Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch.5: Distortions, The God I Don’t Believe In

This chapter of Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics is full of good stuff.

“The rise of science in the West is unique in world history.  As Stark says,

Real science arose only once: in Europe.  China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy.  But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry.  By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy.  Why?

“The answer lies in the Christian West’s view of God, creation and humanity.  Unlike cultures elsewhere, ‘Christians developed science because they believed it could be done, and should be done.’  Philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead noted in Science and the Modern World that the medievalists insisted on ‘the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher.  Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.'” p. 101

“Slavery in Greco-Roman times was not as harsh and cruel as American slavery, although it certainly was no model for any society.  References to slaves submitting to their masters in the New Testament are not endorsements of the institution but temporary injunctions given certain social realities.  This is evident when Paul refers to slave traders as evil (1 Timothy 1:10) and when he bids slaves to seek freedom lawfully when they can (1 Corinthians 7:21).  The book of Philemon did much to revolutionize the Christian view of slavery.  Paul writes to Philemon that since Onesimus, his slave, is his rather in Christ, he should be treated well, ‘no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.  He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord’ (Philemon 6). … (Jesus’) instruction that his followers not lord it over others but rather prize servanthood sets in motion an ethic ultimately incompatible with slavery (Mark 9:35).” p. 105

“Moreover, Jesus did not set up a male-dominated religious system in which women would be permanently subjugated.  He surprised his followers by teaching theology to women in private and in public (Luke 10:38-42; John 4:7-27; 11:21-27) at a time when women were excluded from such affairs.  Although he esteemed the family, Jesus stipulated that a woman’s principal purpose in life is not reducible to motherhood and domestic work, but is found in knowing and following God’s will (Luke 10:38-42; 11:27-28).  Jesus also appeared to Mary after his resurrection and appointed her as a witness to this world-changing event–in a time when the witness of a woman was not respected (Matthew 28:5-10; John 20:17-18).  His model of leadership was based on mutual service and sacrifice, not hierarchical authority structures:

Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28).

“In addition, in the early church, women served as prophets (Acts 2:17-18; 21:19) and teachers (Acts 18:24-26).  Paul clearly articulated the spiritual and ontological equality of male and female believers when he said, ‘In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all on in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:26-28).” p. 107

“He never authorized imperialism, exploitation, coercion, threats or any other means of illicit power over others.  Instead, he tells us to love our neighbors and even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).  The book of Acts shows the early Christians winning conversions through persuasion, not coercion or manipulation.  We find Christians, such as Stephen (the first Christian martyr), being persecuted and killed for their faith.  This did not lead the Christians to an armed revolt but to fervent prayer, fasting and acts of faith in the face of opposition.  Sadly, some later Christians who held the reins of political power did enforce Christian conformity through the sword.  We would be hard pressed, though, to find any warrant for this in the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.” p. 111  Reminds me of Jesus putting the guy’s ear back on in Gethsemane.

“Further, the purpose of these wars was not the conversion of the inhabitants of the land but their military defeat.  Therefore, there is no parallel to Christian witness today, which has nothing to do with conquering land by force. … The call for a holy (military) crusade made by the church is always out of sync with the Bible itself.” p. 112  I would add that the OT purpose was not mere defeat or conquering, but judgment.  Revelation tells of judgment, but before that we will be raptured and won’t be around to help bring it about.  Thank God he is patient.

“…humanity’s cultural achievements will be purified and brought into this resurrected world.  ‘The wealth of the nations’ shall be brought into the eternal kingdom, thus giving its citizens ample occasion for enjoyment and appreciation.  Beyond these historical monuments to God’s cultural grace are the manifold cultural creations that will flourish in a restored universe which is free of the Fall and filled with the manifest presence of God as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9, Revelation 21-22). … As Irenaeus wrote, ‘The glory of God is man fully alive’–and the redeemed will be fully alive in their glorified state.” pp. 115-116

(discussion index)

Posted in Apologetics, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Reviews and Interviews | 4 Comments

National Day of Prayer v National Day of Reason

…prayer? …reason?

