tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2242831797010860952024-03-14T08:23:23.888+11:00Maths, Theology and other God given pursuitsMalcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-44394040570325028942014-08-12T22:22:00.002+10:002014-08-12T22:22:52.923+10:00The God Delusion - The God Hypothesis Part 2<br />I started looking at Chapter 2 of The God Delusion titled “The God Hypothesis” <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-god-delusion-god-hypothesis-part-1.html" target="_blank">here</a>. There I dealt with his sections on monotheism and polytheism specifically.<br />In this second look at the chapter I will consider Dawkins' thoughts on whether we can resolve “The God Hypothesis”. Can we prove or disproved whether "God" exists, or will we be left wondering?<br /><br />Dawkins said in his preface, specifically to agnostics, "I hope that Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other".<br /><br />He states “The God Hypothesis” as that:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."</blockquote>
His alternative view that he advocates in this book is that: <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
"any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution".</blockquote>
My initial feelings are that he won't really be able to prove or demonstrate this, and that he may be attempting to prove more than he should or could. His argument will revolve mainly around evolution, but evolution doesn't say that God couldn't create a world or universe in the first place. And it doesn't prove he is the not the cause of the order we perceive in nature - what we call the laws of nature, or the law of physics. Also on the origins of intelligence: he would at least be arguing something like: "intelligence" some how emerges from complexity. It is also intriguing by what he might mean by "creative" intelligence. Creative to me hints at a creator and some sort of ingenuity.<br />The other issue is the "only". If he can demonstrate that a "creative intelligence" can come from a gradual process, he hasn't proved the "only", i.e. that this is the only reason or cause. Also he hasn't proved that a "creative intelligence" must be caused.<br /><a name='more'></a>He also states immediately after his alternate view, that <br />"Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it."<br />Now, obviously this is true if his alternative view is already given - I think it is mainly a restatement or corollary, but if he is giving an immediate reason why his view is true, then it is circular. Of course creative intelligences must come late, if you have defined it this way, and assume they are "evolved".<br /><br />On the origins of religion, or "God" hypotheses, he says that they are "founded on local traditions of private revelation, rather than evidence".<br />Now, as far as I can tell, in the case of Islam, it does seem that the "revelations" to Muhammad were private (in a cave?), but does that mean that all are? If Jesus is God, as Christianity contends, Jesus speaking in public would tend to go against this "private". I can't speak for all religions, but Dawkins seems happy to believe this and pass it on as proven fact without argument or evidence.<br />In terms of the Bible being "revelation", the Old Testament has a large proportion of narrative, including recording what people and God allegedly did, rather than purely quoted words or messages from God, and the Gospels and the book of Acts are also narratives. So Dawkins description is also a bit simplistic.<br />As to it being based on "revelation" rather than "evidence", this raises a number of questions.<br />Firstly, has he actually demonstrated there was no evidence, whether or not it is still available? We might leave this one for the next chapter "Arguments for God's existence.”<br />Secondly, what counts as evidence? And how strong does it have to be?<br />Thirdly, is revelation at odds with and mutually exclusive of “evidence”? Can't we have both?<br />And fourthly, is there anything necessarily wrong or bad with the concept of revelation in itself?<br />These last three are primarily philosophical questions, and it doesn't appear that Dawkins has seriously considered them.<br />And it is a big topic which I can't possible deal with properly here, especially the philosophical side. And I know what some people will say immediately about "revelation" which I won't address here in detail, but it might be useful here to say a few things about revelation and "prophecy" in the Old Testament/Jewish Scriptures.<br />Christianity and Judaism are not just based on “revelation”, but also God's action in history. And revelations often went along with by God's actions. Sometimes a prophet would bring a message from God to the people of Israel, often tied to some break in the Mosaic covenant/law, and might contain warnings of what might happen. And then the events happened, and then another message is given confirming that God did what he said. Also the Jewish law said that if a prophet suggests they are speaking from God, and what they say does not happen, then they should be put to death, treating the presumption to have a revelation from God as something not to be taken lightly.<br />Overall it seems Dawkins assumes his idea to be the case ( “private revelation, rather than evidence"). It's not surprising as this idea has been present in Western Culture for a while, and is already readily accepted. It seems he doesn't think it necessary to provide any evidence or reasoning let along sufficient evidence to prove his case. There is I believe a useful case for revelation, but that will have to wait for another day.<br /><br />He then has a section on "Secularism, the founding fathers and the religion of America". I won't go into this in too much detail - obviously this would be of greater interest to Americans.<br />He is basically saying the founding fathers were secularists (I think in the modern sense) and almost atheists.<br />I would say that the meaning of "Secularism" has changed over time, and one should be careful reading to much of our thinking back into the ideas of yesteryear. Never the less, their secularism and morality sprung from a Christian world view.<br />I'll also leave the debate over who they were and what their views were as well.<br /><br />He has suggested many ignoble reasons for the growth of Christianity, which I have addressed a little previously. Here he says that the growth of religion in an America, which is "legally secular", was due to religion becoming an enterprise. I agree that it wasn't tied to the state, which is itself a significant point, but being due to enterprise makes any sense only for the late twentieth century. This "enterprise" aspect is probably more indicative of the increasing materialism of the current times, hence I don't see any reason for it of earlier times. It is true of some parts of the "church" today, but is the generalisation true? This is not representative of Biblical Christianity of course. Paul make his motives clear number of times why he is preaching - not for money (and even refuses for there to be any expectation of need in some cases, but instead worked on the side to support his case, particularly in contrast to expectations of some of much of the culture, e.g. in Corinth, if you were worth something you would demand a large sum)<br />Also add odds to Dawkins thinking, growth in the 18th century in England and America was tied to the “Great Awakening” and the preaching of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and others and the birth of “Evangelicalism”. A large number of African Americans also became Christians in this time frame. <br /><br />A lot of this writing is not well organised. In this secularist section much of it again becomes a criticism of Christianity, mainly by quoting one or two of what the more anti Christian founding fathers said, with no justification, analysis or evidence given. For example "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man", " ... the cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" and he goes on quoting.<br />He also says, "anecdotes of such prejudice against atheists abound...", <br />Interestingly, surveys are now indicating that presently Christianity is the most persecuted "religion", and possibly more persecuted than before.<br />Yet how much are we to make of his "anecdotes" in general? And it seems a lot of his writing and criticism are just anecdotes?<br />Yet, probably unconsciously, he may be fostering prejudice against Christianity by his own anecdotes.<br />I'm starting to get the impression that Dawkins says a lot of things, but doesn't go into much depth, let alone do it rigorously, or in an academic manner. I guess this is partly understandable, given he is righting for a popular audience. But then how much are we putting our faith in Dawkins words. He criticises religion for having no evidence, but doesn't provide evidence for his case.<br />Also some parts of his style make it harder to read. His habit often quoting of others' opinions, doesn't really seem to help his case. Only rarely are they experts in a relevant field, and his practise seems to make his case weaker. Maybe Dawkins writes the way he talks. It is sort of meandering the way he does it.<br /><br />He then has a section on “The poverty of Agnosticism,” where he gives a sort of backhanded compliment to Christians who at least have courage and a backbone to stand up for what they believe, in contrast to the wish-washy Agnostics who sit on the fence. He does say that it is okay to be an Agnostic on an issue if we do lack evidence, but I think there are many who assume there is little or none, but haven't consider much of what they could in terms of evidence, and are possibly lazy, arrogant or ignorant.<br />He makes a good distinction between two kinds of “Agnostics”, temporary ones and permanent ones. He labels the first TAP for Temporary Agnosticism in Practise where they currently lack the evidence to make a decision. I would say they “don't know”. The other sort he calls PAP for Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, where the view is taken that they will never have an answer. I would call this “can't know”. On this aspect some people go further, with the "we can't know in an absolute sense". But this can run into philosophical problems. Once you say this you can be making truth claims about God yourself, which is just what they are trying to avoid. This is similar to the further claim of a relativist – there is no absolute truth – which is again a truth claim, but this isn't doesn't seem to be Dawkin' problem, being an Atheist.<br />Dawkins then suggests that PAP might be a valid position on some issues, but on the issue of God, he says, only the TAP category is reasonable, since he is confident that one day we may know the answer.<br /><br />Here he reconnects with his alternative hypothesis. He believes that the idea of the existence of God is a question which science can answer. "Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question." The first bit is true obviously, but on the second most philosophers and philosophers of science I think would say this is a question outside the realm of science in general. It is a question about reality, but possibly not a "scientific" question. God does or doesn't exist, and this would have consequences, but is the question wholly or mostly of the domain of science.<br />I think Dawkins believes that science is the only path to knowledge, and that it has the ability to access all knowledge potentially. This is often called scientism. Yet science relies on ideas and assumptions outside what science has proved.<br />I would say science is a great tool for understanding our world. But I can't see how science can necessarily prove or disprove God directly. If God is the source or cause of all the order and "laws of Physics" etc that we see, then our "science" can only investigate the order he has created, not God himself. If we could use science to prove of disprove God, then God might not be God if he can be tested like this (but this may be more the thinking of experimental or lab science). If we recognise science as empiricism, what we can discover with our senses, then it is limited to what we as humans can do. I'm not saying science can't find or test evidence for God, for that might be the opposite error, which is not Dawkins issue here. If God does interact with the world and people, such as the Bible suggests, then this can be investigated by historical methods at least. I get the impression that Dawkins use of the term science is quite narrow, and doesn't include this area.<br />It might be that Dawkins in only thinking of God in the sense of his more pantheistic version of him, where God is no more that the laws of physics. If we find them, then that is our God.<br />Dawkins says "God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice". He then implies that we may not be able to prove or disprove God in absolute terms. But says we can talk about the probability of his existence. While I think it is reasonable to talk about probability in some sense, since there are many things, including science which doesn't prove things 100%, another way the question could be framed is in a legal sense i.e. on balance of evidence, or beyond reasonable doubt. Dawkins says we wouldn't need to talk about probabilities "If he existed and chose to reveal it ... unequivocally." Interestingly Christians would say he sort of did this in the person of Jesus Christ. As Paul says (in Acts 17), "God has overlooked such ignorance in the past" ( wilful agnosticism?), "but now ... he has given proof by raising Jesus from the dead."<br />On the issue of probabilities, he criticises those who believe 100% calling it "faith".<br />This is his core difference between "religion" and "Atheism".<br />The "nature of faith that one is capable ... of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so". <br />and "Atheists do not have faith". I think Atheist generally tend to believe this idea about "faith", but many don't realise that they can be self-deceived in the same way are Christians are accused of being. The word faith seems to be used only in the sense of blind faith, and assume that people of religion have no reasons or evidence for their faith - but this misunderstands what faith or belief is, and why many people of religion believe as they do. An example of faith: we might believe that our husband or wife loves us, but we might not be able to prove it. Is something we have faith in, that we rely upon, and we can point to much evidence to back it up, but we can't prove it in a mathematical sense. I think in all cases, some people have good reasons, or possible poor reasons to believe what they do, whether it be Atheism or a religion. Very often, people choose what they want, and then justify it, sometimes with very good or even clever reasons, when necessary, even if the very good reasons are just used for convenience.<br />Regarding the idea of "scepticism", it's not only Atheists who are sceptical, and people should be sceptical of any "reason" or idea.<br />It seems Dawkins and many others assume the scepticism leads from God, and they avoid the question of whether there is a good reason to suspect there is a god. We should be sceptical of atheism as well, and people's justification of it, or probably more to Dawkins liking, we need to be sceptical about agnosticism. Too much of Dawkins arguing is without evidence. Is he encouraging blind faith? Does he want us to have to have faith in him? Can he be trusted?<br />Interesting enough, the Bible suggests people don't want to worship God, and then go and make up religions to replace him (obviously without reason), and resulting in a blind faith in the imitation Gods they have made. This sounds a bit like poly-theism ... or if I am part of God - pantheism.<br />Also many modern Christians are confused, and start to believe that the Bible and Christianity is about "faith" entirely in this modern sense (without reason etc), and that we need to trust feelings and not our heads, because they think our heads (and reason) will lead us away from God, as it appears to have done so for the rest of society. This really tends to entrench this idea of the opposition of faith and reason.<br />Many thoughtful Christians have sort to correct this false thinking. For example one theologian David F. Wells addresses this lack of "thinking" among Christians in his book "No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology."<br /><br />He makes reference to the teapotism of Bertrand Russell, where he envisions a tea pot floating between Earth and Mars, that we cannot prove or disprove because our telescopes are not powerful enough. As Dawkins says, the original point of Bertrand Russell, was that Christianity (or God) is no different to this celestial teapot. Other's have criticised this analogy elsewhere so I won't go into it. Anyway, Dawkins says his use of the teapot idea is different to Russell: even if there are plenty of hypothetical "objects" or "gods" that are not disprovable, it doesn't mean they are equally probably. This is a good point Dawkins makes - we can't just use this idea as an excuse for eternal Agnosticism. Again this raises the question "Are there good reasons to suspect there is a God?"<br /><br />He then goes onto consider people like Stephen Jay Gould who suggest that science can't prove of disprove God. Gould calls this idea "NOMA" for "non-overlapping Magisteria" meaning that he sees that science and religion deal with different topics or spheres of operation: "science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)". "The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value".