"5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,[e] and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities[f] are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9"
What with all this discussion of prudence, and modesty, and chivalry and the like, I can't help but wonder why Peter starts of with virtue as the first step on a road that leads to fruitful "knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ'.
I also find it comforting that our goal should be "knowledge", not opinion.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Peter
"16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain."
Isn't it at least a tiny bit interesting that Peter speaks specifically about not following "cleverly disguised myth", but that he was a witness? Isn't it interesting that the new term to describe scripture (or at least parts of scripture) is myth?
It's almost like Peter knew something.
"19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Not only that, it's almost like he's claiming the Scripture (what we call the OT) just might actually be people who "spoke from God". I wonder if that what some folks might try to rephrase as to "speak for God"? It's interesting that he suggests that the writers were "carried along by the Holy Spirit". Do you think that maybe, this eyewitness to the life and work of Jesus might have some worthwhile insight regarding how to read the Jewish Scripture?
Isn't it at least a tiny bit interesting that Peter speaks specifically about not following "cleverly disguised myth", but that he was a witness? Isn't it interesting that the new term to describe scripture (or at least parts of scripture) is myth?
It's almost like Peter knew something.
"19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Not only that, it's almost like he's claiming the Scripture (what we call the OT) just might actually be people who "spoke from God". I wonder if that what some folks might try to rephrase as to "speak for God"? It's interesting that he suggests that the writers were "carried along by the Holy Spirit". Do you think that maybe, this eyewitness to the life and work of Jesus might have some worthwhile insight regarding how to read the Jewish Scripture?
Scientism and Evidence
We've all been taught that science simply follows the empirical evidence to the best conclusion no matter what that conclusion might be. We've also been told the repeatability and testability and falsibility are the keys to obtaining this empirical data.
Does this sound like science to you?
"Even if there were no actual evidence for X, we would still be justified in preferring it over all other rival theories."
"Even if all the data point to X, such a hypothesis is excluded from science"
Does that sound like science?
Does this sound like science to you?
"Even if there were no actual evidence for X, we would still be justified in preferring it over all other rival theories."
"Even if all the data point to X, such a hypothesis is excluded from science"
Does that sound like science?
A Request
As Dan has been talking about a sermon his pastor gave, a number of questions have arisen. What I'd like to see Dan do is to take a step back and give his thoughts on .basically three questions. I've opened up tree posts below with the questions and I'd appreciate it if Dan would write at whatever length he wants to on the answers. You might notice that it's really more than three questions. What Ive tried to do is to ask several different questions, or the same question in different ways in order to set the table.
I'm going to ask that we all follow a couple of ground rules.
Dan
Take all the time you need.
Please be as thorough as you can
Feel free to offer any source or backup material you need to make your points
Please keep the expletives and other unproductive language to a minimum
Not Dan
Don't comment on any of these threads.
I may open up a thread where people can ask questions or for clarification if I feel it necessary. The only reason why I would comment myself is to ask direct clarifying questions, but I will try to avoid that if at all possible.
I'm going to ask that we all follow a couple of ground rules.
Dan
Take all the time you need.
Please be as thorough as you can
Feel free to offer any source or backup material you need to make your points
Please keep the expletives and other unproductive language to a minimum
Not Dan
Don't comment on any of these threads.
I may open up a thread where people can ask questions or for clarification if I feel it necessary. The only reason why I would comment myself is to ask direct clarifying questions, but I will try to avoid that if at all possible.
Question #3
By what mechanism or plan can things be repaired? How does what's not right get set right?
Question #2
What has gone wrong? How do we explain the origin of evil and suffering? Why can't we all just get along?
Question #1
What is the ultimate origin of things? Where did everything come from? Who are we as humans and how did we get here? Is there a larger purpose?
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Groups
I find this trend to blame an entire group for the actions of an individual or subset of that group puzzling. Personally, I usually don't expect someone else to assume responsibility for something I've said or done. Nor do I think that others should be expected to explain or accept responsibility for something I've said or done.
Some of this is simply laziness, it's easier to dismiss something or someone because they belong or associate with group X,Y,orZ so therefore they must believe or accept certain things. Some of it could be a desire to subsume individuals into the group. But in my opinion , it's mostly just a convienient rhetorical cudgel. We've just recently seen one more in a string of democrat elected officials caught in some form of sexual misconduct, yet I don't see any significant push to tar everyone on the political left with the sins of the Weiners of the world.
I guess I just don't understand this desire to spread responsibility and blame any further than the individual who's words or actions are in question.
