that in mind as you read it. You can read it here.
|April 9, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, General, philosophy|
KFUO radio interviewed me again, this time on the problem of pain and suffering. Download and listen below.
|March 26, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, atheism, Blog|
This is a work in progress and will be updated as necessary. I’ve been arguing with people my whole life. Ask my family. I’ve been debating apologetics issues since the Internet appeared and have a lot of experience with it. Over the last couple of years, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is not […]
|March 25, 2010||Posted by Anthony under Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, Creationism, evolution, General, philosophy, science, scientism, Secular Humanism|
# In order for something to be considered robust science, it needs to be falsifiable.
# Modern evolutionary theory is usually presented so that it entails unintelligent operations.
# To falsify the claim that something is driven by unintelligent forces one would have to show how intelligent forces were at work.
# Evolutionary apologists insist (with heapings of derision) that such a showing is outside the bounds of science.
# But if showing design is outside the bounds of science than there is no reliable and objective way to conclude scientifically that something is not designed.
# Therefore, macroevolutionary theory cannot be scientifically falsified at the point that it is the result of unguided natural processes since they reject as unscientific the very things that could falsify it.
|March 24, 2010||Posted by Anthony under apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, General|
Below is the mp3 of the interview I gave yesterday with KFUO in St. Louis, a radio station owned by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The topic was apologetics, reaching out to people in our particular culture, the decline of the church, relativism, etc. I’m in the first half.
I hear I did good. 🙂
One of the things that led to the interview was my website at http://www.lutheranapologetics.com which unfortunately I have not maintained as well as I would have liked.
Hint, it is not an apologetics for Lutheranism. 🙂
Anyway, here is the file:
|March 24, 2010||Posted by Anthony under abortion, apologetics, Blog, Christianity and Culture, eugenics, evolution, General, Holocaust, human rights, Jesus, Love, Malthusians, morality, Obama, Papers, politics, pro-life, scientism, Secular Humanism, theology|
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy, selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).