<br />Stephen Jay Gould is not the first to think along these lines (one Dawkins cites is Thomas Huxley). Dawkins doesn't mention it here, but the late Stephen Jay Gould was a biologist who argued regarding evolution, for different mechanism or paradigm, since he couldn't see how micro-evolution could produce "macro-evolution", that is, he didn't accept that life had evolved purely by the gradual accumulation over time of small individual mutations.<br />This idea of NOMA is not acceptable to Dawkins: if science can't answer a question, why do we think religion can? I think this response comes more from his mindset or assumption about the nature of religion. Quoting another NOMA friendly scientist, "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists at all. What breathes life into the questions, and actualised them in a real cosmos? Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are the province of philosophers and theologians". Dawkins, as mentioned previously, obviously doesn't agree that these questions are the province of theologians, but more surprising is his admission that there are significant things that do lie out side of science: "Perhaps there are some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that are forever beyond the reach of science." But if it is beyond science, then why would religion be helpful, he asks. It seems here his thinking already assumes the reason why. If religion is simply made up by people. Then how could if fare better than science (which is done by people).<br />What is religion good for then? His response is telling: "We can all agree that science's entitlement to advise us on moral values is problematic, to say the least." "But does Gould really want to cede to religion the right to tell us what is good and what is bad?" - something which Dawkins doesn't want to do. He does give some common issues on why he doesn't like the Bible, or finds it problematic, mainly regarding the place of the Old Testament Law. I'm not sure he has really sat down to see if the Bible is an answer that makes sense - it does take a bit of work to understand how the Bible fits together, and if you don't get one bit, then other parts won't make sense.<br />He asks if we should pick the religion that suits us? That's a good question. I would continue with: do we believe something because of the evidence, or because we want to or it appeals to us; and then do we justify it using many reasons etc. to satisfy ourselves, or maybe just enough to answer others when we are pushed, or feel threatened, or to appease conscience. Dawkins should also ask the question of himself, as we all should. Is he just so smart that he has done a brilliant job of convincing himself to not accept the idea of God.<br />I don't know if he tackles "moral values" again in the book - it is commonly regarded as a problem with Atheism as a philosophy to provide a solid basis for morals (yes, there are a range of philosophies/world views connected to this belief).<br /><br />Still on the question of whether "religion" is a different realm to science, he ventures onto the issue of miracles. Was Jesus mother a virgin at his birth? Did Jesus come alive after three days after being crucified? "There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover them in practise".<br />Obviously I agree with him here. It's a very good question, which has vital relevance to Christianity. If the answers to these were demonstrably false, then I would be following Dawkins probably. As I might have already said, Paul makes it clear to the Corinthian church that the fact (or not) of Jesus resurrection is crucial. No resurrection, no Christianity. (By the way - I'm just picked up a sizable book on a historiography approach to the resurrection.)<br />Dawkins says "There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practise, and it is a strictly scientific answer". The first part I heartily agree, though on the second part I think it would the broadest possible definition of "science". It would mostly be the realm of historical research - did it/they happen? Though, I don't think Dawkins has seriously considered evidence for the resurrection.<br /><br />He has a go at many theologians who like the NOMA idea, but says they would jump up and down if they found "scientific evidence", instead of maintaining "religion" and "science" are different realms.<br />Yet, I think there is a more middle way, which I think Dawkins would possibly accept. That God is outside of direct scientific investigation, except where "he" enters into history (which is what Christians would argue). This would mean that "religions" would vary on the ability to prove or disprove them directly in relation to science etc, based on whether there are historical aspects that are central to them, like Christianity.<br /><br />Yet he goes on, "I suspect that alleged miracles provide the strongest reason many believers have for their faith." Hmmm, not sure this is true in my experience, if I understand him correctly. He doesn't mention whether they are the alleged miracles recorded in the Bible, or stories or experiences from their own life or time.<br />He continues with "Miracles by definition, violate the principles of science". I think here he is admitting his philosophical naturalism - that there is just the world, the universe and some "laws" governing it, yes, miracles are in contradiction to this, following David Hume.<br />But science doesn't prove there are laws in an absolute sense, and and it can't prove that there can't be variations or "violations" of the "laws". Science is, in one sense, humans attempts to find and explorer order, and our "laws" are simply our best description of the order we seem to find. Yet it is possible that we can fail at finding order. And I don't think anyone has given a reason why there should be an order to discover. Yet as we have already said, miracles can, in a historical sense, be analysed if they leave any evidence of happening. We can actually look for evidence of miracles because there is an order.<br />Now after all this, he makes his claim, that both the theistic and deistic God is a scientific hypothesis. Apart from the miracles aspect, he "reiterates" though he has varied his initial claim: "a universe in which we are alone except for other slowly evolved intelligences is a very different universe from from on with an original guiding agent whose intelligent design is responsible for its very existence". This seems to be closer to what I have heard as his main argument.<br />He will deal with this in his forth chapter, where he believes the argument to be "close to being terminally fatal to the God Hypothesis".<br /><br />But he doesn't want to go there now. He has a little go at what was called "The Great Prayer Experiment", the idea that if we do a study to see if prayer makes a difference, using control groups, for example people who are very sick or terminally ill etc. I hadn't heard of this one before, but tome it initially strikes as misunderstanding the nature of prayer, and treats God as a merely a genie in a bottle. Who says God wants to play ball, as if we can control him. He really wouldn't be God then.<br />This experiment didn't work obviously - there was no difference. Dawkins later quotes others that say that God would only answer prayers if they were offered for a good reason - which at least starts to go in the right direction. He then ventures very briefly onto the existence of suffering (why wouldn't good heal etc), and hints at some suggestions by Richard Swinburne that to him sound obnoxious: that there might be good reasons to allow suffering. I won't deal with it here, as Dawkins only touches on it, but to understand what the Bible says on the the topic of evil and suffering, one needs to see the big picture, and see what is says as a whole, and not take just one piece of the puzzle that might look odd by itself.<br /><br />But if God exists, why wouldn't he give us more evidence, Dawkins asks. Why doesn't he fill the world with miracles? He quotes one theologian, Richard Swinburne, as saying on one hand "there is quite a lot of evidence" but on the other hand "too much evidence might not be good for us". This is too much for Dawkins of course.<br />Maybe a few comments on this will suffice. First, if the world was filled with miracles then they wouldn't really be miracles by definition, since they would be the norm, or maybe there would be no "norm". Would that be greater evidence for God, or possibly point in the opposite direction?<br />Secondly, Swinburne might be implying that evidence is not really the problem - we are already biased and prejudiced. And maybe more evidence would further confirm us in the opposite direction. That's a question Dawkins might need to deal with. Why don't people accept the "truth" when it is obvious, what ever it is? Is the whole issue really just about evidence?<br />Also, what if the world is like the matrix, and the truth is there in the background if we look, but to do so goes against the system, and people are comfortable as they are, and blinded yet wilfully. This is an interesting idea to explore, but would need it's own post.<br /><br />I won't cover the last two topics of this chapter, as they don't even seem to me to really progress the argument, or else we will be here even longer than I planned.<br /><br />To try to summarise, Dawkins does believe this is a scientific question, that is possible to answer, but we will have to wait for Chapter 4 to see what he presents. But I don't think he is convincing that it is entirely "scientific". He also seems to stay away from more philosophical questions. Also it isn't clear if he is open to all possible evidence and reasoning, and how much his own possible biases lead away from God. Yet he is correct to admonish agnostics to the extent they are lazy in exploring the question and possible reasons and evidence. And it is good that he expects many questions to have answers, and at least in theory, wants to find evidence for or against, though he may be blind to evidence for God, as he does already seem biased against Christianity.<br /><br />The next chapter (3), he tackles arguments for God's existence, which might possibly be "non-scientific" evidence for God. It will be interesting to see what he does with it. I first tackle the "argument from scripture".<br />Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-7082623091247285452014-07-23T21:18:00.002+10:002014-08-12T22:23:18.946+10:00The God Delusion - The God Hypothesis Part 1<div style="text-align: justify;">
I looked at the previous chapter of The God Delusion <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-god-delusion-deeply-religious-non.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The next chapter of “The God Delusion,” which is "The God Hypothesis," seems to be Dawkins' brief survey of the different ideas about "God". I say "seems" as I don't know if I can encapsulate it in one succinct idea or flow of thought. Some of his ideas which are more random I will probably leave out or wait for a later post. I will deal with this chapter over two posts, as there is a reasonable division I can make in the ideas presented.<br />
Overall I think he is really looking at the "western" ideas for "God", and maybe we could say the western ideas about the “Christian” God. He also says the idea of God is a "scientific hypothesis", but I'll bring this up in the next post where I'll primarily deal with his thoughts on agnosticism, since that's his main audience for this “idea”.<br />
<br />
So in this post we will look at what he says on theism, since this where he goes first. He splits Theism into Polytheism and Monotheism.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
To introduce the topic of the significant different religious or "God" ideas, or ideas on “God”, he presents a nasty caricature of "The God of the Old Testament" (Christian “Old Testament” = Jewish Scriptures) . He gives another one a little later, to introduce monotheism specifically.<br />
Now, I understand how he gets there, especially given a modernist mindset, but I don't necessarily agree. Of course, a lot of it is by taking ideas out of context, and not seeing the big picture. One other thing I'll mention here, we need to take into account something that is common to humanity: the bias of not wanting God to tell you how to run your own life is often present, especially when confronted with a God that says he is the boss. Some of what Dawkins says appears to be reacting to this.<br />
I won't go into detail about his views now on “The God of the OT”, as he appears to discuss this in detail in a later chapter. So I'll wait till then to comment and see whether I think his criticism holds up.<br />
<br />
He then presents the idea of God he is rejecting, that<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Later in the chapter he adds to or "fleshes out" his God hypothesis to add the idea of a “personal God”, to accommodated "the Abrahamic God". </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (what ever that might mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded".</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He does differentiate deists as not believing in this sort of God, but deism is included in what he rejects, so in one sense he doesn't actually need to highlight this division.<br />
<br />
His alternative view that he advocates in this book is that:<br />
"any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution".<br />
I'll leave this to the next post to discuss it as it's more relevant there.<br />
<br />
After stating the "God Hypothesis", he quickly mentions his beliefs pertaining to both the foundation and evolution of the "God Hypothesis". I'll leave the foundation aspect to the next post, as it is more related to philosophical aspects, but the evolution one fits here as he relates it to polytheism and monotheism.<br />
<br />
Before looking at the different version of “God”, he presents a "theory" on religions' origins or developments. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Historians of religion recognise a progression from primitive tribal animisms, through polytheisms such as those of the Greeks, Romans, and Norsemen, to monotheisms such as Judaism and its derivatives, Christianity and Islam."</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The most recent idea I have heard from a “Historian of religion” went something like this: “Jesus” was invented by the Romans to create a pacifist Messiah to control the restless Jews in Palestine. (Dawkins does talk about the “historical” Jesus in the next chapter so we won't go into detail about that here.) This “pacifist Messiah” conspiracy theory, sounds like something a Marxist would make up (a couple of millennia too early), but I don't believe there is any evidence what so ever for this, let alone it being feasible. It does make me wonder (and also historian John Dickson wonder) – what sort of “historian” is a “historian of religion”? <br />
Back to Dawkins' “Historians of religion” theory – I don't think it is as bad as this “Historian of religion”, but it appears to be a vast generalisation, and a nice idea that may fit a few facts and cultures. He doesn't provide any evidence, or references to who has made the claim so it's hard to test it here. It is possibly an idea someone came up with in the 19th or early 20th century that has persisted popularly, despite various challenges.<br />
This idea also depends on when we think "monotheism" starts, for example whether the dates suggested for Abraham in the Bible are accepted or not, which gives quite early dates for Monotheism. Judaism isn't a late comer compared with the polytheistic Greeks or Romans. <br />
Also Christians and others would maintain that the first humans were Theists, and that polytheism followed it where this religion dropped off. The New Testament also predicts this is what happens. One might not accept the Bibles account entirely, but it is not as easy to push away this suggestion.<br />
And some claim that the further a culture is away from Christianity/Judaism the more it varies and degenerates to animism, since Animistic societies seem to be the ones most distance from the west. <br />
Also consider that recently some in the west are turning to Hinduism – going the opposite way from Dawkins' suggestion. Some Christians would contend that Roman Catholicism seems to become poly-theistic, as Dawkins himself also suggests as we will see. Or even sometimes Christianity gets mixed with more animistic beliefs <br />
Dawkins elsewhere says the next step from monotheism is to just subtract “one God further”, but consider the move from atheism or non-religion to Christianity in China in the last 40 years. Christianity has grown from numbering in the low millions, to the high tens of millions or even 100 million. Russia also could be considered, where atheism/ non-religion has also been in decline.<br />
Obviously the “History of Religions” is a lot more complicated than Dawkins suggests here.<br />
<br />
Dawkins then goes on to describe two categories of "god" ideas, really just the "theistic" ones. I think in his mind "deism" and "pantheism" was dealt with by the previous chapter (obviously western versions). <br />
Though he lists "American" deism under the section of secularism which we will look at in the next post.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dawkins first topic is polytheism.<br />
It seems that the only difference Dawkins sees between polytheism and monotheism is the number of "Gods". Obviously this is the literal difference, but he doesn't seem aware or has overlooked that polytheistic beliefs usually have a very different concept of "God". The differences seem to expand the closer you look. These gods often seem a lot more like us than as "God" is normally presented in monotheism. Also a lot of the older pagan religions seemed to often have a God for everything - a God for the rain, a God for the sun, a God for fertility (sexual and your crops). And if God is having a grumpy day or year, then we might not get our food. Or we might need to appease him in someway, or go to the shrine prostitutes to encourage "fertility".<br />