Some of this is simply laziness, it's easier to dismiss something or someone because they belong or associate with group X,Y,orZ so therefore they must believe or accept certain things. Some of it could be a desire to subsume individuals into the group. But in my opinion , it's mostly just a convienient rhetorical cudgel. We've just recently seen one more in a string of democrat elected officials caught in some form of sexual misconduct, yet I don't see any significant push to tar everyone on the political left with the sins of the Weiners of the world.
I guess I just don't understand this desire to spread responsibility and blame any further than the individual who's words or actions are in question.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Wisdom
"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could."
Daniel Defoe
Nowhere is this more apparent than on the internet, especially on blogs and social media.
Daniel Defoe
Nowhere is this more apparent than on the internet, especially on blogs and social media.
Worldview
Every once and a while I spend a little time looking at what's going on with the struggle between worldviews. Recently, I've been struck by how many of the dominant worldviews are either self refuting, suicidal, or require those who hold them to exempt themselves and their worldview from the same scrutiny they give others. I've recently "discovered" one that seem like it corresponds to a fair amount of what we see in the blog world.
What I believe I am seeing is an updated version of Logical Positivism. This is based on David Hume's contention that reliable knowledge comes in two forms; 1) ideas that are derived from sensation, 2) ideas that are logically necessary, like mathematics. This construct essentially preempts anything but science into the category of knowledge. In other words we must exclude things like; metaphysics, ethics, theology, and aesthetics from what can be known and relegate it to a lesser category.
This was moved down the field into logical positivism with the "verification principal", in essence if something can't be verified empirically, it doesn't just become false, it becomes meaningless. This is why when someone asserts that God exists, isn't a genuine proposition, it's merely an expression of personal opinion. When applied to morality, this leads to the position that morality is fluid and subjective. To suggest that a particular action or behavior is right or good is simply expressing an opinion or subjective personal approval of the action. It's not establishing that some things are right and some things are wrong.
If you apply just a tiny bit of logic, you can see the problem inherent in this philosophy. Which, of course, is that it fails it's own most basic test. It can't be proven empirically. The philosophy had to exempt itself from the rule it applied to everyone else.
While perhaps not a perfect match, I believe that much of this spirit is found on various blogs and social media outlets. It's the demand for undisputed, empirical, proof for anything anyone might offer, while not subjecting one's own beliefs to the same scrutiny. It's the arbitrary use of proof texts to selectively support ones position, while denying the validity of texts from the same source offered by others. It's the people who, when asked "Can you show me actual empirical proof, that is subjected to the scientific method of man made climate change?", respond with either; 1) "We just can't take the chance that the projections might be wrong. or 2) 97% of scientists agree....
It's the people who, when confronted with the possibility that the Bible is the unique, revealed, communication from the God who created the universe to us, respond with "Well first you need to scientifically prove that God exists, then you have to scientifically prove that God is actually able to communicate." and so on.
Personally, I would think that living with a worldview that reduced all of knowledge to only what can be empirically proven (leaving aside the fact that many apply an unreasonable standard of what they will accept as proof) would be a worldview devoid of so much. How sad to be unable to know that you wife lives you. How sad to be unable to communicate to others how much you love them But mostly, I don't think I could live with a worldview that was so self defeating, one that literally can't prove it's own truth.
What I believe I am seeing is an updated version of Logical Positivism. This is based on David Hume's contention that reliable knowledge comes in two forms; 1) ideas that are derived from sensation, 2) ideas that are logically necessary, like mathematics. This construct essentially preempts anything but science into the category of knowledge. In other words we must exclude things like; metaphysics, ethics, theology, and aesthetics from what can be known and relegate it to a lesser category.
This was moved down the field into logical positivism with the "verification principal", in essence if something can't be verified empirically, it doesn't just become false, it becomes meaningless. This is why when someone asserts that God exists, isn't a genuine proposition, it's merely an expression of personal opinion. When applied to morality, this leads to the position that morality is fluid and subjective. To suggest that a particular action or behavior is right or good is simply expressing an opinion or subjective personal approval of the action. It's not establishing that some things are right and some things are wrong.
If you apply just a tiny bit of logic, you can see the problem inherent in this philosophy. Which, of course, is that it fails it's own most basic test. It can't be proven empirically. The philosophy had to exempt itself from the rule it applied to everyone else.
While perhaps not a perfect match, I believe that much of this spirit is found on various blogs and social media outlets. It's the demand for undisputed, empirical, proof for anything anyone might offer, while not subjecting one's own beliefs to the same scrutiny. It's the arbitrary use of proof texts to selectively support ones position, while denying the validity of texts from the same source offered by others. It's the people who, when asked "Can you show me actual empirical proof, that is subjected to the scientific method of man made climate change?", respond with either; 1) "We just can't take the chance that the projections might be wrong. or 2) 97% of scientists agree....