My most recent Examiner.com news articles just in time for tomorrow’s National Day of Prayer:

In Modesto: Pray Modesto continues despite secular call to National Day of Reason May 2, 2012

In San Francisco: Congressman Pete Stark calls for National Day of Reason instead of prayer May 2, 2012

Have an opinion?  Feel free to share it in the comments :)

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Go Nuts! at John Thurman Stadium

Today my mother-in-law Jae and her new hubby Bobby took us to a Nuts game at John Thurman Stadium. We got together with some of their church friends and tail-gated pizza, hotdogs, grapes, chips and sodas in the Neece parking area before we went in. It was pretty cool watching the first pitches and participating in all the noise-making rituals.

Bobby bought the boys Nuts caps and I bought myself, the boys and Jae some icecream. There were some really exciting plays! We stuck around for a few innings. None of us care much for bleachers.

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Posted in Park-Hopping | Leave a comment

Christian Carnival, April 18, 2012

Welcome back to the Christian Carnival!  For those new to this gig, the Christian Carnival is a weekly collection of some of the best posts of the Christian blogosphere. It’s open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions.  We invite submissions from bloggers and readers, and collate the submitted posts into one big round-up (or “carnival”) every Wednesday.  It is also called a carnival because it is hosted at a new blog every week–and this week, it’s my privilege!  One of the goals of this carnival is to offer our readers a broad range of Christian thought. This is a great way to make your writing more well known and perhaps pick up some regular readers.

Please kick up your feet and make yourself at home.  Don’t mind all the boxes, as I am still shaping things up in my new portfolio here.  I thought I’d break in to the freelancing scene :)  Need something written?  Have a look around!

We’ll start off with submissions, then finish up with some posts I gleaned from the web.  I am not including my own submission this time because I am still chewing on an idea for an article that talks about the difference between Hume’s is-ought distinction, which maintains a valid distinction between ontology and epistemology, and the false is-ought dichotomy, which keeps values outside the realm of truth.  One can rightly reject the false dichotomy without rejecting the is-ought distinction.  I think making clear the differences between the two will help further the dialogue in this area of philosophy and apologetics.  If you want to see my past posts on Hume’s is-ought, scroll to the “Euthyphro, Hume, Plato, Gettier” section here.  Favorite topic!

Submissions:

Displayed in the order of submission:

Continue reading

Posted in Carnival | 2 Comments

This week’s Christian Carnival is…

here.  I host it at my new on-line portfolio blog :)  I am not including my own submission this time, because I am still chewing on an idea for an article that talks about the difference between Hume’s is-ought distinction, which maintains a valid distinction between ontology and epistemology, and the false is-ought dichotomy, which keeps values outside the realm of truth.  One can rightly reject the false dichotomy without rejecting the is-ought distinction.  I think making clear the differences between the two will help further the dialogue in this area of philosophy and apologetics.  If you want to see my past posts on Hume’s is-ought, scroll to the “Euthyphro, Hume, Plato, Gettier” section here.  Favorite topic!

Posted in Carnival, Is-Ought Fallacy | Leave a comment

In the mood for some GenX poetry?

If so, check this out, nested under the Poetry & Prose page.

And feel free to share your GenX poetry in the comments :)

Posted in Poetry, Poetry and Fiction | Leave a comment

Yo quiero choco-latte! :)

Abuelita

Abuelita (Photo credit: rachel a. k.)

Choco-latte is a Mexican mocha I ‘think’ I just invented.  If nobody has it yet–why not?!!!  Sure, it could be called the Abuelita mocha, but choco-latte sounds so much more chocolattey and you don’t have to pay Abuelita to use the name.  I thought of this because it was Easter yesterday, and I always pronounce chocolate with a Mexican accent.  By the way, under no circumstances should this drink be called a shock-o-latte, except perhaps on Halloween, sprinkled with bat and pumpkin marshmallows or other coffee-appropriate candies in black and orange.

Update:  After scavenging Google, I found a place called Java Hut with a Mexican mocha.  I think choco-latte is more catchy, although Google shows there is an actual shop with that name.  And I bet they don’t use Abuelita syrup!

Posted in Inventions | 1 Comment

Is there no truth, are all beliefs true, or is there only one truth?

cropped-contradict01This is something to consider in relationship to these objections to the objective truth of Christianity:

1) Claiming that Christianity is “the” truth steps on other people’s toes.

2) Science doesn’t even know the answers, and yet you claim to.

