All readers, posters, philosophers and theologians are welcome! Join the discussion!
-CL
Timothy Paul Jones' "Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus'"
A book review. Please feel free to engage in the conversation.
-CL
Book Review: Invitation to a Journey: A Map for Spiritual Formation
I read this book by M. Robert Mulholland Jr. because a friend suggested it to me. I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars. This review is from one I posted on another site awhile back.
-CL
-CL
The Church and Homosexuality
This entry has been a long time in coming. The issue of homosexuality and the church is an extremely complicated and sensitive one, and it isn't going away. I am committed to honoring the biblical worldview, not the least of which is Jesus' commandment that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. What follows is a sincere effort to explore what this means in the context of questions regarding homosexuality. Please join in this discussion. ALL are welcome.
-CL
Alternative tags: Homosexual, church, Jesus, Christian, Bible
-CL
Alternative tags: Homosexual, church, Jesus, Christian, Bible
The Shroud of Turin
Conversing with Postmodernism
Is there any insight out there into how we might approach unbelievers of a postmodern persuasion? Most apologists tread the ground of "modern" modes of thought. These are often irrelevant for postmodernism because its adherents (even if they don't know it by that name) don't necessarily care if something is true or not. They want to know how it helps them LIVE, and in that sense, they may even adopt a "useful fiction" knowingly, as long as it helps them live better. It seems like much of the debate between the newest crop of atheist authors and Christian apologists are aimed at the "modern," rational, Enlightenment thought life, and thus, people who don't think that way find the whole wide-ranging debate completely irrelevant. I'm trying to find some Christian authors who speak to and from postmodernity without trying to beat it into submission (as is the usual Xian tactic). Stanley Grenz's "Primer on Postmodernism" was fairly helpful, but I am looking for more. Any thoughts on this?
-CL
-CL
The Weakness of "Weak" Atheism
Is atheism faith in the absence of God or the absence of faith in God? Either way, my thesis is that faith is requisite in something (or someone). I choose Jesus, but I understand that others don't. What follows is an expose' of the faith that atheists include in their worldview. One atheist, Danny Ledonne (and several other "anonymous" voices he recruited), has taken up my challenge and tried to debate me on the issue. Danny posted an ad for those who might believe similarly to him to participate in this discussion on a website that glorifies the 1999 Columbine high school massacre. This alone tells me something about his worldview. Perhaps that is another issue, but interested parties should read on and see how our conversation unfolds.
This topic has also spilled over into another post on this blog, one where an oppositional voice has demonstrated greater dexterity and longevity than that of Danny Ledonne. Interested parties can find this dialog at: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/stephen-hawkings-premature-proclamation.html
Thank you for participating.
-C. Lambeth
This topic has also spilled over into another post on this blog, one where an oppositional voice has demonstrated greater dexterity and longevity than that of Danny Ledonne. Interested parties can find this dialog at: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/stephen-hawkings-premature-proclamation.html
Thank you for participating.
-C. Lambeth
Challenging Thesis #3: Christianity & Science
After several invitations, my brother Eric decided that he would discuss our differing worldviews (Christianity and atheism). This engendered some lengthy back and forth dialogs which can be found on this blog under various headings and theses. Unfortunately, he has ceased responding to these public threads. While he later reinitiated a separate debate with me on other issues, he has demanded that I keep those discussions in a private context, and I have honored that request. I hope that he will return to the unanswered objections I have offered on my public blog, but that remains up to him.
Because of the topical nature and my desire to allow others to take side discussions as they like, I felt that the relationship between science and Christianity merited its own space. So, the discussion on the present post was birthed from the following (public) blog entry and comments from December 2008: (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html#comments)
To summarize that thread, like most atheists, Eric believes that Christianity has some inherent weakness because of its reliance on a degree of faith. I responded that “all belief systems, philosophies and religions incorporate some faith (even if they think that they do not). For example, science itself requires faith that observers’ senses are reliable. This is taken for granted, but it IS faith.”
As part of the present discussion, I would like to offer a further assessment on the relationship between science and Christianity, and it hinges on the question of whether or not the two enterprises are at odds with one another. It seems many atheists and Christians alike would answer this in the affirmative, but I disagree with such an assessment. Both science and Christianity are built on faith, unprovable and unfalsifiable beliefs, but they also make use of the same human perceptive faculties. Science, like the very first Christian witnesses, depends on sensory input or the accurate perception of phenomena in order to operate. The difference of course is that science attempts to formulate rules and laws that, at least in theory, are repeatable and have an explanatory and predictive qualities whereas events contingent upon God’s actions may be explanatory, but are not repeatable or even observable unless he chooses to make them so. So if science only works with the testable, repeatable, predictable and observable, and God does not fall neatly into these categories, then it would seem that, officially, science has nothing to say about God.
But I am dissatisfied with that idea as well, for it sounds as if the two spheres could never overlap, and this is not the case. To be more specific, Christians believe that God created the physical universe and hence all the scientific laws that humans have been able to discern, study and test. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that God’s creation could be used to prove that God doesn’t exist. Put another way, it would be like suggesting that we could use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method doesn’t work.