It's the people who, when confronted with the possibility that the Bible is the unique, revealed, communication from the God who created the universe to us, respond with "Well first you need to scientifically prove that God exists, then you have to scientifically prove that God is actually able to communicate." and so on.
Personally, I would think that living with a worldview that reduced all of knowledge to only what can be empirically proven (leaving aside the fact that many apply an unreasonable standard of what they will accept as proof) would be a worldview devoid of so much. How sad to be unable to know that you wife lives you. How sad to be unable to communicate to others how much you love them But mostly, I don't think I could live with a worldview that was so self defeating, one that literally can't prove it's own truth.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Hubris redux
I find it amusing when folks exhibit hubris. It just seems so arrogant and self centered.
Like when someone claims to be on the "right side of history". Really, your crystal ball revealed what the world is going to look like in 50 years? 100 years?
Let's look at some people/groups of people who were pretty confident they were on the "right side of history".
Marx, Lenin, and Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Tojo
Slave owners in the US southern states
Castro
Hitler
Guevera
Pick any of the Caesars who thought they were Gods
Mohammed
Bin Laden
ISIS
ANTIFA
That's just a few, but I thin it makes the point. History doesn't always agree with those who think they're on its "right side".
Or like when someone claims to speak for the "rest of the world".
What's interesting, is that the center of gravity on Christendom has shifted away from the US and Western Europe and toward the "middle latitudes", what's also interesting is that all of this worldwide growth in Christianity isn't happening on the "progressive" side of things. So, personally, I'd be cautious about making claims on behalf of "the rest" of anything.
But that's just me, I'm not much for making exaggerated claims, that I can't back up with evidence
Like when someone claims to be on the "right side of history". Really, your crystal ball revealed what the world is going to look like in 50 years? 100 years?
Let's look at some people/groups of people who were pretty confident they were on the "right side of history".
Marx, Lenin, and Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Tojo
Slave owners in the US southern states
Castro
Hitler
Guevera
Pick any of the Caesars who thought they were Gods
Mohammed
Bin Laden
ISIS
ANTIFA
That's just a few, but I thin it makes the point. History doesn't always agree with those who think they're on its "right side".
Or like when someone claims to speak for the "rest of the world".
What's interesting, is that the center of gravity on Christendom has shifted away from the US and Western Europe and toward the "middle latitudes", what's also interesting is that all of this worldwide growth in Christianity isn't happening on the "progressive" side of things. So, personally, I'd be cautious about making claims on behalf of "the rest" of anything.
But that's just me, I'm not much for making exaggerated claims, that I can't back up with evidence
Hysterical much
Apparently Trump has replaced the DACA with something else, and they hysterical overreaction has already begun on social media.
I'm going to take a moment to say that I do not think that children who's parents violated the law should be punished for a criminal act on the part of their parents. Given that I do support some sort of mechanism for these people to attain some sort of legal residency status. I'm not sure about citizenship, because I don't know that they should be rewarded for their parents actions either as well as the fact that citizenship opens doors to bring in additional family members. I'm not necessarily against it, I would want more details before I form a conclusion.
Unlike some on the left who've jumped head first into excessively strident rhetoric. Let's consider a few things.
1. This is NOT "ethnic cleansing".
1a. It is not specifically directed at one particular ethnic group
1b. There aren't going to be any people actually intentionally killed.
2. Remember when P-BO couldn't be bothered to work with congress on immigration legislation? Well, he decided to rule by executive order instead. The results of this are that what can be done by executive order, can be undone by executive order. Or, what's good for the goose...
3. Trump didn't simply order an immediate round up of these people, he intentionally installed a phase in period, with the intent that a legislative solution can be worked out by then.
4. Had P-BO done the hard work and come up with a legislative solution and engaged in some bipartisan effort, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
5. Doing things by legislation is preferable to governing by executive order.
6. If this repeal makes Trump and the GOP "racist", then I fully expect that there will be explicit and prompt retractions if and when some sort of legislative solution is signed into law. I realize that it is unrealistic to have that expectation, but at least it's written down publicly.
All things considered, this is a great opportunity for the DFL and GOP to work together on a legislative remedy that will be a more permanent solution. So far, (and I haven't watched much news coverage of this yet) I've heard a fair amount of GOP legislators who have expressed a desire to deal with this legislatively. I've heard no one (yet) on the DFL side saying the same thing.
I'm going to take a moment to say that I do not think that children who's parents violated the law should be punished for a criminal act on the part of their parents. Given that I do support some sort of mechanism for these people to attain some sort of legal residency status. I'm not sure about citizenship, because I don't know that they should be rewarded for their parents actions either as well as the fact that citizenship opens doors to bring in additional family members. I'm not necessarily against it, I would want more details before I form a conclusion.