Maybe Dawkins lack of distinction is due to him believing that the “God” of monotheistic beliefs is very much like the "gods" of polytheism, which are more readily criticised for being unscientific e.g. we know how the weather works now - we don't need a God for it any more. It seems more understandable then when he says "It is not clear why the change from polytheism to monotheism should be assumed to be a self-evidently progressive improvements" since in his mind it would all be the same, just a fewer number to have to worry about. <br />
Dawkins says that he doesn't want to take the time to go into all the nuances that he says exist: "Having gestured towards polytheism to cover myself against a charge of neglect, I will say no more about it".<br />
But the "Theism" that is rejected in response to "science" now presenting all the answers, does seem to be that of Polytheism, not mono-theism. In contrast, it is the mono-theism of Christianity that is the world-view responsible for the growth of western science, to many the surprise of many.<br />
<br />
Under polytheism he mentions Hinduism, probably the most obvious and common one that Westerners come in contact with today. Dawkins does suggest that Hinduism could be interpreted as monotheism – all these God's are manifestations of the one “God”. He may have tapped on the fact that there is not quite one version of Hinduism (and Hinduism was a western name to label for what Indians generally believed). As to it being interpreted as “monotheism”, taking a deeper look, it is actually quite pantheistic. The idea being that Brahman is the all encompassing, and that to reach nirvana is to escape back to Brahman, the ultimately reality. If anything, it is closest to the "force" of Star Wars.<br />
This actually makes it further separated from monotheism, where God is distinct and “other”. It doesn't appear that Dawkins is aware of eastern religious “pantheistic” versions of “God”, but only associates “pantheism” with the more western philosophical versions, as I think I mentioned in a previous post.<br />
<br />
He then picks up on Christianity, which later he calls a monotheistic sect of Judaism, but here he is bracketing it with polytheism. He seems to be implying that Christianity could actually be regarded as "Polytheism", because Jesus is said to be God and because of the concept of the “Trinity”. To the outsider it might look like Jesus is a different God and we will look at this in a moment. But Dawkins also goes further to highlight how in Roman Catholicism, Mary the mother of Jesus seems to be treated in an almost God-like fashion, even being called the "Queen of Heaven". Combining this with the practise of making "saints" (though in the Bible the term saint is merely used as a term for a Christian in general), it seems even more justified. Many Protestant Christians would tend to agree with Dawkins here in relation to these Roman Catholic ideas, especially with the practise of prayer to and veneration of Mary and the "Saints". Interestingly, if monotheistic Judaism has turned into a polytheistic Christianity, then this actually contradicts his previous comment about the history of religious progress from polytheism to monotheism.<br />
In the case of Roman Catholicism, non-biblical ideas and practises have crept in over time, sometimes influenced or mixed with other cultural or religious ideas.<br />
<br />
On the issue of the “Trinity” he brings up the fourth century issue relating to a guy called Arius as an example of splitting hairs, and the rivers of medieval ink and blood, in relation to ideas about God.<br />
I think he particular picks up on this issues, because the idea of Jesus being God seems to imply to him multiple Gods (though Christianity denies this), and to him he doesn't see the difference, and why it should matter.<br />
<br />
On the issue "Arianism" and Arius of Alexandria, his idea was that the Son was the greatest and first creation of God, perfect, but not quite divine, but on the other hand he wasn't a human. This is quite different to the popular summary of the council that it was about whether Jesus was merely a human or in fact God. As Athanasius argued at the council and in relation to Arianism, this renders Christianity apart. For if Jesus is not God, then he cannot save us - one creature dying in place of all the others - doesn't quite work - hypothetically he could only be the substitute for one possibly, and then permanently so, so no resurrection either. What is more, to worship him like Thomas, "My Lord and my God", would be idolatry, if he wasn't God. Also, if Jesus wasn't a man, then he can't be a substitute for us, nor can he sympathise with humans in our suffering, as the book of Hebrews also says.<br />
It wasn't as some have said (like in The Da Vinci Code) that Arius was following different gospels. They were debating about the meaning of the scriptures that they already had, and how to hold Jesus humanity and divinity together, which were both presented in the gospels.<br />
<br />
There are some aspects that Dawkins doesn't mention, that are not as commonly known. All but 2 out of 318 (not including Arius) were in favour of the statement that has become known as the Nicene Creed, confirming Jesus divinity. The Da Vinci Code's suggests it was a close vote (and it's wrong or misleading on almost all the aspects of the Council). Yet Emperor Constantine preferred Arianism, and at a later stage ordered the church to receive Arius back into the fold. The next couple of "Christian" Emperors, besides the pagan Julian, were also Arians and tried to influence the church back to Arianism. Obviously it wasn't good that the emperors were involved with religion, whether for or against Christianity etc, and their behaviour was obviously not in-line with how Christians should behave, even if they did see themselves as Christians. Yet, having "Christian" Emperors did mean that wide spread persecutions of Christians was eliminated in much of Europe, instead of the "non-Christian" emperors who were largely happy to persecute Christians. <br />
Christianity from the start was not political, and Paul was explicit in repudiating dubious means for commending Christianity (let alone persecuting those who didn't accept). That it got brought into politics is unfortunate.<br />
One thing that Dawkins gets explicitly wrong is suggesting that Constantine made Christianity the official religion. This was done later by Theodosius I.<br />
<br />
For him the concept of the “Trinity” seems like an easy target involving "unintelligible propositions" and only worthy of ridicule, as Thomas Jefferson said. I suspect he just may not want to do any hard work thinking about Christianity. Yet other areas of knowledge have their own difficult concepts such as Quantum Mechanics. For example. Is an electron a particle or actually a wave? Is a photon a wave of is it actually a particle?<br />
Areas of mathematics take a lot of work to understand even for those who are good at it. It took me a while to understand and appreciate the concepts of continuity and limits. And then abstract metric spaces. There are many mathematical constructs and ideas which don't have simple or real life examples. Why should the Trinity be assumed illogical? Do we assume that God should necessarily be easy to comprehend in his nature? If there is only one God who is transcendent, then some level of difficulty comprehending and describing him should be expected.<br />
<br />
I can understand Dawkins not wanting think about the “Trinity” in detail, as he is happy just to reject the idea of God in general (in a Theistic sense mainly), and sees Polytheism and Monotheism as small differences. <br />
Yet, so much for splitting hairs, it also differentiates Christianity from the monotheism of Islam, and modern Judaism, as well as polytheism, and makes many aspects of Christianity logically possible.<br />
On some of the issues pitted against the idea of God, the Trinity makes quite a difference. For example it means God can be love and relational and knowable, compared with God in Islam who is not really knowable (deistic?) and not "love". It also enables different "answers" on the "problem of suffering", a topic that is usually very important to Atheists. <br />
It is a pity he doesn't work harder to know his opposition better, since he says that Christianity's "God" is the main one that he is rejecting.<br />
<br />
To finish off the topic of polytheism and Trinity he deals with a common rebuttal to his arguments:<br />
"'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't' believe in either. I don't believe in an old man in the sky with a long white beard.' ..[but] what the speaker really believes is not a whole lot less silly".<br />
Yet, why does he then attack the worst or the weakest ideas. Shouldn't he be engaging with the best expression or form of the ideas or religion he opposes - that would make his case more convincing.<br />
On one hand he says "I am attacking God, all gods". He really then needs to only reject God in "general" to prove his point, not reject a couple of instances he really doesn't like. It raises a good question – why does he need to spend time detailing specifics of religions, and issues in society related to them. It doesn't really validate his argument if he is only rejecting the “concept” of God for primarily “scientific” reasons. Is his general argument not strong enough?<br />
On the other hand he says the "Christian God" is the one is primarily rejecting, yet he doesn't take Jesus seriously.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the Bible is quite clear that people will reject God as he is, and make their own gods of their own liking, in their own images, hence we have "gods" that are simply a projection of their culture, as were the ones that surrounded Israel (as Tim Keller puts it). These gods were "under control" of the temple system and ultimately the king, and you could use money to buy blessings etc. The Western view is that all "gods" fit this bill and rejected as ideas made from the culture, yet the Bible maintains that its God isn't under our control, that he is transcendent and different. He does not match our thinking. This is part of the reason why Christian's reject almost as many God's as Dawkins.<br />
<br />
Interesting after he spends 5 pages on polytheism (and the trinity) he then spends only two on monotheism which is the main one he rejects. But I guess he is criticising Christianity or the Bible most of the time in the book anyway, it's just less organised that way.<br />
When he gets to monotheism, he takes the popularised idea of some that Christianity was invented by Paul of Tarsus. This is probably why he doesn't bother with Jesus. But it is a view that doesn't sit well with the evidence if the time is taken to fully digest it. Part of this view (if he has actually given the New Testament a good read) may stem from it being easier to extract "theology" from the letters of Paul, mainly because they were letters sent to instruct and teach in Christians, where as the gospels are primarily narrative, longer and have a more subtle structure. More recently there has been a greater appreciation for the theology of the gospels. It may have been lost for a while because of the modernist tendency to lose confidence in gospels, but this is no longer the case. Also, the idea of Jesus being God is most clearly portrayed in the Gospel of John. John makes his purpose in writing explicit: "these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name". Many examples could be enumerated to demonstrate the concordance between Paul and the other New Testament books. I think he has just picked up a nice sounding idea from a century or so ago, which has lingered on by those who reject Christianity, but I don't believe is maintained by many who seriously study the New Testament these days.<br />
<br />
He then goes onto the topic of how Christianity became so popular. He says Christianity was spread by the sword, but doesn't present any argument or example here. I think he just taking another popular idea that is often readily accepted. People who talk about this usually have the crusades in mind, and maybe the inquisitions. I haven't seen any other good case made for it. Spreading “Christianity” by the sword is directly contrary to what the Bible says.<br />
For example, Paul was quite clear on his motives and means “the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you.” and “You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed” (see 1 Thessalonians). While in Corinth, he worked as a tent-maker to provide for himself, while he preached in the synagogues etc. The culture of the time tended to have the view that you were worth something if you could demand a good income from your speaking, but Paul did the opposite, to demonstrate the importance of his message, in contrast to himself.<br />
And Jesus said “be wise as serpents but innocent as doves”, and “turning the other cheek”, and “love your enemies, and praying for those who persecute you”, in contrast to “hating your enemies”. Also you can't make someone a “real” Christian by force anyway – they need to change on the inside. You can't force them to actually love Jesus.<br />
The Crusades themselves are a complex issue with opinions on it divided it seems. Also it was mainly in reaction to what had already been done to spread Islam, and to take back Jerusalem. (And the inquisitions weren't so much about it spreading anyway – not that I agree with the inquisitions – real Christians and people who wanted to read the Bible were burned at the stake too, as well as Bible's being burned).<br />
The spreading by sword obviously didn't happen before Constantine, yet Christianity from its birth had initially grown rapidly under heavy persecution for almost three centuries. And still a lot of real Christianity was definitely not spread by the sword during the time of Christendom as well. It may also be a bit closer to the truth to say "Christendom was spread by the sword". <br />
Dawkins says that it was later spread by colonialists. I don't know if this is true as a generalisation either - history again is complex. But, in at least some cases this was not true. In relation to India, till 1813 evangelism was prohibited in British colonies (lets just make money off them). This ban was overturned by the British parliament through the pushing of William Wilberforce, who was also greatly concerned with the existing practise in India of "Suttee" where a widow is burned on the funeral pyre of her husband. The "modern" mission movement was not tied to colonialism. One thinks of the examples of William Carey (India) and Hudson Taylor (China). Hudson Taylor is especially significant as he adopted much of Chinese dress and culture. Consider also the spread of Christianity in China after the Cultural Revolution, despite the opposition and persecution from the Communists.<br />
<br />
To summarise. It's a pity that he just tries to laugh at the Trinity, yet it is a significant idea, especially from a philosophical point of view (more of this later).<br />
He says he is mainly rejecting Christianity, yet he rejects a caricature, then says he doesn't want to deal with the God people do actually believe in, since he is rejecting “God in general”. <br />
Again why does he even need to make an attempt at attacking Christianity, yet without understanding it or history around it properly or in detail. It would be better that he do it properly or not at all. If his general argument doesn't really depend on the exact idea of God, but on science, so why bother with all this – it just makes his whole argument weaker.<br />
<br />
I think we get more onto the Dawkins “scientific” or possibly “philosophical” argument of this <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-god-delusion-god-hypothesis-part-2.html" target="_blank">next</a>.<br />
<br /></div>
Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-36309471516591906932014-07-16T22:00:00.001+10:002014-07-24T21:28:58.776+10:00Hallucinations and the Resurrection of JesusI've been doing more thinking about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus recently, especially after a video call with a world expert on this, Mike Licona.<br />
<br />
An aspect of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, that I hadn't thought about in detail until recently, is how feasible the theory of hallucinations are as an explanation for the "resurrection appearances" presented in the gospels.<br />
<br />
Previously my main consideration was that the empty tomb and other aspects need to be explained, which hallucinations don't deal with. But are hallucinations useful, or even the best explanations for the records of Jesus' disciples accounts of seeing (and talking to) a "Resurrected Jesus".<br />
<br />
Since the video call with Mike Licona, I have bought his book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196" target="_blank">The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach</a>". Written primarily at an academic level and at 700 or so pages, I haven't managed to read all of it. He does consider in detail, and pass through a 5 fold test a number of hypotheses, some of which include hallucinations and/or delusions (and similar) to account for some of the historical bedrock, the "historical facts that are regarded as virtual indisputable".<br />
<br />
I won't give an overview of the book here - that would be a large enough task - though I may some time (once I have read all of it!). But recently I came across an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/04/16/3986403.htm" target="_blank">article</a> by John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, who asks the question: "Eliminating the Impossible: Can a Scientist believe the Resurrection?" Lennox also engages "hallucination theories", and provides a number of more succinct points against them.
