Three friends of theism
October 30th, 2007Kevin Shrum introduces three friends that he finds to be of immense value in opposing the militant atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et. al.
51 Responses to “Three friends of theism”
Tim Ellsworth
My book
About
Links
Christian parenting resources
E-mail me
Recent Comments
- Jim T on Do children who die in infancy go to heaven?: David's...
- Tim on The 4th of July in church: Thanks for the link, Mark. I hadn't...
- johnMark on The 4th of July in church: Tim, Thanks for this post. I...
- Cineaste on The 4th of July in church: Happy 4th of July everyone!...
- Nick Fox on The 4th of July in church: Amen, Tim. I agree and I...
- misawa on The 4th of July in church: Toss me on the bandwagon, too....
- Joel Maners on The 4th of July in church: Ditto Tim. We as Christians...
Categories
Search:
Cornerstone Connection
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
“Militant Atheism”
Interesting that you chose to post a sarcastic comic instead of actually commenting on the 3 friends Dr. Shrum mentions.
And you never hear atheists talk about Antony Flew anymore…I guess he got real dumb real quick.
Care to discuss any of Flew’s stances?
The comic was a commentary on the term “Militant Atheism,” Zoner. I don’t think I could have made that anymore clearer.
“Care to discuss any of Flew’s stances?”
Sure, why don’t you start. By the way, I’ve only heard of McGrath because he’s debated Christopher Hitchens. I haven’t heard of Flew. The third friend mentioned “scripture,” I automatically dismiss as a source because it’s circular reasoning; “The Bible is true because the Bible tells me so.”
Cineaste,
This is a honest question so please take it as such.
If history books proclaim history as being true is that circular reasoning?
If scientific journals proclaim science to be true is that circular reasoning?
If an athiest proclaims atheism to be true is that circular reasoning?
How are those things different than the Bible which was made up of collections of writings, multiple authors (same Author) over thousands of years that affirm eachother?
Thanks,
j razz
No you couldn’t. But that’s not what I asked about either.
If you know not of Antony Flew, they should probably take away your atheist card!
I thought perhaps you’d have a rebuttal of Flew’s stances, as you usually do.
That is all. No big deal.
Hey Cineaste,
Check your e-mail.
Sure, J. You made a Non sequitur. Your questions do not follow. The difference between the bible and history books, scientific journals, and atheism is that none of them claim to be the infallible word of God. So, to answer your questions, none of those are circular reasoning but they can all be false, unlike the your bible, right? If the atheist proclaimed atheism to be true because it says so in a book that the atheist takes as infallible, then that WOULD indeed be circular reasoning. Do you see the difference?
“If you know not of Antony Flew, they should probably take away your atheist card!”
Why should I have heard of him? I don’t think many atheists have.
“I thought perhaps you’d have a rebuttal of Flew’s stances, as you usually do.”
I do, but why don’t you start by telling me what you think of them instead of just pointing to the article and demanding, “here, answer.”
jrazz,
I can speak somewhat for scientific journals, for I work in the field.
Certain discoveries are proclaimed as god’s truth until further experimentation proves otherwise OR certain discoveries discredit dearly held beliefs held by the scientific establishment (SE).
I’ll cite a couple of examples:
1) The famous human evolution parade
In the journal, Nature (403 [27 January 2000]:363), J.J. Hublin wrote:
The ‘parade’ first appeared in the Time-Life Nature Library series Early Man, I used to have the book, I don’t know what happened to it, wish I still had it. Comic books can be amusing from time to time.
But like newspaper retractions, seldom does the scientific establishment proclaim with equal aplomb when a previously held view is debunked.
2) Paternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) transmission
mtDNA has long been believed only to pass down from the mother. This from a paper published in the the journal Science(286[24 December 1999]:2524-2525),
This assumption has been used extensively to date events in human prehistory, including the age of our last common female ancestor, “Eve”, and the spread of Homo sapiens in Asia and Europe
In fact one of the paper’s authors respected biologist John Maynard Smith, “is frustrated but not surprised that the establishment chooses to ignore these findings.” New Scientist (178 [14 July 2000] 48).
