http://www.themeetinghouse.com/teaching/archives/2014/life-2-0/part-3-heart-transplant-5614
This one hit me hard.
"Christian spirituality is not about learning a new set of rules to make God happy. That's the way of religion. It's a state of being and becoming that allows us to do whatever we want, because what we want is being shaped by the life and love of God. Christian spirituality says: 'Actually, just do whatever you want, but, slow down enough to ask, what do I really want?'" - Bruxy Cavey
- God is love.
- We're made in the image of God.
- Our true selves are the imagebearers of God. We're currently broken imagebearers, but our true identity is the reflection of God, not of the sin that we're entrapped in.
Then, 1 Corinthians 13 is not only a description of what God is, but it is a description of who I really am.
I am patient.
I am kind.
I do not envy.
I do not boast.
I am not arrogant.
I am not rude.
I do not insist on my own way.
I am not irritable.
I am not resentful.
I do not rejoice in wrongdoing.
I rejoice in truth.
I bear all things.
I believe all things.
I hope all things.
I endure all things.
I need to constantly remind myself of my true identity, not the false identity that the world tries to get me to buy in to.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Monday, September 2, 2013
Response to Ray Comfort's Evolution vs God video
Hey. I just had a friend ask me my thoughts on Ray Comfort's Evolution vs God video that's recently come out. Since I typed a whole big thing up, I figured it works as a blog post too.
Here's the video:
Evolution vs God
Here's my response:
That's not how "observation" works in science: there's a LOT of stuff we don't see with our eyes that we consider a scientific "observation." Observation is NOT the same thing as "seeing." We base a lot of science on observed cause-and-effect.
For example, take our knowledge of the spectrum of sound. We know that there are sounds that animals can hear, but we can't. We know this because we can see an animal react, and we can measure it via tools. We don't "see" it, but we're "observing" it.
Ray also doesn't realize he's being given the evidence he's looking for. They're telling him about the finches, the fish that evolve. The point is that, given enough time, speciation (creating of a new "kind") happens over millions and millions of years. It's a gradual process that scientists use to account for all the variety of animals we see in the world today. If you breed 2 types of dogs, they'll eventually keep producing new types of dogs (shorter legs. different shaped heads. etc). Expand that over time, and you'll eventually see a different subtype of dog. Keep that process going over millions of years, then their descendants get all mixed up and some of them become a different type of animal altogether.
OK, since we've established that we can't "see" macroevolution (nobody says that we can), we just go to the fossil record. And the fossil record is incredibly supportive of the theory of macroevolution. (see my first link below).
He also uses very dishonest tactics. He selectively edits people's responses to make his own seem legitimate. They often don't have anything to do with making his point (which is that macro-evolution doesn't happen. that's his point, i think), and resorts to making people look like they don't know what they're talking about. That implies that because these people don't know what they're talking about, that there's actually no evidence for evolution. This is wrong. This is Michael Moore type of stuff. He's going for "GOTCHA!"s more than anything else.
Here's scientific evidence of evolution. This site is run by Christians:
http://biologos.org/questions/category/scientific-evidence
And here's a bunch of questions that they tackle, both scientific and theological :
http://biologos.org/questions
Infact, Biologos.org is just a good site to go to for evolution/Christianity stuff in general.
And here's something that we, as Protestant Christians, should ask ourselves: If the Jews, Catholics, and Greek Orthodox can accept evolution, why is it we can say the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture is better than theirs?
God can create the world however He wants. With all observable data, it looks like it was through evolution.
Here's the video:
Evolution vs God
Here's my response:
That's not how "observation" works in science: there's a LOT of stuff we don't see with our eyes that we consider a scientific "observation." Observation is NOT the same thing as "seeing." We base a lot of science on observed cause-and-effect.
For example, take our knowledge of the spectrum of sound. We know that there are sounds that animals can hear, but we can't. We know this because we can see an animal react, and we can measure it via tools. We don't "see" it, but we're "observing" it.
Ray also doesn't realize he's being given the evidence he's looking for. They're telling him about the finches, the fish that evolve. The point is that, given enough time, speciation (creating of a new "kind") happens over millions and millions of years. It's a gradual process that scientists use to account for all the variety of animals we see in the world today. If you breed 2 types of dogs, they'll eventually keep producing new types of dogs (shorter legs. different shaped heads. etc). Expand that over time, and you'll eventually see a different subtype of dog. Keep that process going over millions of years, then their descendants get all mixed up and some of them become a different type of animal altogether.
OK, since we've established that we can't "see" macroevolution (nobody says that we can), we just go to the fossil record. And the fossil record is incredibly supportive of the theory of macroevolution. (see my first link below).
He also uses very dishonest tactics. He selectively edits people's responses to make his own seem legitimate. They often don't have anything to do with making his point (which is that macro-evolution doesn't happen. that's his point, i think), and resorts to making people look like they don't know what they're talking about. That implies that because these people don't know what they're talking about, that there's actually no evidence for evolution. This is wrong. This is Michael Moore type of stuff. He's going for "GOTCHA!"s more than anything else.
Here's scientific evidence of evolution. This site is run by Christians:
http://biologos.org/questions/category/scientific-evidence
And here's a bunch of questions that they tackle, both scientific and theological :
http://biologos.org/questions
Infact, Biologos.org is just a good site to go to for evolution/Christianity stuff in general.