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Firstly he deals with the number of appearances, and the variety of occasions :<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But it is not only the number of eyewitnesses who actually saw the risen Christ that is significant. It is also the widely divergent character of those eyewitnesses, and the different places and situations in which Christ appeared to them. For instance, some were in a group of eleven in a room, one was by herself in a garden, a group of fishermen were by the sea, two were travelling along a road, others on a mountain. It is this variety of character and place that refutes the so-called hallucination theories.</blockquote>
Also what we can know from various studies on hallucinations goes against it: <br />
<blockquote>
Psychological medicine itself witnesses against these explanations. Hallucinations usually occur to people of a certain temperament, with a vivid imagination. But Matthew was a hard-headed, shrewd tax-collector; Peter and some of the others, tough fishermen; Thomas, a born sceptic; and so on. They were not the sort of people one normally associates with susceptibility to hallucinations.<br />
<br />
Again, hallucinations tend to be of expected events. But none of the disciples was expecting to meet Jesus again. The expectation of Jesus's resurrection was not in their minds at all. Instead, there was fear, doubt and uncertainty - exactly the wrong psychological preconditions for a hallucination.<br />
<br />
Hallucinations usually recur over a relatively long period, either increasing or decreasing. But the appearances of Christ occurred frequently, over a period of forty days, and then abruptly ceased. Hallucinations, moreover, do not occur to groups and yet Paul claims 500 people saw Jesus at once.</blockquote>
Another similar aspect that Mike Licona raises, is that hallucinations tend to only be in one form of media, e.g. visual or aural, but not multiple. And visual ones don't go away when you turn "away". The disciples on various occasions saw Jesus, talked with him (and heard him), and also touched him and ate with him.<br />
<br />
One significant aspect that Lennox doesn't highlight, but but Mike Licona did in the video phone call to a bunch of us in Melbourne. If pieces of evidence are "cards" in your hand of differing value, then Paul is an "Ace" compared with some other aspects which he regards as 10's or Jack's. Paul, who while he was called Saul and persecuting the early Church, was the last person you would expect to hallucinate about a Risen Jesus. Jesus was the last person he wanted (or expected) to see.<br />
<br />
Also Paul gives a very early written account, which he had received much earlier from the apostles in the form of a of a summary statement of accounts of witnesses to Jesus Resurrection- but this one, being significant in itself is one for another post.<br />
<br />
I'm looking forward to hearing John Lennox, when he visits Melbourne in August, though his topic will be more about Science and God, rather then Christianity explicitly. See here for the main Melbourne <a href="http://cosmicchemistry.org.au/" target="_blank">event</a>.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-36973922038938729742014-03-12T21:43:00.000+11:002014-07-23T23:50:45.140+10:00The God Delusion - A deeply religious non-believer<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dawkins first chapter proper of "The God Delusion" takes a look at people he says are "deeply religious". It seems he is calling himself a "deeply religious non-believer". ( I looked at the Preface <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-god-delusion-preface-part2.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He groups the "deeply religious" into two categories - those who "deserve respect" and those who don't.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He starts off with two stories. One of a boy who looks up at the sky and the wonders of the universe and has a "religious experience" that lead him to "God" and the Anglican priesthood. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He then considers another boy, who "could have been me", looking up at the stars being dazzled by the constellations, and having another experience which might have lead to another conclusion: that "all was produced by laws acting around us".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He states of the experience, "A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists."<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously he can't (or doesn't think it is useful to) deny this experience which many take to point to God. But says, "It has no connection with the supernatural". He doesn't mount an argument here, except seeming to suggest we should realise it is just the "laws acting around us". </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe he doesn't realise, but to me this raises a number of the questions: "Why should there be laws and not chaos," and "Where do these laws come from?" And since they do exist, do they somehow exist in their own right, or are simple the order with which God created and sustains the universe.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In connection to the "religious experience", Christians wouldn't be surprised:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19">Psalm 19:1-3</a>) <span class="indent-1">
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Interesting enough, Scientists of previous generations, were in encouraged by their Christian world view to look for order and understand the order in which God had set up the world. I also know a biology scientist who said they were blown away by the wonders they saw as they delved deeper into the intricacies of the human body during their research and studying.<br />
<br />
He later quotes Carl Sagan about religion's perceived short coming in this area:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said." ... instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god ...". A religion, old or new, that stresses the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is interesting that Dawkins and Sagan both missed what the Bible has to offer on this. I think there is an assumption that because in Christianity, humans are seen as the highest creation, that it means our universe is little (since we are little), but the Bible points in the other direction. Creation is all about God, and the size and magnificence of the universe is saying something about God. As David says,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lord, our Lord,<br />
how majestic is your name in all the earth!<br />
You have set your glory<br />
in the heavens. ...<br />
When I consider your heavens,<br />
the work of your fingers,<br />
the moon and the stars,<br />
which you have set in place,<br />
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,<br />
human beings that you care for them? <br />
<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+8" target="_blank">Psalm 8:1,3-4 </a></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's why many Christians are encouraged to go into science as we learn how marvellous a creation God has made, it does drive us to awe and reverence as Sagan suggests, but the Bible encourages and expects it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The transcendence of God in Isaiah 40 is also an encouragement to the Israelites in captivity in Babylon that they shouldn't fear the nations and their power, since they are "drop in the bucket" compared to God. And Psalm 147: "<span class="text Ps-147-4" id="en-NIV-16356">He determines the number of the stars</span><span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Ps-147-4">and calls them each by name." When we then find out there are more stars then we ever imagined it should blow our minds about God.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why are Dawkins and Sagan mistaken here about Christianity? Firstly, I imagine their lack of acquaintance with a lot of what the Bible says. Also maybe it's their stereotype of religions, and also their assumed origin - that all there religious are about local deities that owned a certain group of people, and were just a projection of that culture. I think Dawkins may come to this topic later.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He then starts to talk about a number of non-believers, especially scientists, who use the word God, or seem "religious", but don't actually believe in God in the Theistic sense. His goal it seems, is that he doesn't want religious people to think these famous scientists are on their side. Einstein for example. It does seem clear from his quotes that Einstein is not a Theist: in Einstein's words, "not a personal God". But I'm not sure Dawkins does enough to make it clear whether Einstein is a Deist, pantheist or, really an Atheist. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He then says of these scientists etc. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They may not believe but, to borrow Dan Dennett's phrase, they 'believe in belief'.</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I think I have heard this phrase before, but often it seems to be a criticism of Christians or the religious in general, that they believe in belief - meaning, they believe in things you can't prove, or that by believing in something it becomes real, or real to them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To real Christians this is funny. Belief is not necessarily good or bad. But believing in belief is good? As if believing in something for the sake of it doesn't seem to have any value. Christians would say they believe things because they have become convinced (through reasoning, evidence, analysis, experience etc), that what they believe is true.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again Paul argued from evidence why the Corinthians believers should believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 15</a>), and Peter, not long after Jesus death, resurrection and ascension, when speaking to a crowd of visitors to the Jewish feasts, alludes to facts they knew, to help prove his case, " ... <span class="text Acts-2-22" id="en-NIV-26972">Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, <b>as you yourselves know</b></span>" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:14-41" target="_blank">Acts 2</a>)</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He later goes on to show the big deal over Einstein's beliefs and many letters written from other people upset with what it seems Einstein had said. It is a pity he doesn't quote the strongest opposition, but the weakest which confirm his suspicions. One "believer" says, "As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge". Now, there is some truth in this but not what people think. If we take it to mean faith without good reason - then no. But if we take faith to mean trust, dependency, then there is a sense in which it is true. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When we trust something or someone to do something, then we are depending on their reliability regarding the matter. If we sit on a chair then we are depending on it. Before we do it, we don't have the "knowledge" as to whether it will break and collapse, or hold our weight. But we might have good reasons to "believe" that it will. We might trust a friend to do something, but whether they are they reliable or not is the question, are they deserving of trust.<br />
The only sense it might be good to "trust", is to give a friend the benefit of the doubt, to enable the friendship to grow. You choose to trust despite </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is also a sense in which Christians don't have "knowledge", and have "faith", if we take "knowledge" to mean seeing the final results. A good example is heaven, and any rewards we might obtain there. We don't actually see it, but we might have faith in God, that he is faithful to his promises. Do we have good evidence that both God exist and that he can be trusted to keep his word? There are a lot of assumptions people might see in this of course - but the question is evidence, and reason, do we have good reason or not. We may have good reason, but we don't actually see what we are hoping for yet. Dawkins would say no of course, but Christians might argue we have good reasons - we then have to look at the evidence - but that is another chapter for Dawkins.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dawkins then makes clear his working definitions of Theism, Deism and Pantheism. Theism has a God who creates then is still "around to oversee and influence the fate of his creation" as well as do things like answer prayers, punish sins etc. intervenes and performs miracles. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Deism in his words has a God who sets "up the laws that govern the universe", but doesn't interview after that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I and many other Christians would probably says that in Theism and probably Deism, God should be thought of also "sustaining" the creation, in the sense that the "laws" which are God's order continue to exist and have effect. In Deism God's only interaction is "natural" in the sense of continuing to order it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pantheism here is defined has God as a synonyms for nature and the laws that govern it. In his terms "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism". I would suggest that Pantheism in regard to Eastern religions, implies there is no separation between God and the universe, instead of with Theism and Deism, God is separate and distinct. He seems to be following a more western philosophical version, especially since he mentions Spinoza, though he seems unaware of "religious" versions of it. I think this makes a difference when we come to discuss some of the religions in the next chapter.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I still wonder why he wants to even elevate some sort of "religiosity". He quotes Einstein again, "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious." Dawkins adds "In this sense I too am religious".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What Dawkins seems to not like is anything supernatural. To him if he can have his version of religious feelings without a supernatural being is good, or to be respected. It leaves me wondering. Why should these feelings be normal? Could it indeed be a clue that we were made for something more?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He then moves on to that which shouldn't be respected. He makes a preliminary comment that many will be offended, "but it would be a shame if this stopped them from reading on." He then comments that there is an expectation in much of society that "religion" should be respected, with which he obviously disagrees. I would follow him here. "Religion" should be open to criticism. He might also be identifying what we might call "Political correctness". An interesting question is where political correctness comes from? Is it, as Dawkins might be implying, that religion needs special status, because it is about things you cannot prove or disprove.<br />
This need for "respected" might be a fruit of "post-modernism" which tends to lead to "philosophical relativity". Post-modernism in regards to epistemology (knowing or finding out things) would say we can't find the truth on anything since everything is subjective (this might be too much of a caricature of "post modernism", as one person said, describing it as anything but as a caricature or hopeless simplifications is like trying to wrestle jelly underwater). And Philosophical relativism that results, would say there is no absolute truth, there is just what is true for me and what is true for you, so you can't say I am wrong.<br />
Both these actually fall down, and don't
seem to be as popular in peoples thinking. It seems that these ideas
were gaining prominence in the later 20th Century, though maybe not so as much now. One history
lecturer I know implied this thinking was on the way out, especially in
light of the popularity of TV shows like CSI, where you can use
"evidence" to determine the "truth".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To me and other Christians, this relativity which needs respect seems an affront to Christianity, which claims to be absolutely true. It tends to stem from people wanting their own preferred personal version of the truth, which is really made in their own image, not some "Truth" with a capital "T" from out there.<br />
I can understand why Dawkins thinks this "respect" is bad as he sees people wanting to keep being Christian and be free of criticism despite, in his view, the evidence opposed to it. If these "versions" of Christianity are devoid of a historical crucified and risen Jesus, then there are not real Christianity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I do find, especially in Australia, that there isn't much respect for religion, or it might be that there isn't respect for Christianity. It does seem some other religious, notably Islam, seem to need to be "respected", at least in sections of the media.<br />
I do agree with Dawkins that any "world-view" or religion should be open to criticism. And any climate which rejects careful investigation is at odds with Christianity. Yet the Bible also predicts this will happen when people choose a different path: people will gather around them others that say what they want to hear. Give western society's drift from Christian belief for the last 2 centuries it is not too surprising.<br />
<br />
He continues to list situations where he sees religion as having a privileged place. I don't really see this now in Australia. It often seems the opposite.<br />
Interesting - he brings up the issue of "hate speech", and that religion has an unfair place in being excused from restriction here. But there are places were a "versions" of the laws restricting it are in place, for example in Victoria, Australia. But the problematic part of the law, is that it is as broad as restricting scenarios where one has only caused offence, and that matter of motive is irrelevant. Or worse are the blasphemy laws in counties such as Pakistan, which are often used to abuse and hurt minority groups.<br />
On this point he gets close to saying religion has a freedom of speech that it shouldn't, though he doesn't use the words "freedom of speech".<br />
It is interesting that his main point seems to be that we should be free to criticise religion (he cites Salman Rushdie, and the recent uproar about a Danish cartoonist that raised the ire of many Muslims), but he gets close to contradicting that here. <br />
Is he concerned more about freedom of speech, including the ability to debate and critique religion or is he concerned for limiting freedoms of religion?<br />
<br />
To summarise, I do generally follow his section on the problems with "respecting" religion. We need to be able to critique it and discuss it without threat. On the other hand we should respect people as people, but not necessarily their ideas, including religions etc. I do find puzzling his request for the respect he desires for the religious "non-believer", or respect for their "religiousness", yet he doesn't expected the same for "believers".<br />
<br />
My next post looking at the next chapter "The God Hypothesis" is <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-god-delusion-god-hypothesis-part-1.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-40198634669857779452014-02-23T20:50:00.002+11:002014-07-23T23:51:58.883+10:00The God Delusion - Preface, Part2<div style="text-align: justify;">
I started talking about the preface of The God Delusion <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-god-delusion-preface.html" target="_blank">here</a>, so lets know get down into it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I won't go into too much detail
about the preface of "The God Delusion", especially as Dawkins is mostly
just introducing his ideas, and giving an overview of the chapters to
follow, but it is worthwhile picking up on a few things, and also listing down some of my
thoughts and expectations about what is to follow.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Also he doesn't seem to lay down his main thesis till the start of the second chapter, so I'll wait till then to discuss it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And also
I probably won't list all that is in his book, but concentrate mainly on the content I am
most interested in discussing, or is most significant. I could comment on all 400 pages or so,
but we would be here till Christmas (or longer, given the speed of my
writing).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
In the preface, after his opening request to consider changing what you believe, he
makes the comment that Religion is not the "root" of all evil for "No
one thing is the root of all evil". He does want to be fair it seems,
and not overstate his case by saying "Religion is the root". But can he and will he demonstrate or prove there is no root to evil. It seems like it is just given. It prompts the question: where does evil come from? From us? Where, then?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He also wants us to "Imagine the World without religion".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a side point,
Christians don't like calling Christianity a religion - as that implies rules and regulations, ceremony, trying to impress God and earn his favour (or
more crudely prove your zealousness).<br />
He lists a few evils he associates with religion e.g. Crusades, Serb/Croat/Massacre, suicide bombers. Interestingly enough, the first Suicide
bombers were not "religious". </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is sad that these things of happened, and our desire is that then never did.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But
is removing religion the solution. Some might say, especially of
Christianity, it happened despite Christianity, not because of it. As
others have said, many of those wicked deeds committed in the name of
Jesus had their cause not in the perpetrators following Jesus too zealously, but that they didn't "love" and follow
Jesus seriously enough. They didn't really take him seriously at all, if you see what he was really on about.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the other hand we still have WWI and
II and many other events that are clearly not linked to religion, we still divide over race. And religion is often tied
heavily to culture, which is often the larger root to many alleged
religious conflicts, so will removing religion make much a difference?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe Dawkin's argument will be nuanced enough to include much of these complicating factors. We will have to wait and see.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
Not that I'm saying "religion" is necessarily good either. Jesus himself would criticise the common religious Islamic practise, for
example, the clothing laws for women, which don't really
real with the evil of lust
and its fruit (Mark 7:1ff). He was critical of the religion of his day
and the religious leaders. And they didn't like him, and wanted to get
rid of him, and they ultimately did.<br />
<br />
He then gives short overview or his chapters.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Chapter 9 gets a longer mention, where he speaks of his disagreement with calling some one, for example, a "Muslim child" instead of child of
Muslim parents, since they don't really have a choice in the matter yet. I am sympathetic to his thought here, and I'm aware of it being even worse. In many Islam dominant countries people can't stop being a
Muslim, and children are said to have the father's religion (until 18)
even if the the mother is Christian and they believe this themselves.