Another paper appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine (347 [22 August 2002] 576-579) titled “Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA” which states,
It seems that Maynard Smith was correct in his frustration, and one has to wonder why the establishment has not really accepted mt DNA recombination? Could it be because of the impact it might have on the studies which are based on the ASSUMPTION that mtDNA is only inherited from the mother?
Makes me wonder what else is not being disclosed.
…until further experimentation proves otherwise OR certain discoveries discredit dearly held beliefs held by the scientific establishment (SE).
Bingo! And, what can discredit the Bible/Qu’ran? Nothing, because to a Christian or Muslim, it’s the infallible word of God. This feeds into the Christian/Muslim belief that all one needs to do is quote the bible/koran to prove any point, no matter how at odds with reality that point may be. For example, the Earth is 6-10k years old, people come back from the dead, and snakes talk. When atheists point out these beliefs aren’t realistic, Christians call them “militant.” Pointing out what’s true should not be construed as on attack on religion. The comic makes that point.
Unless of course the Bible is pointing us to what reality really is and well Cine, we’re heading right into that old wall again.
I don’t view comments made by atheists as “attack[s] on religion”. On the contrary they’re very religious statements unto themselves. I like what Pastor MacArthur said, “Religion is man at his worst”.
It might seem puzzling but he’s right, us humans will bow down to just about anything (including our so-called perceptions of reality, backed up by experiments of course) except to the Living God.
Which is why it takes a supernatural act to pull us out of this unregenerate state.
And, what can discredit the Bible/Qu’ran?
The same thing that makes it credible: evidence.
Christianity is unique among all the religions that I’m aware of in that it hands you a single point of failure: prove that the resurrection of Jesus didn’t occur, and the whole thing collapses. Conversely, if it did occur, the things Jesus claimed about himself, God, sin, etc. are true (or at the very least, highly plausible) by deduction.
“On the contrary they’re very religious statements unto themselves.”
Snakes don’t talk. People don’t come back from the dead. The Earth is older than 6,000 years. Oh yes, these are very religious statements. [rolls eyes] Fairies are make believe, there’s another religious statement made by an atheist against the supernatural for you. The only reason you don’t believe in fairies as well is that they are not in the bible.
Christianity is unique among all the religions that I’m aware of in that it hands you a single point of failure: prove that the resurrection of Jesus didn’t occur, and the whole thing collapses.
That makes no sense. Here is why. I’ll retype the text for you so you don’t have to read the bad word at the end.
I can’t put it anymore plainly than that.
Also, it’s not up to me to disprove that someone came back from the dead after 3 days and floated into the sky. It’s your claim. So, the burden of proof is yours. Likewise, if you claim that there is a fairy sitting on your shoulder, it’s not up to me to disprove it, it’s up to you to prove to me that there IS a fairy sitting on your shoulder. And, of course it’s impossible disprove the fairy just as it’s impossible to disprove the resurrection. This goes nowhere.
I’m not asking you to disprove anything, I’m just pointing out that there is one piece of empirical evidence that would disprove the resurrection and the rest of Christianity (Bible included) along with it. Your contention that nothing can disprove the Bible is false.
The tomb was covered by a 2-ton stone and was guarded by Roman soldiers. There are different things that you can argue, but if you accept any historical evidence it’s that there was a tomb and Jesus was in it after he was crucified.
Your contention that nothing can disprove the Bible is false.
My contention is that there is nothing that can prove or disprove supernatural beings or events. That’s not a false contention. And, it just so happens that supernatural beings and events are part of the bible so there is nothing I can do to prove or disprove those either.
