Archive for the ‘Fundamentalism’ Category:
The Seminarian Wager
We have seen discussed on several different blogs Pascal’s Wager. The contemporary atheist/agnostic response has been to generate their own version, or a “De-Conversion Wager” (it’s on the side-bar, scroll down a bit to read it). In each of these Wagers there are strong points and weak points to the logic behind them. So in our desire to affirm the strengths and challenge the weaknesses, we have come up with our very own “Seminarian Wager.” While this is far from a final product (the language of it may get massaged around a bit), at the very least the concept should come through. Without further ado, our wager: Read more »
the paper of record, the living of faith
The New York Times published an article in its June 1, 2008 edition titled “Taking Their Faith, But Not Their Politics, To The People” It’s a notable piece that highlights a church in the St. Louis area that is an example of what seems to be a larger trend: some of the younger generation of evangelical American Christians are desiring to re-focus what being ‘evangelical’ means. Read more »
John Gresham Machen, Doubt, and Liberalism
1913-1915 were three of the most important years in the life of John Gresham Machen. He had been on the verge of de-converting from Christianity for eight years previous to this, yet here he finally realized the truthfulness of historic Biblical Christianity, and completed his ordination. Interestingly enough, his struggle with Christianity was not with atheism (as is common today), but with liberalism, which was becoming popular among intellectual circles in the United States at that time.
Liberal Christianity (also called modern liberalism) assumed science discounted the supernatural claims of the Bible, but attempted to sustain religion by separating science and religion. Liberalism also employed the high-critical method of interpreting the Bible (which assumes the Bible as the work merely of men with no aid by the Holy Spirit). Liberalism passed off historical records of supernatural events as pseudo-historical, or at best metaphorical.
Heretic!!!
So this guy is walking on a bridge, and he sees this man about to jump. He runs up to him and asks him why he wants to kill himself.
‘Well, I just don’t think there’s any meaning to life.’ The first man responds,
‘What are your religious beliefs? Do you believe in God?’
‘Why yes, I do.’
‘No way, me too! Are you a Muslim, Christian, Jew…?’
‘I’m a Christian’
‘Are you Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant?’
‘I’m Protestant’
‘No way, me too! What denomination are you part of?’
Epistemology and the Nature of Scripture
I once read in a book by a Christian author that he had no use for the “red letter Bible” (the ones that have all of Jesus’ words in red) because “every word in the Bible is from God!” I used to think along these lines. I thought God had dictated the Bible to the authors, making God the real author. But is this view is really necessary for the Bible to be considered true, and does it really matter?
Certainly the Bible is of vital importance. After all, through it we come to know God made the world and everything in it. We come to know that mankind blundered and became corrupt, and thus also corrupted creation. We also come to know that Jesus came into the world to redeem it and will in the end be victorious. The Bible is certainly important, but is every word in it literally a word from the mouth of God?
The “Country Club” Church Is Crap.
Say that ten times fast…
Danielle recently made a comment concerning a post comparing Jack Bauer of the TV Series 24 with Jesus Christ:
And I think there’s a comparison to the church in there. Because although the suspense is pretty cool (as in what will happen here on earth, as well as after we die), it is the human parts of the story that compel people to keep reading/listening/feeling/believing perhaps. And the church has been nothing if not revolutionary in history. Jesus’ story is a prime example.
It instantly reminded me of a couple quotes that generally make me want to pick up sword and shield to charge headlong into this cosmic revolution. This is an axe I gring almost continually. Having not grown up in the church, paradigm for what church should be is not as convoluted by tradition and/or fundamentalism. I am perhaps more able to read how the church is portrayed in scripture without the baggage of moralistic rules and cultural taboos. Of course, I do have other things that cloud my judgment, and there are people who have grown up in the church and are able to see through much of that. But this is something that is particularly close to my heart because of my experiences.
For your reading pleasure, here are two of my favorite quotes Read more »
it’s not 2008 yet, is it??
Part of the downside of the 24-hour news cycle is that what wouldn’t pass for news 10 years ago passes for news now. The air, the pages, and the Web sites have to be filled with something.
I thought of this while noticing a recent article in the New York Times about the supposed “splintering” of evangelicals as it pertains to the 2008 presidential election, and cultural issues overall. I find the article to be a mixture of accurate understanding of history, yet also an ignorance of evangelicals overall.
This ignorance of understanding evangelicals happens a lot in the media, and it’s nothing new. Other religious groups no doubt experience this as well, the attempt by various media outlets to effectively label and fit the values of people into 250 words or less. It was in 1993 that a Washington Post reporter labeled evangelicals as “poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” Other labels have not been this insipid, but labels regardless abound.
(And before you prepare to comment, I recognize that evangelicals label folks just as much as anyone else.)