3) Like saying chocolate is your favorite icecream, faith equals opinion.

I jotted down those three objections during a round table discussion at a Reasonable Faith chapter meeting back in January and am finally getting around to including them in this post.

These are the options regarding objective truth:

No truth: The idea that it is true that there is no truth is self-contradictory. If there is no truth, the statement “there is no truth” cannot be true, either.

All true: “To deem all beliefs equally true is sheer nonsense for the simple reason that to deny that statement would also, then, be true,” (4, Zacharias, “Jesus Among Other Gods”). So, if you deem all beliefs true, then you deem true even the belief that “Not all beliefs are true.”

One truth: That is what we are left with, and what we ought to do our best to seek until we find it (or until it finds us).

Students of logic:  Regarding the square of opposition… The options are some/all/no. In my post, one=some, but the some is only one, because 1) there is only one reality to which all true beliefs may correspond, so that 2) the points where various conflicting and distinct worldviews agree and are true, correspond to one reality. If one takes away all the false, conflicting beliefs from every worldview, only one true worldview can be left.

In reply to the above objections: We can seek truth without trying to offend people, and if we avoid that pursuit in order to please sensitive people, we need to work on our boundary issues. Sometimes science does get it right, which can be seen in the progress it has made, and we can get it right by examining the historical evidence for the resurrection and the arguments for God’s existence from natural theology. And, lastly, genuine faith equals trust and is never blind (See Genuine faith is never blind).

Posted in Apologetics Toolbox | Leave a comment

Problem: If God is good and all-powerful, why does he not prevent evil, suffering and hell?

tumblr_m2y99iXTVp1r8bkolo1_500-300x217My thoughts on the solution:

1. Unconditional love is impossible if suffering and evil are impossible. God, like a good father, allows us to learn from our mistakes, rather than dysfunctionally protecting us from them by a) preventing us from making them, or b) preventing us from experiencing the consequences. If all suffering were made impossible, we would never learn what it means to love and be loved unconditionally.  It would be worse to make a world where unconditional love is impossible, than to allow all evil and suffering.  Love covers over a multitude of things.  Better off are those who love and lose, than those who never love at all.  Love is worth it.  That’s what Jesus died to show.
2. Similar to 1, Heaven (ultimate love) is impossible if it is not a choice.  If there is no alternative choice–hell–then heaven is not a choice, it is a prison.  “On the question of a loving God sending people to hell, Keller writes that God gives people free choice in the matter. ‘In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity’ (p.78). In other words, those who end up in hell chose that destination by rejecting God.” (Penguin) Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if we had no choice but to be there.
3. If there is no God making the idea of “good” true to reality, there is no “problem” of evil, suffering, or hell. That one senses a problem is a clue to there being a God–an always good being to which the idea of “good” is true.  Without a real “good” there is no real departure from good, and thus no problem of evil.  “Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, the author states: ‘… modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair-play and justice. People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak – these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust’? (p.26)” (Penguin).  The naturalist has their own “problem of evil” to answer, since the only being to which the idea of “good” can be real is God.
Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Problem of Evil & Hell | 4 Comments

Walk to the Cross (Easter Prep), pt.2: External/Internal Evidence

Back in February I posted part one of a lecture series on the Gospels by Tim McGrew entitled “Who Wrote the Gospels?”  Then, mid-March I posted Professor McGrew’s answer to my question, “Did Christians ‘reinterpret’ Old Testament passages to be prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, or did Jews always interpret those passages to be messianic?”  That was part one of this “Walk to the Cross” series in preparation for Easter.

For part two, here is the rest of Dr. McGrew’s series on the Gospels:

You can find links for the PowerPoint slides and handout at Brian Auten’s site, here:

Dr. McGrew writes via email, “Needless to say, we’re just scratching the surface of the evidence here. But sometimes it is better to make a start than to do nothing at all.”

So in the coming week that remains before we remember the resurrection, I hope you will make time to brew a pot of choice coffee, sit down under an old quilt and drink in this lecture series, and sift through the historical evidence of fulfilled messianic prophecies.

It will greatly enrich our celebration of Easter if we know that we are celebrating the REALITY of God’s demonstration in time and space that he loves (and forgives) us no matter what–even his own willing death.  No greater love has any man than that.

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Tim McGrew | Leave a comment