Another thing I consider when I evaluate the validity of a claim is if that claim goes against the laws of nature. Anthony Flew is big on these laws. If someone told me that she is not subject to gravity, I’d be skeptical. If I read in a book that someone came back to life after three days and floated into the sky, I’d question that claim as well. My skepticism is not unjustified. My belief in claims like this, would be.
Interesting discussion.
A good book on the topic is Lee Strobel’s new book The Case for The Real Jesus in which he interviews experts to defend some of the attacks that have come against Christianity recently (and not as recently), including the Resurrection and the charge that Christianity copied many of its beliefs from paganism. The cartoon above commented on the latter issue, one that I blogged about recently here.
My contention is that there is nothing that can prove or disprove supernatural beings or events.
What do you mean when you say “prove”? What categories of evidence do you consider valid?
What do you mean when you say “prove”?
1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one’s claim.
What categories of evidence do you consider valid?
Everything that can be considered valid from a logical perspective.
Everything that can be considered valid from a logical perspective.
So you would say that logic can prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural? In other words, if I hand you a logically valid proof, you will then become a theist?
C.S. Lewis said,
Yet how do we try to prove that our powers of reason have value? You got it, science.
Peter,
Keep in mind that some among the Jewish religious leaders (remember now, they were theists) acknowledged that Jesus performed miraculous signs. They acknowledged that He had raised Lazarus from the dead, yet because of their UNBELIEF they not only wanted to kill Jesus but Lazarus as well.
I try to remember this when well-intentioned atheists say that they’ll believe in God if only He shows Himself.
Understandably this shows a lack of understanding that the basis of unbelief has nothing to do with reason, it is far deeper than that, the matter is spiritual.
“So you would say that logic can prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural?”
Let me repeat. My contention is that there is nothing that can prove or disprove supernatural beings or events. Prove or disprove my claim there is a fairy sitting on my shoulder at this very moment who only reveals herself to me. Prove or disprove the Muslim claim that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a flying horse. You can’t. By the same token, I can’t prove or disprove any of the Christian supernatural beings and events either.
“In other words, if I hand you a logically valid proof, you will then become a theist?”
Not only must it be logically valid, it must also be logically sound. I’d have to agree with the premises. If you can do that, yes I’ll become a theist and you will have proved God.
…the basis of unbelief has nothing to do with reason, it is far deeper than that, the matter is spiritual..
Just a minor correction; the basis of faith has nothing to do with reason, it is far deeper than that, the matter is spiritual. If leprechauns were mentioned in the Bible alongside demons, faith would dictate you believe in them as well, despite there being no sensible reason to do so.
…they not only wanted to kill Jesus.
No problem. Wouldn’t Jesus just resurrect himself again anyway? If He’s God, you can’t really kill Him at all. It’s a paradox. I mean, if Jesus was resurrected, that means God didn’t REALLY sacrifice his son. At most, it was just a symbolic gesture. It’s late, and my mind is wandering.
Sure Cine, but they’re not. Though that does not mean I do not enjoy my Lucky Charms.
Actually, while the basis of faith (both yours and mine) is spiritual, the basis of mine also involves reason.
How can it not, since the Source of reason is God Himself?
It’s odd that you use “reason” to deny (and/or “disprove”) the existence of the One who gave it to you. Odd but hardly surprising.
Quite frankly, when I was doing this it (using “reason”…) I didn’t know it until after conversion.
Just as many prayed for my eyes to be opened, we will continue to pray the same for you.
Sure Cine, but they’re not.
Doesn’t matter. The point is, if leprechauns were mentioned in the bible, you’d be praying for me to believe in them too.
How can it not, since the Source of reason is God Himself?
Exactly!
Wouldn’t Jesus just resurrect himself again anyway? If He’s God, you can’t really kill Him at all. It’s a paradox.
Christians believe that Jesus was fully human, so by definition you could really kill him. And yes, it is a paradox.
Not only must it be logically valid, it must also be logically sound. I’d have to agree with the premises. If you can do that, yes I’ll become a theist and you will have proved God.