They then have the official change religion at 18 even though they never
did.<br />
He also mentions the connected issue of indoctrination. I am interesting on seeing how he defines and handles this. And also why his Atheism might be immune to it. I have the experience in a university lecture of what seems to be indoctrination, by way of a Biology lecturer telling us point blank that God didn't create us. The lecturer didn't provide any reasoning,
justification or evidence, nor did he consider that evolution doesn't disprove God in general.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Interestingly, while discussing the idea of a new word for a religious delusion "relusion", he quotes "Phillip E Johnson" who also recognises "Darwinism" is seen as a "liberator" from this "delusion".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I
have read some of Johnson's work - Johnson, himself is a Christian, and has written some penetrating books (e.g. Darwin on Trial). He tends to be more against
Philosophical Naturalism (belief that nature is all there is etc) though also
argues that Material Evolution has a long way to go in proving its case.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dawkins gives his own definition of delusion: " a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of the psychiatric disorder". In applying this to religion, his
ideas of course are not that new. It seems that he is
following the western modernist assumption, that religious is about
"blind" faith and not evidence. Yet we have Paul in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 15</a> actually employing logic and evidence in his argument about Jesus bodily resurrection from the dead, and the logical consequences if he didn't
rise, and criticises the Corinthian Christians for being contradictory, in this regard. Not what Dawkins would expect of the Bible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To close, he states his intention for the book, that "religious readers who open it will be
atheists when they put it down". He predicts that many won't, especially
those very well indoctrinated from childhood. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my experience, many "indoctrinated" people are the weakest and easiest to change. I
also see that many people stop being religious when the arrive at
Uni... they often are working out for themselves what they believe (e.g.
is what I grew up with true, in relation to all these other ideas and
peoples beliefs). They are thrown into a big pool where there are a lot
of people different from them. Many actually become stronger in their beliefs when they are tested and tried. Many also who weren't Christians, decide to check it out for themselves, instead of listening to what the dominant culture or parents said about it.<br />
<br />
My next post is <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-god-delusion-deeply-religious-non.html" target="_blank">here</a>, where I start on the book proper.</div>
Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-37819219189975902472014-02-20T20:42:00.000+11:002014-02-23T20:51:48.266+11:00The God Delusion - Preface<div style="text-align: justify;">
I mentioned here that I have just started reading <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-god-delusion.html" target="_blank">The God Delusion</a><br />
<br />
Before I go into detail about the preface, I just want to pick up on his first few paragraphs and also relate it to some of my early experiences.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He starts the book with a story about how a child hated her school when growing up, and only made it known as an adult. Her mother, aghast, said, "Why didn't you tell us". The now adult child said, "I didn't know I could". She didn't know she could complain or do anything about it, or even change schools (as an illustration of changing religions/beliefs).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Dawkins admits that that was him. He didn't know either that he could change his mind, change his "religion".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I sympathise with him. Not so much from my own experience, but what could have happened. If I had been in a different situation, in a different country, culture, with an upbringing and religion that I wanted to reject - then yes. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But I don't think I was in the same sort of situation. I think I had an awareness that you could change. I remember that I was aware at some stage before aged ten that people had different beliefs, not all were Christians, and that you could be one or not. I was also aware at least in late primary school that all of my school friends
were not Christians, or might have only been nominal Christians. I'm not
sure the exact categories I had at that age, but my friends were definitely different from me and my
family.<br />
At age 10 I saw the need to be serious about Jesus, that there was a need to me to make a change of sorts. Being a follower of Jesus wasn't a matter of going to church, doing good etc, but was a personal commitment, to turn away from sin, and to trust in him to save me by his death on the cross. I was aware that this life was not all there was, and that eternity was spent either in heaven or hell. And this was something I could talk to my parents about.<br />
Well, I became a Christian in my mind at that point. Possibly in Dawkins terms, I have already been indoctrinated, but I think we will come to this later - there seems to be a chapter on it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Getting back to Dawkins: his point, after saying he didn't know he could change, is that this could be you. You didn't know you could change, or don't know there are very good reasons to doubt Christianity (in his thinking), or religion in general. Maybe I haven't considered enough the opposite view, that Christianity is wrong, or bad, or both. Maybe I have a lot to learn, that there is a whole other way of thinking. <br />
Or on the other-hand, maybe Dawkins hasn't really understood Christianity at all, and he has only rejected his misconception of it, and that he has merely multiplied clever arguments in his favour. <br />
We shall see.<br /><br />The next post looking at the preface is <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-god-delusion-preface-part2.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-55780207961157783912014-02-16T23:16:00.001+11:002014-02-20T23:02:37.273+11:00The God Delusion<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've recently obtained a copy of "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins for free.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A work colleague had apparently run out of space at home and had a few books to off load. Good thing I trotted off quickly to his cubical, as two of the books were already gone (to people in his cubicle), and a moment after I had arrived and confirmed by interest, another person came over to claim it too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My friend joked with me a bit about whether it was worth giving it to me or not, knowing my faith. I later joked that I wouldn't let anyone else have it, as it was too dangerous a book. Or maybe I should just stick a big warning sign on it, before I let others read it - but hey, I think I'm getting ahead of myself, I haven't read it yet, so maybe I should wait to the end to decide what to do, whether to burn it or not ( ;P). I shouldn't believe all the hype, innuendo and criticism etc about the book, until I have check it out in full for myself. This indeed might contain previously untold revelations, it might be the book to redeem me from my religion, to rescue me from the dogma I have obviously been brainwashed into ... sorry getting ahead of myself again.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My friend and I thought it would be a good idea to discuss the book as I read through it. I pointed out that a common acquaintance, Robert Martin, who runs <a href="http://citybibleforum.org/city/melbourne" target="_blank">City Bible Forum</a> in Melbourne, had recently started blogging his way through a book "The Moral Landscape," by Sam Harris, another "New Atheist", <a href="http://atheistforum.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/the-moral-landscape-challenge/" target="_blank">taking up the challenge</a> Sam more recently gave.<br />
After showing the blog to my friend, I said I wouldn't be able to do that, it would be too much, and I don't usually have the time (and I might add, English, especially expression is not my forte. I'm more of a numbers and logic person myself). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well here I am, mainly because I wanted to do a reasonable job at interacting with the ideas, and that I have already written about ten pages (small pages not A4) in a note book from reading the preface and half of the first chapter. I'm sure many others have already done this, and a better job e.g. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Veritas/dp/0830837213/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1390637086" target="_blank">here</a>, but here goes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My next post on the topic is <a href="http://magicmalcs.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-god-delusion-preface.html" target="_blank">here</a> where I start to have a look at the book.</div>
Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-37037667210742573832011-12-24T00:00:00.109+11:002011-12-24T22:50:57.888+11:00Tim Minchin and his take on JesusInteresting article on a guy who has made some comedy out of Jesus and his special Supernatural abilities and other uncommon events of his life.<br />
http://www.theage.com.au/world/offensive-minchin-cut-from-uk-christmas-show-20111223-1p82c.html<br />
You can see the performance here: http://www.timminchin.com/<br />
<br />
Not sure how well he actually knows the Bible, but any way:<br />
As to Jesus being a Zombie<br />
<ul><li>Zombies usually scare people off, but the people mentioned in Luke 24 don't seem to notice, they don't even realise its Jesus in some cases until he gives the game away.</li>
<li>Zombies don't eat normal food. Jesus eats some fish (Luke 24:41-43) and gets breakfast ready (John 21:12) - I didn't think zombies were that friendly.</li>
</ul>As to the actually "zombie" event "Minchin likened the resurrection of Jesus to the 1978 horror film <i>Dawn of the Dead</i>, singing: "Try that these days you'd be in trouble, geeks would try to smack you with a shovel.""<br />
<ul><li>Well, actually there was a guard of Romans Soldiers at the tomb to watch out for any stunts. But even they were out of their league. <br />
"there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. " Matthew 28:2-</li>
<li>They even had troubles trying to arrest Jesus:<br />
"So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. ... "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. " Literally he said "I am" which is similar to Gods name in Hebrew (See Exodus 3:14) - you would be scared if you met God.</li>
</ul><br />
Jesus being a "telepathic vampire".<br />
<ul><li>Well on the vampire "blood drinking" account - its a bit closer to the truth. He does take about drinking blood in a way - but it was actually wine when he said "This is my blood of the covenant" (Mark 14:24).</li>
<li>But its actually worse: he wants us to be vampires and cannibals as well. John 6:53-54 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."<br />
And the disciples were even taken back "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"<br />
It's all taking about Jesus death on the cross for us - it's by this and our paticipation in it by accepting his sacrifice for us that we have eternal life.</li>
<li>As to the telepathy, I think I would be much more scared of Jesus than any other apparently "telepathic" person. He knows what people are think, and runs rings around them. Even more he knows people's hearts. The Jewish leaders were seriously worried about him, "Look, the world has gone after him." John 12:19. That's why they wanted to get rid of him, as the High Priest said, "it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish" John 11:50</li>
</ul>Mary is also a target for him: "Breeding without the opposite gender is commonly known as parthenogenesis"<br />
<ul><li>Really, I think the best way to take it is as advanced technology: a "gestational surrogacy" 2000 years early. God implanted the embryo in Mary, as Luke 1:35 suggests. This fits with the concept of Jesus as the second Adam, who is perfect, unlike the rest of mankind who have inherited Adam's sinfulness (Romans 5:12-19, 1 Cor 15)</li>
</ul>Since it's Christmas let us think a little bit more about this one:<br />
So why this special arrangement of "gestational surrogacy". Well, it seems that God wanted to have a son, a human son. Maybe he thought people could get to know him better, maybe even see him as a family guy, a "daddy". He didn't have a wife in the normal sense, so he went to find a surrogate. Mary agreed saying “I am the Lord’s servant.” Now, he didn't need an egg donor, being a genetic engineer himself.<br />
Now it seems God didn't want everyone to know that Mary's child was in fact his. He let some shepherds in on the secret, some old people in a temple (Luke 2), and some astrologers from a far country (Matthew 2). It was only when Jesus was an adult, that God thought he should out himself as the true father publicly (Matt 4 "This is my son"). Some of his neighbors weren't very comfortable with this new idea, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?".<br />
He then got them in a spin about who his daddy really was:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”<br />
“The son of David,” they replied.<br />
He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">“‘The Lord said to my Lord:<br />
“Sit at my right hand<br />
until I put your enemies<br />
under your feet.”’</blockquote>If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. <br />
Matthew 22:41-46</blockquote> Some of the Jews were seriously not happy about this, this God's son business.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />
Jesus answered them, “... Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (John 10:33-39)</blockquote>I'll not go into the details of his alleged zombieness again. But Tim mentions Jesus Superman ability: how he left the world "Neo" style. Again angels were there to inform them: Just in case you missed it he is going to do it once more when he returns (Acts 1:11), and every one will get to see (Luke 17:24) - it will be a spectacular show - then there will be no doubters. If you are one of the chosen, you get to do it too (1 Thessalonians 4:17)<br />
<ul></ul>Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-61906556862983188502011-10-15T18:08:00.001+11:002011-10-15T18:10:15.209+11:00The CrossHere is a message I gave at Alexandra Gardens Aged Care in Donvale, on 18th of June 2011.<br />
<br />
Romans 3:19-26<br />
<br />
The passage we are looking at today is about the cross, which is the heart of Christianity. Jesus is the central person of Christianity, and it is his death and resurrection together which form the central event. But what is the cross about in essence – why is it necessary? That’s what we’ll consider today.<br />
So how can something like a cross be good news? If the cross is central to Christianity, how is Christianity good news? Well, it is good news, that’s what the word gospel basically means. But to know it is good news, to appreciate the cross, to be able to really praise God for it, we need to understand the bad news and understand how the cross, how Jesus death, is good news, the great good news. And show us how God really is a God of love.<br />
So today we want to look as the cross.<br />