Unlike some on the left who've jumped head first into excessively strident rhetoric. Let's consider a few things.
1. This is NOT "ethnic cleansing".
1a. It is not specifically directed at one particular ethnic group
1b. There aren't going to be any people actually intentionally killed.
2. Remember when P-BO couldn't be bothered to work with congress on immigration legislation? Well, he decided to rule by executive order instead. The results of this are that what can be done by executive order, can be undone by executive order. Or, what's good for the goose...
3. Trump didn't simply order an immediate round up of these people, he intentionally installed a phase in period, with the intent that a legislative solution can be worked out by then.
4. Had P-BO done the hard work and come up with a legislative solution and engaged in some bipartisan effort, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
5. Doing things by legislation is preferable to governing by executive order.
6. If this repeal makes Trump and the GOP "racist", then I fully expect that there will be explicit and prompt retractions if and when some sort of legislative solution is signed into law. I realize that it is unrealistic to have that expectation, but at least it's written down publicly.
All things considered, this is a great opportunity for the DFL and GOP to work together on a legislative remedy that will be a more permanent solution. So far, (and I haven't watched much news coverage of this yet) I've heard a fair amount of GOP legislators who have expressed a desire to deal with this legislatively. I've heard no one (yet) on the DFL side saying the same thing.
Friday, September 1, 2017
Crossing the line
For thousands of years the people of God have been engaged in an ongoing discussion as to what is the line that separates believers from non believers. I'm always interested when people who represent factions that essentially argue for no limits, all of a sudden start to get dogmatic about who isn't a Christian.
We've recently seen a lot of uproar about how Joel Osteen is now a horrible human being and should probably be excommunicated from Christendom because he didn't open up his church for Harvey victims.
Don't mistake this for an endorsement. There are plenty of us who have been vocal for years about Osteen and his tribe of prosperity/self help gospel teachers. So, first I say, thank you all for finally acknowledging that there are some boundaries that define what Christianity is and is not.
Having said that, these are (by and large) people who won't blink an eye when various "christian leaders" deny things like the existence of God or the deity of Christ. That's being inclusive and trying to have a "big tent". But heaven forbid that someone not live up to some arbitrary standard of hospitality.
What I find most amusing is the insistence that Osteen lose his "tax exempt" status, because he's worth $40 million. This is one more example of people who don't understand things trying to capitalize on their ignorance.
For starters Osteen DOES NOT have "tax exempt" status. Got that, he DOES NOT have "tax exempt" status. The church he pastors DOES, he DOES NOT. That means that every dollar that he's earned to accumulate his millions was taxed, since much of his income is from sources other than his church salary, it's probably taxed at a higher rate than the complainers. The more you make this claim, the ore ignorant you look.
On top of that, there is no requirement in either Church tradition or ecclesiastic law that requires pastors to automatically open their church in times of need. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have. I'm certainly sure that it's a horrible PR move (both personally and from a big picture faith wide perspective).
But of all of the things Osteen has done that might place him outside of the bounds of "Christianity", this one seems like small potatoes compared to the rest of the heretical crap he teaches.
I guess it'll have to be enough to see that there is at least some lines that can't be safely crossed.
We've recently seen a lot of uproar about how Joel Osteen is now a horrible human being and should probably be excommunicated from Christendom because he didn't open up his church for Harvey victims.
Don't mistake this for an endorsement. There are plenty of us who have been vocal for years about Osteen and his tribe of prosperity/self help gospel teachers. So, first I say, thank you all for finally acknowledging that there are some boundaries that define what Christianity is and is not.
Having said that, these are (by and large) people who won't blink an eye when various "christian leaders" deny things like the existence of God or the deity of Christ. That's being inclusive and trying to have a "big tent". But heaven forbid that someone not live up to some arbitrary standard of hospitality.
What I find most amusing is the insistence that Osteen lose his "tax exempt" status, because he's worth $40 million. This is one more example of people who don't understand things trying to capitalize on their ignorance.
For starters Osteen DOES NOT have "tax exempt" status. Got that, he DOES NOT have "tax exempt" status. The church he pastors DOES, he DOES NOT. That means that every dollar that he's earned to accumulate his millions was taxed, since much of his income is from sources other than his church salary, it's probably taxed at a higher rate than the complainers. The more you make this claim, the ore ignorant you look.
On top of that, there is no requirement in either Church tradition or ecclesiastic law that requires pastors to automatically open their church in times of need. I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have. I'm certainly sure that it's a horrible PR move (both personally and from a big picture faith wide perspective).
But of all of the things Osteen has done that might place him outside of the bounds of "Christianity", this one seems like small potatoes compared to the rest of the heretical crap he teaches.
I guess it'll have to be enough to see that there is at least some lines that can't be safely crossed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)