Fair enough. Would you say that this is the only evidence you would accept as proof of the existence of a god?
Sorry for the double post - the last sentence should say “only evidence.”
Cine,
Believing in leprechauns would be a leap of faith. As it has been repeated to you by others here, believing in Christ is not quite the same. The evidence for Christianity dwarfs (no pun intended) the evidence for leprechauns, though of course this is not why I believe (this is God’s act not mine).
Of course, (and round and round we go) any evidence for the Resurrection (and so forth) presented to you (even if you saw it with your own eyes), you will discount because your presuppositions buttressed by your unbelief will prevent you from accepting it.
If one holds to a worldview which from the outset denies miracles (like the Resurrection, but strangely enough abiogenesis is swallowed whole) then nothing short of God’s saving work will convince (not even witnessing a miracle, for then one will deny it based on presuppositions, and thus we have a nice circle).
I don’t pray for you to believe anything, I pray for God to give you sight that you may see. You cannot believe until this happens.
Wait–so now you are familiar with Antony Flew? Color me puzzled!
No problem. Wouldn’t Jesus just resurrect himself again anyway? If He’s God, you can’t really kill Him at all. It’s a paradox. I mean, if Jesus was resurrected, that means God didn’t REALLY sacrifice his son. At most, it was just a symbolic gesture. It’s late, and my mind is wandering.
In your sleep-deprivation you’ve hit on some good questions. Here’s some answers, though I know you won’t believe them. First, you misunderstand Laz’ reference. Lazarus had been resurrected (temporarily), not Jesus; the crucifixion had not occurred yet.
Second, you are right, as God Jesus couldn’t be killed. This is what He said (Jn. 10:17-18). He said Himself that He gave His life up Himself (Lk. 23:46, Mk. 15:44) and would take it up again Himself (try that when you are dead.)
Third, a transaction occurred on the cross that is called the atonement, and it is shrouded in mystery. What we can say about it is, the sacrifice went far beyond physical pain and death. It included the wrath of a holy God for all the sin in history directed upon one being, essentially the punishments of Hell. It also included the injustice of punishment deserved by the guilty being directed upon an innocent. Christ’s sacrifice actually began at the annunciation and continued until He made Himself dead.
Fourth, the resurrection was final because Jesus’ mission was finished (Jn. 19:30). Jesus will never make Himself dead again because there is no need: He was sacrificed once for all (Heb. 7:26-27). As you say, the faith is full of paradox. Personally, I don’t want to worship a God who fits inside my brain.
Christians believe that Jesus was fully human, so by definition you could really kill him.
Wait. That’s what I believe. I thought Christians believed Jesus was divine. The paradox I was referring to was if you’re an immortal god like Jesus, how can you sacrifice yourself by dying? It’s like, can God create a stone heavier than He can lift?
Would you say that this is the only evidence you would accept as proof of the existence of a god?
No. I’d consider everything that can be considered valid from a logical perspective. Basically, any evidence a court of law would accept in a trial regarding God’s existence, I would accept.
A good book on the topic is Lee Strobel’s new book
Nick, I’m reading a Strobel book. I looked at your article. One thing that caught my eye was the virgin birth. I was told by a Christian scholar (his job is Greek, Hebrew, English translation) that “young woman” was mistranslated by a scribe as “virgin.” That’s a big deal if true, because that means belief in the virgin birth is based upon a simple mistranslation. If you research this further, I’d like to know the truth.
Believing in leprechauns would be a leap of faith. As it has been repeated to you by others here, believing in Christ is not quite the same.
It’s exactly the same and no amount of repetition will change a fact. The fact is, if there was actual evidence for talking serpents, resurrections, walking on water, stopping the sun in the sky, etc… then these things would no longer be articles of faith, they would be articles of knowledge. But they are not common knowledge are they? These things are only what Christians believe as part of the Christian faith, it’s not what they actually know to be true. If you did KNOW these things to be true then you can no longer say you have religious faith in talking serpents, resurrections, virgin births, etc. You are confusing what you believe, with what you know.