When we consider the poorly understood early moments of our universe and the equally darkened understanding of where life first came from, we can see: A) how humble we should be in proposing theories of creation, and B) that far too much speculation and various faith commitments are mistaken for (or purported as) unassailable fact. Either way, the bottom line is that Christianity is not against science and science does not lead to atheism on its own. It’s only when certain philosophical faith commitments are snuck in the door and projected onto science that it is dressed up to support atheism. We might say the same about religious believers who force the Bible to advocate for their own myopic understanding of Genesis’ early chapters and thus paint legitimate scientific discoveries as an evil ruse.
Back to my original thought, I believe it is more helpful to suggest that God has provided two revelations that we can study, test and explore: the biblical text and the text of creation. I also suggest that when they are followed with an open mind they will lead their students to the same God/ Creator. Profoundly spiritual people are asking the same types of questions as our most brilliant and reflective philosophers and scientists: Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here and where might we go? Of course I suggest that Jesus Christ is the one who can best help us navigate these questions. That too is a faith commitment, and it is one that I do not shy away from.
Read on.
-C. Lambeth
Because of the topical nature and my desire to allow others to take side discussions as they like, I felt that the relationship between science and Christianity merited its own space. So, the discussion on the present post was birthed from the following (public) blog entry and comments from December 2008: (http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html#comments)
To summarize that thread, like most atheists, Eric believes that Christianity has some inherent weakness because of its reliance on a degree of faith. I responded that “all belief systems, philosophies and religions incorporate some faith (even if they think that they do not). For example, science itself requires faith that observers’ senses are reliable. This is taken for granted, but it IS faith.”
As part of the present discussion, I would like to offer a further assessment on the relationship between science and Christianity, and it hinges on the question of whether or not the two enterprises are at odds with one another. It seems many atheists and Christians alike would answer this in the affirmative, but I disagree with such an assessment. Both science and Christianity are built on faith, unprovable and unfalsifiable beliefs, but they also make use of the same human perceptive faculties. Science, like the very first Christian witnesses, depends on sensory input or the accurate perception of phenomena in order to operate. The difference of course is that science attempts to formulate rules and laws that, at least in theory, are repeatable and have an explanatory and predictive qualities whereas events contingent upon God’s actions may be explanatory, but are not repeatable or even observable unless he chooses to make them so. So if science only works with the testable, repeatable, predictable and observable, and God does not fall neatly into these categories, then it would seem that, officially, science has nothing to say about God.
But I am dissatisfied with that idea as well, for it sounds as if the two spheres could never overlap, and this is not the case. To be more specific, Christians believe that God created the physical universe and hence all the scientific laws that humans have been able to discern, study and test. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that God’s creation could be used to prove that God doesn’t exist. Put another way, it would be like suggesting that we could use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method doesn’t work.
When we consider the poorly understood early moments of our universe and the equally darkened understanding of where life first came from, we can see: A) how humble we should be in proposing theories of creation, and B) that far too much speculation and various faith commitments are mistaken for (or purported as) unassailable fact. Either way, the bottom line is that Christianity is not against science and science does not lead to atheism on its own. It’s only when certain philosophical faith commitments are snuck in the door and projected onto science that it is dressed up to support atheism. We might say the same about religious believers who force the Bible to advocate for their own myopic understanding of Genesis’ early chapters and thus paint legitimate scientific discoveries as an evil ruse.
Back to my original thought, I believe it is more helpful to suggest that God has provided two revelations that we can study, test and explore: the biblical text and the text of creation. I also suggest that when they are followed with an open mind they will lead their students to the same God/ Creator. Profoundly spiritual people are asking the same types of questions as our most brilliant and reflective philosophers and scientists: Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here and where might we go? Of course I suggest that Jesus Christ is the one who can best help us navigate these questions. That too is a faith commitment, and it is one that I do not shy away from.
Read on.
-C. Lambeth
Faith Discussion/ Commentary
This thread was initiated by EL as a commentary on our various discussions.
-CL
-CL
The Moral Argument
This is an ongoing discussion over morality and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in pointing people to the God we find in the biblical text. We didn't set out to discuss the moral argument per se, but it quickly got steered in that direction. The discussion partners are myself (C. Lambeth), and a close personal friend (EL).
Thanks for reading.
-CL
Thanks for reading.
-CL
Christian Motivation: Responding to Grace
This section of posting has been culled from the larger discussion on the Moral Argument. That original context can be located above this post or at:
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/moral-argument.html
The section of dialogue attached here is essentially about why Christians seek to live out their faith. It is part of an ongoing conversation that I have had the honor of participating in as a friend of an atheist.
Thank you for participating.
-CL
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/moral-argument.html
The section of dialogue attached here is essentially about why Christians seek to live out their faith. It is part of an ongoing conversation that I have had the honor of participating in as a friend of an atheist.
Thank you for participating.
-CL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