So first I’ll set the scene: what is the bad news we face without the cross<br />
Then we will look at how the cross turns the situation around.<br />
We will look at three pictures – and three words for these pictures respectively – three pictures which help explain the cross and what it achieves<br />
And finally our response <br />
what we should do<br />
why we should be glad.<br />
<br />
So firstly, we will look at the bad news.<br />
Why should we think about bad news, isn’t it just depressing?<br />
Well, we cannot appreciate a severe medical operation, unless we know the issue it is addressing, the seriousness of it. I don’t know if any of you have had one, or know a person who has, but a heart transplant is significant event, but sometimes it is needed. But if we know how bad an existing heart is then we realise the need for drastic measures.<br />
So what is this bad news?<br />
Paul says the following in Romans 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” - Paul shows us that we cannot be righteous before God by obeying the law. Part of what the Bible shows us how we mess up. It doesn’t say, well if you try a little harder you can be good enough, and God will be please, no it says we are not good. <br />
We see this also in vs. 23 “we fall short of the glory of God”. That is, we miss God’s target, we miss it. The word for sin is originally an archery term, so to sin was to miss the target. Miss what we were made to be, we fall short of the target, the bulls eye. We were made in the image of God, to reflect his glory, to be God’s vice regents, on Earth, but we fall short – miserably.<br />
Do we ever lie? Or do we sin by omission, not love when we should. Do we see people who need help, but ignore, or say it is too difficult for us? Even small things show us how we fall short of God.<br />
So where does this leave us. Well, God is loving, right? He’ll forgive us won’t he? He won’t punish us will he? Surely it’s his job to love and forgive isn’t it?<br />
On the other hand, what sort of God would we have if he didn’t care about sin, if he thought it was okay? “Ah yes you murdered some people, but I’m kind, I won’t punish you”. <br />
If we thought God would just forgive Hitler like this, we wouldn’t take God seriously – like a judge who never convicts murders, we would think he wasn’t doing his job, or worse – he was corrupt. What would we think of him if he didn’t care that many Christians are being put to death for Jesus sake in many countries around the world.<br />
Well God does forgive – there is good news for us – but there is something which needs to happen first – something “crucial”. He doesn’t “simply” forgive. There is a cost. There is something he does to forgive us.<br />
<br />
So if God is just and we are sinners then there is a problem. But this passage offers a solution. There is a “but”. We are in trouble, “but” here comes the good news.<br />
That is where the But comes in. At the start of the passage it is announced ... “But now a righteousness from God ...” Before it said “no one will be declared righteous.” No one. But in v21 there is a big “but”, “But now a righteousness comes.” And “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ” <br />
So how does this solution, this “but” come to pass – this big change in our status. How does it happen?<br />
Well it’s the cross of course.<br />
Here in the passage, there are three words which each give a picture to help us understand the cross. Three things which really tell us how God’s love and justice, his holiness and mercy fit together. His kindness and his righteousness fit. How he can be a just judge and also a forgiving father.<br />
So the three pictures:<br />
First one is the market place.<br />
Second is at the temple.<br />
And the third one the law courts.<br />
The market place, the temple, and the law courts.<br />
<br />
The first picture is that of the market place: and the word which goes with this is “Redemption”. We see the word redemption in the passage:<br />
vs 24 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”<br />
Now what is the picture of the market place? I’m sure you will be familiar with pawn shops and getting cash for your valuables. The idea of redemption is going back and paying the money to get the valuable back. You redeem it for an amount of money. Redemption is the event of redeeming an item for payment. <br />
Similar is the idea of Ransom. The idea of paying for someone to be released who is held captive. Like a person captured in war, and ending up in slavery, and then someone can then redeem them from the slavery. This is redemption. As a picture, you could also think of it as a slave market – as in times gone by.<br />
So there was a price to be paid to free us from sin. There is a cost and it is Jesus’ death, his blood, his life, which is the price paid. Jesus died for our redemption. As the passage says “we are justified by the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”<br />
The idea of a price being paid leads us to a question – why is this the price, why does it need to be paid. This leads two our second picture.<br />
<br />
The second picture is that of the temple. More specifically the temple sacrifices – since that’s one of the main roles of the temple. Now the Jews had a sacrificial system, offering lambs and bulls, as sin offerings and in atonement, as especially on the special Day of Atonement. A death is made as atonement for the sin of the people. People set apart the required animals – maybe lambs. The animals had to be perfect – without defect – and they were offered as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people.<br />
The second picture is captured by the word “sacrifice of atonement”. The passage says: “God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith, in this blood”. Atonement or as the older translations like the King James Version, it is “propitiation” – I think propitiation is the technically the most accurate word, but not many people use it or know what it means. <br />
The idea of atonement, or propitiation, is that since God is justly angry at our wickedness and our rejection of him, something needs to be done. God is just and he can’t turn a blind eye. God doesn’t let the murder off the hook, he demands justice – it is part of his character - he is righteous and holy so he can’t abide sin – and sin – our rebellion against him, for going our own way must be punished. This is not the wrongful anger of a human which is laden with sin, but of one who is righteous and his anger is the correct response to our rejection of him, our going our own way. For we don’t treat him like God as he should be. <br />
So this is what happens on the cross – Jesus bares the wrath of God – the punishment due to our rebellion. He takes it on the cross. <br />
As the Old Testament prophet Isaiah looked forward to this day. <br />
“But he was pierced for our transgressions,<br />
he was crushed for our iniquities; <br />
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, <br />
and by his wounds we are healed.” <br />
So that is the picture of the temple, the temple sacrifice – Jesus death is our atonement for sin. Bearing the punishment we deserve.<br />
<br />
We have looked at the pictures of redemption and propitiation which describe the rescuing and dealing with sin justly. So where does this leave us.<br />
Finally the third picture is of the law courts.<br />
Imagine we stand before a judge and jury. About to receive the verdict and then the sentence.<br />
The scene is set, the crimes have been read, the evidence has been laid bare. The verdict is in. It is read ... And what is it? “Not guilty... Not guilty” “you are free to go” – cleared of all charges.<br />
The word with this picture is “justified”. The passage says we are justified by faith.<br />
This means we are declared righteous – we are reckoned to have a right standing, our record is clean – there is no crimes recorded. That’s what is says when we are “justified by faith”. As in the two pictures before – the price has been paid, redemption, God’s justice, and righteous anger has been satisfied – so where does this leave us – we are declared righteous.<br />
But how can this be – well as we have seen – the price has been paid already – there is no punishment due – the slates are wiped clean – Jesus has taken the wrap for us, he has taken our place.<br />
But who does this apply to – who gets the not guilty verdict – who has there slate wiped clean.<br />
Well, it’s those who have faith – that is – it is those who trust in Jesus to rescue them, those who rely and depend on Jesus Christ to take the punishment for their rebellion. They depend on Jesus because it’s their only hope.<br />
It’s the only way we can be saved – and here we can find eternal life – heavens doors are opened to us.<br />
So to summarise, the three pictures fit together. Jesus redeemed us, by offering himself as a sacrifice of atonement, so we could be justified.<br />
<br />
Well as those who know and love the lord. Why do we need to talk about this?<br />
There is joy in have our consciences cleansed. We know how much God loves us, knowing that despite our failings God loves us and has saved us. This should give us praise to our saviour Jesus, just as we sing in these songs.<br />
We have a temptation to start thinking our deeds our goodness is what gets us to heaven. We need to remember Jesus has done it for us, he has made the way open. Our acts of service are our response to our loving God. <br />
Are we tempted to think we deserve being rescued – no - it’s out of grace, God’s kindness; it’s not something we earn, since we can never earn it. No one is good enough that’s why we gladly cling to the cross as the way to God, the way to know heaven’s joys.<br />
How well do you know the cross <br />
do you value it, love it, <br />
do you love the one who died for you?<br />
Do you need to come, to come and rely on Jesus? [ forsake your own sense of goodness, your own pride ]<br />
Come to the cross<br />
come and see salvation at the cross<br />
have your guilt taken away, have your consciences cleansed<br />
Know life and love in Jesus<br />
Know joy eternal<br />
See the goodness of the cross.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-72284172755331287892011-10-15T18:00:00.000+11:002011-10-15T18:00:53.584+11:00Be devoted to JesusHere is a message I gave at Alexandra Gardens Aged Care in Donvale, on 15th of October 2011.<br />
<br />
On Luke 10:38-42 (and also read Luke 12:22-34)<br />
<br />
Lets ask a question. What is important to us? What consumes our thinking? What do you pray for? What things run through your mind on a daily basis? If I were to speak to someone who saw you on a daily basis, what would they say is important to you? Would they say the same as you would?<br />
To answer these questions let’s look at the passage. The passage we are looking at involves two of Jesus friends, Mary and Martha, and Jesus has things to say to or about them. So I’ll look at what he says about each of them. First Martha and then Mary.<br />
So let’s look at what the passage says. So, what do we notice when we read this passage? “... Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made.” Martha wasn’t sitting at Jesus feet – she was distracted by other things. Other things had taken up her concentration.<br />
Now Jesus was a special guest today at Martha’s house, so she probably wanted to do something special – something special for him. We can guess the preparations were going on for some time. <br />
Now Martha can’t stand it any longer – she is now the only one doing anything while Mary sits at Jesus feet. So she comes to Jesus and complains, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”<br />
What does Jesus say? Does he say, “Well Mary - Martha has a big important job, you shouldn’t sit here idly – get up and go help her?” No - he responds to Martha, he finds that Martha is in the wrong. And he addresses her – tenderly mind you.<br />
The first things he says is “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed.”<br />
So what does Jesus see as the problem?<br />
The first part of the problem is she is worried and upset about many things – but only one thing is needed. It seems lesser, unnecessary things – and many of them - were taking up concentration. She was anxious and troubled about these.<br />
I think the point is to not be consumed by secondary things, as Martha was.<br />
Don’t get consumed by secondary things, things which aren’t necessary in themselves. Don’t think these are the most important things.<br />
The passage says, “Martha was distracted,” and Jesus said to her, “... you are worried and upset about many things, but only on things is needed”<br />
To come closer to Martha – she was actually serving. Surely service, serving people is a good thing. Well I think the problem is that she was consumed by the service, but didn’t have the right priorities. <br />
For us there are many things which can distract us and consume us.<br />
There could be bad things – but we are usually fooled by good things – they can distract us and consume or energies and worrying. <br />
Maybe it’s the daily things of life – like what we are going to eat – Jesus addressed this on another occasion when he said “do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear”.<br />
Also think of the many good things God gives us: money, jobs, houses, a great country, music, good books. I could go on. And it’s good we thank God for all these good things. But they shouldn’t be the number one thing in our lives, they shouldn’t consume us.<br />
It’s not the size of our church, house, bank balance that is important. Jesus wants us and our devotion; he wants us to love him first. If that is right, then the other stuff will follow.<br />
Yes, other things are important. Our Christian service is important. The hospitality we show others. The money we give to those in need. Yes, those are important. But if we haven’t got the main things right, then there is no point worrying about the other things.<br />
It’s when these things take over, sit in first place, when our efforts and longings and sweat are consumed for these things, when these things distract us and determine our behaviour, and our emotions – that’s when it becomes a problem – they can become idols.<br />
But there are even better things, like our families, our children, grand children, our friends, church – these are very good gifts of God, and are important for us. But when these take first place, when we do everything for these, when are emotions are taken by these – God is no longer our all in all. He has become an important second in our life – but no longer in the rightful place. That’s when good things become idols.<br />
We can even think of Christian service. Surely serving is good, serving is what we are meant to do, isn’t it? That’s what we find Martha doing – serving, providing hospitality. The problem is our own service and ministry to others can become on idol – we love serving more than we love the one we are serving. We concentrate on doing rather than the one we serve. God does want us to serve him – but he wants us to want him first - to trust him and love him, to have him as the centre and be the motivation for our service.<br />
This leads to our second person and our second point: so what should we doing instead of being consumed by these things like Martha?<br />
Well I think we need to look now at Mary. The passage says Mary “sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said”. Jesus then says, “... but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better (or the good part)”.<br />
I think this “one thing” is what Mary was doing. It seems she had her priorities straight. She had this opportunity with Jesus and she took it. Martha was distracted from what was important. We need to put first things first. Jesus says “Mary has chosen what is better”.<br />