…you will discount because your presuppositions buttressed by your unbelief will prevent you from accepting it.
Wrong. I think it’s actually the opposite for you. The laws of physics tell us that events like the sun stopping in the sky (Joshua 10:13) are… well, put it this way, if someone made that claim today they’d be considered insane. Yet you accept the laws of physics being rolled back with no problem. That’s because your religious presuppositions buttress your beliefs in this case and prevent you from accepting reality, as in the laws of physics. So, you mentally condition yourself to accept things that no rational person would normally accept, as long as it’s written in the Bible. That’s why I said if leprechauns were included in the bible, your faith would dictate that you believe in leprechauns as well.
I pray for God to give you sight that you may see.
Sorry. I don’t buy into anyone’s belief system unless there is a good reason to do so.
Zoner, I simply read what Flew said in the article
One thing that caught my eye was the virgin birth. I was told by a Christian scholar (his job is Greek, Hebrew, English translation) that “young woman” was mistranslated by a scribe as “virgin.” That’s a big deal if true, because that means belief in the virgin birth is based upon a simple mistranslation. If you research this further, I’d like to know the truth.
Cineaste, I studied this. In the hebrew the term could be used for both virgin or young woman. In the context of the old testament passage, it was likely referring to the current King of Israel’s daughter (if I remember correctly) and fulfilled in that verse, but if you have looked at systematic theology, you (you general) would know that the Old Testament gave many foreshadowing events of what was to come (as it is revealed in the New Testament). What is more, the inspired men of the New Testament (the gospel writers) took this and applied it to Christ- not out of context, but in the context of a parallel as intended by God. You see, even though this was fulfilled in OT times via a young woman (as we have no OT account of a virgin giving birth), it was also meant to foreshadow and point to Christ’s virgin birth- which is the correct translation in the greek for the NT. In Hebrew it could mean either young woman or virgin. In Greek the Apostles called it like they saw it and spoke of the virgin birth.
I hope that made sense, but just to summarize, it is not a mistranslation and the Apostles used it correctly when dealing with the gospel accounts.
j razz
Wait. That’s what I believe. I thought Christians believed Jesus was divine.
We believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God. Paradox? Yes.
The paradox I was referring to was if you’re an immortal god like Jesus, how can you sacrifice yourself by dying?
Since Jesus was fully human, he had a mortal body that died after his execution.
It’s like, can God create a stone heavier than He can lift?
Christians have different answers on this one.
Basically, any evidence a court of law would accept in a trial regarding God’s existence, I would accept.
Whose law? In what jurisdiction? I’m sure you can see where this is going.
Adding to what JRazz said, the “mistranslation” the scholar probably was referring to was in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Hebrew scripture. This translation was done some 300-200 years before Christ, and the 70 scribes (from which the name comes) agreed that the less-precise Hebrew word “almah” for maiden should be translated into the more-precise Greek word “parthenos” for virgin. As well, our modern English idea of “maiden” is not as strict as that of the ancients.
Cine,
The laws of nature (you mentioned physics in particular) do not cause things to happen, I think we can all agree on that right?
We tend to act and talk like they do but in fact they do nothing of the sort. They have never caused any event nor will they ever cause any event.
That is not to say that they don’t state the pattern to which every event (induced to happen by something else) must conform to.
As Lewis states,
You believe in miracles more than you realize, well at least one miracle, that is abiogenesis. Problem with that one is that Francesco Redi in 1668 demolished it. Yet strangely enough, the entire evolutionary thought edifice is built on the assumption of abiogenesis. Who’s calling who irrational?
By the way,
What can/do YOU know to be true to the same exacting degree you require of miracles such as the Resurrection of Christ? Certainly nothing in the past to which you were not privy to, that’s for sure. I think we’ve covered this before, this issue of accepting things based on authority.