And here's something that we, as Protestant Christians, should ask ourselves: If the Jews, Catholics, and Greek Orthodox can accept evolution, why is it we can say the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture is better than theirs?
God can create the world however He wants. With all observable data, it looks like it was through evolution.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
SEX SEX SEX
The best description of the Christian ideal of sexuality that I've ever come across (the highlighted post by EsquilaxHortensis):
But here's a counterpoint:
Taken together, I think they portray the appropriate vision of what God intended humans to use their sexuality for. Sex is ultimately about being able to give yourself wholly to another person, and as the ultimate expression of romantic love. In our secular society, it's often treated as simply pleasure and gratification. It's not that Christians are prudes... in fact, we love sex! We love it for its multiple dimensions, the way it pulls and binds two people together. It does need the appropriate setting for it to flourish, though.
On the other hand, the 2nd link tackles the flip side of this issue for Christians. Whether we meant to or not, we've sometimes given the impression to young women that their worth is atleast somewhat tied into their sexuality. It is not. We can't seriously say that someone's "virginity" is something that makes them more valuable. That's textbook idolatry (getting your value from another source than Jesus Christ), and reeks of works-based righteousness. In other words, we have no right to feel more "righteous" for abstaining. Because we've all lusted before, and that already makes all of us sexually impure. Yes, we should indeed hold out for the one we will eventually love forever, because that's ultimately best for us, and best for our future spouse. But our abstaining in the process does not make us any more "pure" than anyone else. Our purity is an illusion.
God's not a killjoy. It's not that He wants us to abstain before marriage because he doesn't want us to have fun. Instead, He's doing what He always does: teaching us how to love even more deeply, even better than we ever imagined.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Penal Substitution vs Christus Victor
A quick warning. Here's where I start presenting stuff that's not your typical run-of-the-mill American evangelicism. If you were raised a certain way, you will likely think there are doctrinal errors in what I'm about to present. That's fine. I'm always open to the discussion. Here we go.
Have you ever heard this typical explanation of Jesus's death, and why it atoned for the sins of the world? It usually goes something like this:
God created us and loved us. However, in the Garden of Eden, we rebelled against His rule, and fell into a cycle of sin that separated us from Him.
God wants to get us back, but there must be justice done. We are now evil creatures, and evil creatures need to have their sins atoned for. Yes, God is perfect love, but He is also perfect justice. And justice cannot allow our rebellion and evils to go unpunished. So God had a plan. He would send down His son. And the son would die on the cross, and on the cross, God would unleash all of the wrath He had stored for humanity upon His son. Jesus would pay off all the legal debts of our sin. If you put your faith in Jesus, God would look upon you as if you'd never sinned at all, because Jesus had already paid that debt on the cross.
Usually, a court of law analogy is used. You are the defendant. God is the judge. He fairly sentences you to Hell, but then Jesus comes in and says that he will take the punishment instead. God agrees, Jesus takes the punishment, and you are found innocent. You're free!
And now that I've explained the typical presentation of the Gospel, here's an article explaining why it's mostly wrong:
This is important. I believe that a lot of atheists are jaded by the view that they have of God. I can't really blame them. An accurate picture of God is of vital importance, and I believe that the penal substitution model that is so often pushed is damaging in many ways, and people see God as less beautiful than He actually is.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Fear Not of Man
"Well, from my understanding people get better
when they start to understand that, they are valuable
And they not valuable because they got a whole lot of money
or cause somebody, think they sexy
but they valuable cause they been created by God
And God makes you valuable
And whether or not you, recognize that value is one thing" - Mos Def
You are not defined by your resume, your looks, your skills, your power, your money. Society says that's what you're worth. You're not. Don't buy the lies of this world.
You are defined by being a precious creation that God loves, and
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Man of Steel
On this blog, I plan on trying to point out the Christian motifs of movies I come across. I think it's a cool thingto do: it's good to see how our art portrays matters of faith. It helps us conceptualize these Christian ideas better. Stuff like that, ya know
However, for a Superman movie, I think this movie is surprisingly light on the Christian motifs, especially when you consider that Superman is an artistic rendition of the Messiah figure. But there's some stuff here...the stuff I did see was: ransom theory, and spiritual warfare.
The analogy of the ransom theory seems intentional here. You essentially have a situation where General Zod holds the world captive, and demands Superman as the price for keeping the world safe. The Ransom Theory takes Jesus's words literally (Mark 10:45), where he states that he came to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. This theory also assumes that Satan has some sort of power or control over the world currently, which has Biblical support as well (1 John 5:19). The movie analogy gets sort of loose at this point: General Zod doesn't really have direct control of the world in this movie (although I suppose it could be argued he could easily take control at any moment.) The other loose part of the analogy is that Superman doesn't actually defeat death.. he just sort of breaks free from General Zod and continues the battle after that. But, on the whole, as a concept, it seems like a pretty decent portrayal of Ransom Theory.
The other major one that struck me was spiritual warfare. Admittedly, this could be seen in a bunch of major action movies, because the Good vs Evil motif is explored a lot. I think the most notable thing is the fate of the people involved in the crosshairs of the ongoing battle. There's collateral damage, a bunch of it. But it's not something that God wills. This relates to the problem of evil... there is no "reason" for people being hurt. Not all bad and evil things can be explained that easily. The battle between Supes/Zod, and how it ends up affecting humanity, gives us a decent glimpse at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)