Now let’s look closely at what Mary was doing. It seems she had been helping Martha, but when Jesus arrived she left Martha to attend to Jesus. As Martha said “she has left me to do the work by myself”. Of course this is proper for a host to do – to wait on their guests. <br />
But something more happens. The guest being Jesus – I mean - how can you actually serve him? What can you give him that he doesn’t have already? Mary ends up sitting there listening to Jesus. I mean wouldn’t you? Such an opportunity to devote yourself to Jesus, and listen to his words, his words of life. It might be easy for some, to leave duties and sit there, but not for Martha, and maybe not for many of us. Other things can distract us – we might not have the “luxury” to do it – so we think.<br />
And then again Jesus addresses the issue “One thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better – or the good part”. Mary has got the right priorities. She has Jesus and his words first. The passage doesn’t explicitly say what the one thing is, but the context shows us it is Mary’s devotion to Jesus which is the example to us.<br />
The Bible speaks to this issue in a number of ways. <br />
Think also about what Jesus said at another time: “Do not worry about what you will eat or wear”, but on the contrary, “Seek first his Kingdom.” Do not worry like Martha did, we need to put Jesus at the centre – not the details of our daily lives, like food.<br />
Also, there is Jesus teaching on the wise and foolish builders. The wise builder builds upon the rock, and the foolish builder builds upon the sand. The wise builder gets the foundations right. If the foundations aren’t right the house is doomed. It the foundations are not sound it doesn’t matter what are the walls. Our concern for the walls, for other things, follows on from getting the foundations in place.<br />
If Jesus and his words are our foundation, then the house we build, our lives will be firm. We need to build our lives upon Jesus, with Jesus as our foundation.<br />
So, just as Jesus said, “Mary had chosen what is better and it will not be taken from her”.<br />
What does it look like to put Jesus first – to be fully devoted to him and his words? What does it look like?<br />
Well, everything in our lives should be thought through. Why am I doing this - how does it glorify God? What does it achieve? We also need to think through how we do things to? Is the manner we do something glorify to God, or does it bring shame.<br />
Sometimes how we do things is more important than what we do. Do we grumble, and complain, or are we joyful witnesses to Jesus, as we do things? The way we live can show who our Lord is. When Martha prepared the food, was she doing it gladly, in service of her Lord, knowing who she was serving was what was important, not the details of the meal, or was she fussing and frustrated, afraid that things wouldn’t turn out. How we do things matters!<br />
How else can our devotion to Jesus be seen? Well it might tell in our prayer life. How much do we pray – and how big a part of our life is it, or is it just a last resort, or a mere thing done out of habit? How much we pray can be a sign of how important Jesus is to us, of what our real priorities are. <br />
But we shouldn’t just think about quantity as if that is really what Jesus is after. We can think about what we pray for. Are our prayers tied to Jesus glory, and his kingdom, or is it just about our needs. Don’t get me wrong, we do need to bring our needs to Jesus, but is that all we pray about? Or do we seek to praise Jesus and pray for the growth of the gospel - his kingdom. Also what is the manner we approach prayer? Is coming to Jesus in prayer a real joy for us, a real delight?<br />
I should say that I am as much speaking to myself as you here. I need reminding, I need rebuking of where my first love should be, and also how my prayer life should reflect it.<br />
How else can we see devotion to Jesus? Well how we treat the Bible is a good sign. Do we treasure God’s words? Are they our source of comfort, guidance, joy? How important are they to us? Do we meditate on them? Have we committed them to memory? There are lots of questions I could ask – but I think you get the idea. If Jesus is important then his words to us are important.<br />
One other we can think about area – how do we love and serve other people. What do we want for our family and friends? Do we want them to know God? Do we want them to know the joy of serving Jesus? Is their progress in the Christian life important to us? This is another area I need to work on to.<br />
So, to recap, we have talked about not putting secondary things first, and making sure we are devoted to Jesus – that he is first.<br />
But how do we make this actually happen in practice? How do we get this right in our lives?<br />
Do we need to just try harder? Does it require just more effort? I think trying is probably the wrong way and leads in the wrong direction. Trying harder doesn’t solve this issue.<br />
I think we need to ask God to help us, for him to help us to see where we are going wrong, where our priorities need changing. We need to ask him to change our hearts, to make sure he is in first place. He needs to do the work in us, to create in us a love which conquers all, which consumes us. So we are taken up with him and his glory, with Jesus and his Kingdom. Well this is something we need to pray about, to ask his strength – for him to work by his spirit to change us. Change us from the centre. In prayer we need to give our lives to God. As Christians we need to redo this and not forget our first love.<br />
To ask the main question: Is there anything we couldn’t give up for Jesus? Is there something more important that we couldn’t do without? Is Jesus first, or is something else there. We need to take Jesus now – make him first. He needs to be our first love.<br />
For one day everything else will fade away. But will we have Jesus? Jesus will be supreme – Jesus and his new creation and his new people. If, on that day we have Jesus – then we will have all we need, we will have everything. And Jesus will fill us with happiness and everlasting joy, and give us all good things as well – an eternal family, eternal worship of him, a new Heaven and Earth where we will live, with Jesus at the centre.<br />
Put Jesus first!Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-6224660166575070502011-10-09T21:31:00.000+11:002011-10-09T21:31:36.221+11:00Expository PreachingWhile preparing my own "Expository Sermon", was recently much encouraged by the words of JI Packer from his collected writings: "<a href="http://booko.com.au/products/9781573830638">Honouring the written Word of God</a>".<br />
<br />
While some see "expository preaching" as more of a method or about the length of the text, I agree with Packer when he sees it about the approach to the passage:<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-AU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Times-Roman","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman;">Expository preaching is the preaching of the man who knows Holy Scripture to be the living word of the living God, and who desires only that it should be free to speak its own message to sinful men and women; who therefore preaches from a text, and in preaching labours, as the Puritans would say, to “open” it, or, in Simeon’s phrase, to “bring out of the text what is there”; whose whole aim in preaching is to show his hearers what the text is saying to them about God and about themselves, and to lead them into what Barth called “the strange new world within the Bible” in order that there they may be met by Him Who is Lord of that world.</span></div></blockquote> See here for online <a href="http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman//documents/CMan_074_2_Packer.pdf">link</a>.<br />
<br />
The article, namely "Expository Preaching: Charles Simeon and Ourselves" is great encouragement from this hero of yesteryear on our attitudes and practise of preaching.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-10213329969560620942011-04-10T12:26:00.002+10:002011-05-01T13:07:13.435+10:00HerbsI've been going a bit crazy about herbs recently.<br />
I've also done a bit of landscaping, putting in some levels with sleepers to make some sections of the garden more usable for planting - chance to expand the herb garden.<br />
<br />
At the moment I have the following herbs:<br />
<br />
Mint family<br />
<ul><li>Common</li>
<li>Peppermint </li>
<li>Chocolate (a variety of peppermint)</li>
<li>Basil mint</li>
<li>Apple</li>
<li>Vietnamese/Hot (Laksa leaf)</li>
<li>Coriscan</li>
</ul>Thyme<br />
<ul><li>Common</li>
<li>Lemon</li>
<li>Pizza</li>
<li>Variegated (Green and yellow/white leaves) </li>
</ul>Oregano family<br />
<ul><li>Common</li>
<li>Marjoram</li>
<li>Hot and Spicy</li>
<li>Greek</li>
</ul>Sage<br />
<ul><li>Common</li>
<li>Variegate (Green and Yellow leaves)</li>
<li>Tricolour (purple, white and green)</li>
<li>Pineapple</li>
</ul>Others <br />
<ul><li>Perennial Basil</li>
<li>Lemon grass</li>
<li>Chives</li>
<li>Garlic Chives</li>
<li>Tarragon</li>
<li>Curry plant</li>
<li>Chillies</li>
<li>Rosemary</li>
</ul>Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-181206294769349532010-11-10T21:51:00.000+11:002010-11-10T21:53:38.337+11:00Operation WorldRecently (this or last month) the latest version of Operation World has been published.<br />
Operation World has been a great tool for praying for the nations, and encouraging a missionary heart.<br />
<br />
On each Nation it contains, containing history, political info, analysis of religions, and denominations, people groups, answered prayers and prayer points and more.<br />
<br />
With the events of 9-11 shortly after the last major revision, it isn't hard to see why this latest addition is needed more than every to keep up with the developments in the World.<br />
<br />
Please join me in praying for the nations, that they may see his glory.<br />
<blockquote>" ... And they shall declare my glory among the nation" Isaiah 66:19</blockquote><blockquote> "I will give thanks to you, O LORD, among the peoples; I will sing praises to you among the nations." Psalm 108:3 </blockquote><blockquote>"Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously; let this be made known in all the earth." Isaiah 12:5</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9781850788621">http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9781850788621</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.operationworld.org/">http://www.operationworld.org</a>Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-67634252595938035632010-11-10T20:25:00.000+11:002010-11-10T20:42:00.123+11:00The Pilgrim's ProgressI have been reading an abridged simplified version of the Pilgrim's Progress to the kids. <br />
It reminded me of this quote from it, which my Grandparents also have in a picture frame in there house: <br />
<blockquote>"and all their talk at the table was about the Lord of the hill; as, namely, about what he had done, and wherefore he did what he did, and why he had builded that house; and by what they said, I perceived that he had been a great warrior, and had fought with and slain him that had the power of death, but not without great danger to himself, which made me love him the more" (<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.html">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bunyan/pilgrim.html</a>)</blockquote>I hope you all know the longing to which Bunyan alludes. <br />
<br />
Also found a useful article entitled: <a href="http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?475">Why Evangelicals Don't Read Pilgrim's Progress (And Why They Should)</a><br />
<blockquote>In Hebrews 11, the author conducts his great survey of pilgrims. He describes these Old Testament saints as strangers and pilgrims on earth, with no abiding city, relying on faith in the promises of God, knowing that their inheritance was something better than this present world.</blockquote>Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-51255281244817174992010-11-08T22:42:00.000+11:002010-11-10T20:42:00.124+11:00Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection (Part 1)I recently started reading this new book by Don Carson "<a href="http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9781433511257">Scandalous</a>". Having owned and read many Carson books I didn't expect to be disappoint. Well so far it looks very good, and that's from the 1st Chapter, when I was looking forward to the 2nd and 3rd.<br />
<br />
The first Chapter on Matthew 27:27-51a which is titled "the ironies of the cross" picks on four ironies, or even double ironies, from the Crucifixion of Jesus. Carson here offers four points of irony, where Jesus is mocked by various people before and during his crucifixion.<br />
<ol><li>The man who is mocked as king - is king.</li>
<li>The man who is utterly powerless - is powerful.</li>
<li>The man who can't save himself - saves others.</li>
<li>The man who cries out in despair - trusts God.</li>
</ol>In exactly what he is mocked, he is actually in truth doing what they say - yet they don't realise it. They mean the opposite, but unwittingly tell us the truth.<br />
Take for example the soldiers who mocked Jesus as King and put a crown of thorns on this head. They didn't realise that in his death he was actually showing he is the King.<br />
Also the case of "He saved others, but can't save himself. ... Let him come down now from the cross" - yet it is by not saving himself that he saves others.<br />
<br />
I remember preparing some thoughts for a Bible Study on the similar passage in Mark's Gospel, but I hadn't quick come to terms with what it was teaching, and how it was - think partly working out how to understand the point of some Narratives besides just their description of what happened.<br />
Carson does well with this passage in making it clear.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-5708872622480857802010-11-08T21:43:00.001+11:002010-11-08T22:03:10.879+11:00On 10 in 2 - thoughts about some Christian goal settingJust read this <a href="http://solapanel.org/article/10_in_2/">article</a> in my latest copy of the briefing. (It seems most parts of the "Up Front" section of the <a href="http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/">Briefing </a>have appeared previously on the blog <a href="http://solapanel.org/">solapanel.org</a>.)<br />
In the "10 In 2" article, Ben Pfahlert talks about his goal of trying to reach 10 people in 2 years with the gospel.<br />
I have previously read of similar goals taken on by "trainees" - but that was talking about China! (see Brother Yun "The Heavenly Man"). I think they had a much high target, but they were going on a full time mission so that might be expected.<br />
<br />
I think this general idea is good. Whether others make this commitment or a similar one is good.<br />
<br />
Of course, a necessary factor is our dependence on God. God gives the results. It is God who draws people to himself. But on the other hand, not to plan, not to dream for God's Kingdom probably means that we are complacent or love this life too much, and possible have the wrong sort of dreams.<br />
<br />
But is making plans like this risky? Should we aim at things we can't control?<br />
Two points:<br />
(1) <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/dont-waste-your-life">John Piper</a>, arguing against the idea that God is a risk taker, says that we can be risk takers because God isn't. God is in control, he has our future in his hands, so what do we have to loose? We can only gain. If we loose friends and money in the process, then we haven't lost anything in eternal terms (c.f. 1 Cor 15). On the other hand we will be gaining "friends for life" - eternal life that is.<br />