Not asking you to buy into anything, again, it is impossible for you to come to belief in Christ by mere human effort.
Since Jesus was fully human, he had a mortal body that died after his execution.
So what if He had a mortal body that died. It’s not really a big deal if you’re an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, God.
There are some things that God can’t do right? For example, God can’t make 2 + 2 = 11, right?
“I’m sure you can see where this is going.”
Not really, no. You haven’t said anything.
So what if He had a mortal body that died. It’s not really a big deal if you’re an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, God.
Wow! Do you know how correct you are Cineaste? That is part of the reason Christ died; for God to show His power over death. If He can even overcome death, then how much more can He do for those He loves?
j razz
Laz, you literally believe (Joshua 10:13). The laws of physics were suspended and the sun stood still in the sky for a day. Ask yourself, is this a rational belief?
If leprechauns were in included in the Bible, you’d believe in them. What other reason would you have, other than their appearance in the Bible, for believing in leprechauns? Any other reason at all? By the same token, is their appearance in the Bible the only reason you believe in demons and demon possessed pigs? (Mark 5:16) To a non-Christian, literal belief in these mythical creatures is irrational. Can you understand why non-Christians have this view? I think it’s a sensible view to have. It’s why they don’t believe in Muhammad’s flying horse either.
That is part of the reason Christ died; for God to show His power over death.
Well then, where is the sacrifice part if dying is simply a temporary inconvenience? Christians say Jesus died for our sins. They should add an asterisk saying, but He didn’t really really die; it was a symbolic gesture.
Cine,
Is it rational? It depends what you mean by that.
Something else Lewis said which I think is appropriate here,
Of course, if there is no God then yes it is irrational to believe that miracles occur. However since you can’t really prove that I’m afraid we’re at an impasse yet again.
Oh, He really, really did die… He just overcame death (which deaths reign was a product of the fall and Christ defeated it via the Cross and His ressurection).
j razz
Laz, you literally believe (Joshua 10:13). The laws of physics were suspended and the sun stood still in the sky for a day. Ask yourself, is this a rational belief?
You answered, “depends upon what you mean by [rational].” This is what I mean by rational…
Why don’t you simply admit it and say, “Yes, I believe that the sun stopped in the middle of the sky for a day and the normal laws of physics were suspended.” I’m speaking the truth right? You do literally believe this. Stand up for your beliefs if this is your true belief.
He just overcame death…
I still don’t understand what the big deal is then. I can see a permanent death being a sacrifice but when you can overcome death at will… [shrug]. I just don’t see how someone can sacrifice their life but still have life.
Of course I believe it happened Cine! Why? Hang on now… this one is worth the millenium:
BECAUSE GOD SAYS IT DID! (Picturing Cine tearing his robes)
You must read what Joshua 10:14 says, it has to do with the laws of nature,
and meshes quite nicely with what I quoted from Lewis,
Clearly, whoever was inspired to write Joshua understood (even if he wasn’t as smart as we think ourselves to be) that no it is not normal for the sun to do what he described, in other words he understood what the laws of nature were, how else could he have spotted the miracle?
Admittedly, you (or anyone else) cannot come to belief on your own that’s for sure Cine, but picking up a couple of Lewis’ books (I recommend Mere Christianity, Miracles and the Problem of Pain)will at least get you to think through your presuppositions.
His death was an atonement as was offered up as required by OT Law (by God Himself to God Himself)- the shedding of blood was needed. Not the blood of bulls and goats but a sacrafice once for all. Now, let’s say Jesus died and stayed dead. You would agree that this is a sacrifice yes? Well, Christ did not have to die- He did not have to come and dwell amongst us. He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but took on the form of a slave being in the likeness of men. His life here on earth was a sacrifice. His death was a sacrifice like no other before Him and like no other will be- the righteous died for the unrighteous. After defeating Satan, Sin, & Death on the Cross, He was raised on the third day. You see, death could not hold Him as He defeated it. If He merely laid in the tomb, His sacrifice would be meaningless as He wouldn’t be who He claimed to be. So, without the resurrection, there would be no sacrifice- it would be a lie.
