The Shroud of Turin

The Shroud seems to be more compelling than originally thought. Check out the audio file and related link, and see what you think. -CL

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

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

Challenging Thesis #1: Christianity and Other Faith Systems

Challenging Thesis #2: Angels & Demons

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

Faith Discussion/ Commentary

This thread was initiated by EL as a commentary on our various discussions.
-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

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

Discussion with an atheist friend...

In an ongoing effort to be in dialog with those who think and believe differently than I do, the following conversation has been initiated between a friend and I over the nature and beliefs of Christianity and atheism. It started out as an email dialog, but he has graciously given me permission to post our conversations on the blog. The original documents that we typed in became fairly unwieldy due to interleaving of comments whose threads were often difficult to track, so I have tried to tidy up the conversation by compartmentalizing it topically. The first sections of correspondence will be listed chronologically, but as the thread gets more cumbersome, I will likely have to break it down with new, thematic postings (listed above this one) and their related entries. Other than these categorizations, none of my interlocutor's words will be edited or altered in any way unless it is for clarification and flow. Any of those amendments will be clearly demarcated by brackets [such as this]. This will not change the meaning of anything and indeed is the literary standard for clarification purposes. Even so, these will be kept to an absolute minimum.

Thanks for reading. May the journey continue.
-CL

Advent Conspiracy

Let's do this thing.
www.adventconspiracy.org

Political Frustrations and the "Bail-Out."

I know that this is a blog that claims to be devoted to faith issues, so I apologize for this thoroughly political and economic posting. This is the only place (other than Facebook) where I can rant and rave and at least imagine that somebody else might take a gander. Thanks for reading.

Is this Jesus/ Holy Spirit and Father character for real?

How do we know that our "experience" as Christians is not our own personal delusion or mental projection of how we think it is supposed to look? Could it be that we are deceived? How do we know it's for real?

What the candidates think and have acted on.

Looking for some info on the presidential candidates? Here's a place to start. Most of the data here is from CNN.com
-CL

How do we pick a president? / How Pro-Life Are We Really?

Most well intentioned and zealous, conservative Christians get their claws out when I say I am for Obama. They just assume that I am pro-death and that I cackle in glee each time I cruise around in my hybrid-VW upholstered in baby flesh.

Barf.

So let me offer a proufound and deeply sincere "thank you" to you and all my fellow bloggers and friends who have not tread this path. Contrary to the conclusions of some, I am not just "pro-life." I am extremely pro-life. But I tend to interpret "life" in ways that not only incorporate the yet-to-be-born, but also as the already-born and the non-human life that we happen to share this planet with. I just don't understand how anyone can be "pro-life" without being pro-human, pro-peace and pro-environment too. Abortion is terrible, and I hate it, but I also hate unjust war, disregard for human rights and this environmental suicide-machine that we continue to feed in ignorant bliss.

Unfortunately, in our system, picking a president seems to be more about choosing the lesser of 2 evils than electing a man or woman who we can truly support with 100%. For me, for this election, the lesser of the evils happens to be the Democratic candidates.

Tell me how you pick your president and what "pro-life" means to you.

in peace,
-CL

(most of these posts were originally imported from my Facebook note: "How Pro-Life are we really?" No user posts have been edited except for this initial description.)

Discussion on the Emergent Church Movement(s)

Join me in this discussion as we explore what this so-called "movement" is about. All are welcome to post and comment.

Healing of a Blind Man (Mark 8:22-25)

Inclusivism & the Fate of the Unevangelized

Women in Ministry

I have recently been involved in a fairly intense study of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and it has brought me to a place of intellectual and spiritual affirmation that gender is not sufficient to prevent God's call from being issued to anyone. This goes against some conservative, traditional Christian teaching on the issue of women in leadership. I make no apologies for this. It is not my intent to rebel for the sake of rebellion, but rather to honor God above all, including merely human teachings and (in this case), human misunderstandings. This idea desperately needs to be revisited for the sake of our sisters and for the sake of the church herself. Please dialogue with me on this issue.

1Tim. 2:11-15    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But womend will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (Today's New International Version)

Interesting Quotes

Add your interesting, favorite, fun or challenging quotes here. Comments are welcome too!

-CL