(2) Even though we can't control the out come, we have been given this mission anyway (Matt 28:18-20). But we need to say more. Some one has said "Failing to plan is planning to fail". Making goals and plans and praying about them helps us to focus, and be diligent. Yes, God can use us in unexpected ways, and despite our efforts, and using it all to teach us hard lessons. We might find there are hard lessons we need to learn before we can really go on with our plans. But these are not points against it. Paul made plans and was deliberate about using his time and energy for the gospel.<br />
<br />
I have been forming plans in the back of my head, especially after using the "Christianity Explained" course. Maybe I should commit instead of letting them just float around.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-88032427441806367032010-10-27T23:07:00.000+11:002010-11-10T20:43:10.850+11:00Some thoughts for politicians on Euthanasia, and Bob B's current BillHere are some thoughts I sent in letter form, minus some details. <br />
<br />
The topic of Euthanasia, I think it is a very serious issue.<br />
The push for Euthanasia doesn’t take into account recent improvements in palliative care. My father’s experience as a GP is that people don’t really want to end their lives - they just want to avoid the suffering. Better access to and understand of palliative case is really what is needed, and would effectively make the case for Euthanasia pointless.<br />
Some others argue for Euthanasia based on the desire for autonomy – I think this is really an ideological battle – with no real care for the people in question. The probably with complete autonomy is that it is driven by individualism. While a person’s individual nature is important, it ignores that we are created for relationships, we are born into families, live in communities – what affects us affects those around us and vice verse, and this fulfil part of what it means to be human. We shouldn’t go the other extreme and only say the community overrides the person in an absolute way – be we should see the interdependence that is part of our lives.<br />
One of the problems Euthanasia poses is the pressure to end one’s life. It may be seen as an obligation. Pressure can come from a range of directions: ones family either directly, or from a sense to not be a burden on them; from medical staff; from fear of suffering, especially when palliative care is not well provided; also from insurance companies. Studies in countries such as the Netherlands show that there are cases of involuntary Euthanasia (which we should probably really call Murder) are happening by medical staff. Also that palliative care tends to go backwards, and those who support or performing the case are seen as selfish and not caring for the people involved.<br />
While it seems Bob Brown has mentioned his bill is only about allowing the territories to have their own say just like the States – he is really just justifying the means by the end. He personally is for Euthanasia and probably sees this as the easiest way in Australia. I think it is a serious enough issue for the Federal to implement such laws as it currently has, which it is constitutionally allowed to do. Is it not for such cases that the Government has this power and responsibility?Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-13808197690680458992010-05-16T20:37:00.002+10:002010-05-18T22:37:33.045+10:00The Roots of EnduranceThe Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce.<br />
By John Piper.<br />
<br />
Review (Part 1 of N, where N is approximately the equal to the number of chapters).<br />
<br />
I thought for this book I might blog as I read through it, as I find helpful and interesting ideas.<br />
<br />
The setting for Piper's book:<br />
<blockquote>Our time is marked by emotional fragility. We shatter easily when misfortune comes our way. In the face of sustained contention, we have little ability to withstand the onslaught, let alone surmount it with joy.</blockquote>So Piper goes in search of the "root" of endurance. What is it that gives Christians endurance in the life of Godliness, and endurance in the face of opposition:<br />
<br />
In his search Piper finds Newton, Simeon and Wilberforce as:<br />
<blockquote>Men who rose to the challenges before them. Men who endured trial after trial, year after year. Men who weathered life-long opposition with joy in Christ.</blockquote><br />
Newton was a slave trader who found "Amazing grace", and later became a pastor and authored that well-known hymn.<br />
Simeon was a pastor who endured much opposition. For his first 12 years out of 54 at the same place, his "pewholding" parishioners boycotted his services.<br />
Wilberforce is well known for his battle to first abolish the slave trade, and then slavery itself from Britain and its colonies - but what gave him the power to endure what became a very long battle?<br />
<br />
In his introductory chapter, what I find very interesting, and indeed Piper was surprised by this - justification by faith is the root of endurance for these three warriors of the faith, especially for Wilberforce:<br />
<blockquote>The deepest root of endurance for Wilberforce - and Newton and Simeon shared this view entirely - was the precious and powerful experience of the justification of the ungodly by faith alone (Romans 4:5) - leading necessarily to a life of glorious freedom in the never-ending battle against sin and injustice.</blockquote>Piper (and I) knew somewhat of Newton's finding of "Amazing grace", but new little of the cause of Wilberforce's and Simeon's endurance.<br />
<blockquote>I did not realize that both of these men would make the cross of Christ so vital to the root of their endurance, and that Wilberforce in particular would focus on the very nature of justification as the linchpin of endurance in righteous living.</blockquote>Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-14415820371617414912010-03-24T21:41:00.000+11:002010-11-10T20:43:10.850+11:00Another reason why it makes sense for Christians to be pro life.In the US it seems that being a Christian doesn't mean that you are pro-life.<br />
<br />
To argue the case from the Bible, I thought a key passage to point to was Psalm 139.<br />
Recently I saw the title of a message by John Piper which refered to John the Baptist. Hmmm.<br />
John the Baptist in-utero leaps for joy at the sound of Mary (and Jesus in-utero).<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Luke 1:39-45 (ESV)<br />
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." </blockquote><br />
<a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1604_The_Baby_in_My_Womb_Leaped_for_Joy/">http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1604_The_Baby_in_My_Womb_Leaped_for_Joy/ </a>Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-70284799056899381472010-01-30T23:47:00.006+11:002010-11-10T20:44:05.915+11:00Tony Abbott's opinionsTony is entitled to his own opinions (about sex) -<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bedroom-philosopher-abbott-is-entitled-to-his-opinion-on-virginity-20100129-n402.html">here</a>. I think I agree with his "rules", but not his apparent idolising of virginity.<br /><blockquote>it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly<br /></blockquote>Of course I maybe taking him out of context - like some other people.<br />It's also possible for people who weren't virgins to have a God honouring marriage.<br /><br />I think my thinking and theology relating to this topic may well differ.<br />Of course, marriage is pointing to the greater reality of Christ and his bride, something much greater. And its our behaviour within marriage that helps point to this greater reality. (There is also the wedding dress if you catch my meaning - See Rev)<br />Well, back on Earth, I think our main problem with our attitude to sex is our selfishness -the other stuff are the symptoms.<br />For Christians its also trusting God's design for marriage.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-74619495060597227732010-01-30T23:28:00.005+11:002010-01-30T23:42:29.690+11:00Turning the other cheek<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/if-jesus-had-a-gun-who-would-he-shoot-20100130-n4fx.html">Here</a> is an interesting article on The Age website exploring Jesus and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Violence</span>.<br /><br />I'm not sure if I agree with him using Jesus as a model for non-Christians and non-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">violence</span>, but I think he gets most things right. Maybe also how the resurrection connects with living as important aspects missing. The resurrection also means that Jesus will return to judge and hold people accountable (and also us for whether we turn the other cheek or not).<br /><br /><blockquote>It remains clear that those who claim to follow Jesus cannot do so while ignoring his commands, let alone the way he lived. As my friend Jarrod often says, ''killing for Jesus makes about as much sense as shagging for celibacy.''<br /></blockquote>It seem to imply that true "fundamentalist" Christians are not the sort to be worried about. Its the ones how don't take him seriously enough who are the problem.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-224283179701086095.post-54320590329411979322009-12-19T14:07:00.000+11:002010-05-18T22:29:22.446+10:00Book Review: The Reason for GodThe Reason for God: Belief in an age of scepticism.<br />by Timothy Keller<br /><br />You've got to love the quote on the introduction: '"I find your lack of faith - disturbing", Darth Vader'. It started well, and didn't disappoint, what's more, it far exceeded my expectations, even those given by another positive review.<br /><br />His book is aimed at the "postmodern" sceptic, not so much the "modern" sceptic of a generation or two ago, though his answers will generally be good for the "modern" sceptic as well. He does also consider the "New Atheism" of Dawkins, Hitchens etc. In his experience of outreach he probably encounters a wide range of sceptics.<br /><br />I read my father’s copy, and was so impressed I bought my own copy to lend to others.<br /><br />I think he is gentle and engaging. He also gives some of his own history and testimony which helps to see how he was struggled with different issues in coming to firm faith in Christ and answering his doubts. This, along with his own humility and self-examination, have helped him in to present in this book sincere and clear yet powerful arguments that can engage both the sceptic and seeker. He is well equipped for such a book, from his own life experiences, his church planting of an inner-city church New York City, which has grown to 5000 members and planted many subsequent churches - he has the heart of a pastor, the passion of an evangelist, as well as being Biblically faithful and well read. Many of his arguments in the book have come from his own experience at reaching out to post modern New Yorkers and so he knows how to engage and address the intellectual and spiritual questions they ask. Showing as the scope of his reading, he refers to Kiekegard, C S Lewis, N T Wright, A Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, Dorothy Sayers, just to name a few, as well as secular thinkers and philosophers.<br /><br />The book is divided into two halves. The first dealing with common questions raised against Christianity over seven Chapters. e.g. "There Can't Be just One True Religion", "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?". On all these he argues powerfully and convincingly, yet drawing the readers in, for his goal is not to knock down their arguments but to draw them into examining their own unstated beliefs for themselves, and at least becoming a better thought-out atheist for example.<br />Primarily in this section, though throughout the book, he is very clear yet gentle in bring the sceptic when criticising the "unproven" faith to see they also have their own unproven faith. And further that those who reject absolute truth, or the idea there is only truth or true religion, are really just ascribing belief in another "preferred" absolute truth.<br /><br />He then has a powerful "intermission" chapter where he invites the reader to seriously consider "Christianity", not in the sense as consider a "proof" for it - he argues against "strong rationalism" where one expects to have some “absolute proof” for anything, but argues for "critical rationality" where essentially we can test and justify our belief and argues with C S Lewis, that Hamlet to find out about the author, needs the author Shakespeare to write himself into the story. In fact that's how we see Jesus.<br />The second section he introduces both reasons for belief and introduces important aspects of the gospel and why they make sense themselves and of reality. He deals with topics such as sin, grace, the cross, resurrection.<br />I was a little confused with his chapter title "The knowledge of God". I think I was thinking in terms of "Special Revelation" though he is pointing to what might be term "General Revelation" in terms of our knowledge of right and wrong ("morality") that God gives everyone, though he argues it convincingly for a postmodern audience.<br />He does defend sacrificial substitutionary atonement, but not quite propitiation. He does defend Hell, and doesn't seem to have a problem with it being eternal, unlike some other Evangelicals. He does take a lot from C S Lewis. He does give the hint he is defending propitiation, which I will treat as that God’s wrath, his personal anger against us for our rebellion and sin, is appeased by Jesus death, who as our substitution faces it instead and thus God is satisfied. He does quote antagonists who object to the idea "of a wrathful God who needs pacifying", and see that the cross is "divine child abuse". I think he lays the foundation in this chapter and others for propitiation but might not be explicit in his defence as I was expecting as a reader from his intro to the chapter. I might be wrong on this but that's what I got from it. Maybe he is leaving that detail until the readers have laid the ground work, in developing a biblical world view. These are small issues, and I expect he is being more apologetic than just purely preaching the gospel. He does help even those readers who do understand propitiation to think more about the cost.<br /><br />My favourite chapter of the book is the last one in this section "The dance of God" where he uses the ideas of Jonathan Edwards, C S Lewis and others. He builds on the work of previous chapters for a God of love and shows why the Trinity is the reason there can be both a loving and personal God. The main reason that non-trinity God can't be personal or loving, is because they never could love or relate until creation happened, and therefore it wouldn't be in their nature. On the other hand the Trinity shows that a "divine dance" between the members of the trinity has been going on for all eternity which is in its nature personal and is filled with love. What's more, God has created us to draw us into this dance which will continue for all eternity. For this reason we were redeemed.<br /><br />He ends with a "Where to ..." chapter which among other things helps the reading to see what might be stopping them moving forward in faith or further enquiry. But he ends with the conclusion that we don't find God but it is he who finds us, this being out of his grace.<br /><br />I don't think my review can quite do the book justice. Some of his arguments I have quoted or summarised are stronger still in the book. This is a very good book.<br />I haven't given this to any non-Christians yet, but will be praying for opportunities. As the book covers indicate, I'm not the only one with this goal.Malcolmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16621751042497439735noreply@blogger.com1