I don’t know if this clears things up a bit or just muddies the water more for you, but basically without the ressurection, there would not have been a sacrifice, there would only have been a lie.
j razz
Of course I believe it happened Cine!
Good, we might be getting somewhere then. You believe the sun stopped in the sky because it says so in the Bible. Now, consider the perspective of a normal rational person evaluating claims like this…
Laz - “The sun stopped in the middle of the sky for a day.”
Jane Doe - “Gravity does no work on distant planets.”
Muslim - “Muhammad ascended to heaven on a flying horse.”
John Doe - “Leprechauns live at the end of the rainbow.”
They all sound equally insane to a person who does not presuppose these things to be true. These things are irrational to everyone except the people who believe in them. These claims are not part of the real world, they are unrealistic. There’s no evidence at all these events occurred, or even can occur. The claim leprechauns live at the end of the rainbow is indistinguishable from the claim the sun stopped in the middle of the sky for a day. All these claims are preposterous. The only people who don’t think so are those who actually believe these things for no better reason than The Bible says so, the Qu’ran says so, Celtic literature says so, etc.
Cine,
Don’t you think that whoever penned Joshua had an idea of how the sun normally behaved?
j, I still don’t get it. When I was a kid, I used to believe it and accept it, but I never understood it. Now that understanding is more important to me than simply accepting, it makes no sense. We’ll just leave it there for now if that’s OK with you?
One of the things I observed in the story of Jesus of Nazareth, and this is just my personal take, was that Jesus must have been counting on people NOT to listen to his sermon on the mount speech. If people did listen to his sermon on the mount speech and took it to heart, He would never have been crucified and no sins would have been washed away. Christianity itself depended upon people NOT listening to the teachings of Jesus.
Very ironic.
Don’t you think that whoever penned Joshua had an idea of how the sun normally behaved?
I think George Lucas had an idea of how light normally behaves YET, the Millennium Falcon was able to complete the Kessel Run in less the 5 parsecs, which means it could travel faster then the speed of light.
Wow Cine you impress me,
A good starting place is to acknowledge 2 things:
1) We know that we ought to behave a certain way (Jesus did not present a new morality)
2) We don’t behave like we know we ought to
About Joshua’s author, you missed the point as you conveniently ignored Lewis’ words above.
To be sure, I think Han’s claims were a bit over the top, and he conveniently ignored Bo Shek who claimed to have broken Han’s Kessel Run record, though his force-sensitivity made it somewhat unfair. Yeah I’m a big Star Wars guy.
We’ll just leave it there for now if that’s OK with you?
Fine by me. Just know that if you ever want to delve a little deeper into it I am available for a discussion in the order of the one we have been having here. My original offer stands from our first conversation together.
One of the things I observed in the story of Jesus of Nazareth, and this is just my personal take, was that Jesus must have been counting on people NOT to listen to his sermon on the mount speech.
I would hold, based on scripture, that He did not count on them to do it, but He in fact created them for that purpose… just like when He told Pontius Pilate that Pilate had no authority over Him unless it was granted to him from above. Just like when in the OT God used the Babylonians, the Caananites, the Egyptians, etc. to enact judgement on Israel for their sins. The nations did what they wanted to do- the desire of their heart (crush and take captive Israel) but it was God who swung the Babylonian hammer per se and what is more, the nations were held accountable for it. To you this may seem absurd and unfair, but it fits quiet well in the systematic theology timeline and the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
I just thought I would put that on the table in case you wanted something else to respond to
By the way, how do you find the time to keep up these conversations? I assume you work, have a little girl and a girlfriend amongst other things and responsibilities to tend to yes?
j razz