reparieren der welt

The Death of Hitchens: more evidence of fundy Universalism

2012-01-03T18:18:00.000-08:00

It's not hard to recognize that Christopher Hitchens was a decent human being and his death a tragedy. That may be why it is so hard for most fundies/conservative Evangelicals (CEs) to acknowledge the implications of their belief system in relation to the eternal fate of Hitchens. Even shortly before his death Hitchens was adamant that he was not on the verge of converting to Christianity. There are no indications (or even the slightest hint for that matter) that he ever changed his mind on that. Yet, the majority of the responses by CEs to Hitchens passing have placed an absurd amount of emphasis on the possibility that he converted to Evangelicalism before or at his last breath. Take Douglas Wilson:

Christopher Hitchens was baptized in his infancy, and his name means "Christ-bearer." This created an enormous burden that he tried to shake off his entire life. No creature can ever succeed in doing this. But sometimes, in the kindness of God, such failures can have a gracious twist at the end. We therefore commend Christopher to the Judge of the whole earth, who will certainly do right.

He neglects to mention that, according to his theology, most likely "doing right" in Hitchens' case involves Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT). Of course, I can't blame him. Who wants to face those ugly implications?Russell Moore offered a similar obfuscation:

Hell is real and judgment is certain. The gospel comes with a warning that it will one day be too late. But, as long as there is breath, it is not yet too late. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens, like so many before him, persisted in his rebellion to the horror of the very end. But maybe not. Maybe he stopped his polemics and cried out, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Again, I understand the reasons why these Evangelicals would respond this way to Hitchens' death. As I've said before, how could anybody (but sociopaths) stand to apply consistently the beliefs of fundamentalists (and conservative evangelicals) about the afterlife? However, I also believe that it is this very "deathbed decisionism"/"fundy universalism" that allows for the perpetuation of the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment within Evangelicalism. If the doctrine is only ever applied in the abstract, it loses much of its emotional impact. Those of us who reject ECT refuse to only evaluate the doctrine in an abstract, theological context. It seems to me that, if we want this doctrine to be rejected for the loathsome thing it is, we need to eliminate the "deathbed decisionism" card. Those adhering to belief in ECT need to face the concrete implications of this doctrine.

The Failure of Fundamentalism

2011-10-20T21:28:00.000-07:00

As I believe I've mentioned before, I grew up as a pk in an Independent Fundamental Baptist household. A number of my cousins also grew up in this faith environment. To be specific, there are 10 cousins under the age of 30 and over the age of 13 who grew up in baptist fundamentalism. The number who currently have a healthy faith: zero. Those still associated with Christianity maintain that association for superficial reasons. This "falling away" is linked specifically to baptist fundamentalism; however, according to recent studies conservative Evangelical youth aren't sticking around either. I'm not surprised. There needs to be some major changes (and NOT the kind Ken Ham recommends) or Evangelicalism, like baptist fundamentalism, won't be around much longer.

My Alma Mater is on the AIG Website

2011-09-25T20:49:00.000-07:00

Yep, you read that right. It's included on a list of colleges that affirm AIG's doctrinal statement. This list was created after the release of the book Already Compromised by Ken Ham. The book is an exposé of the "compromise" in Christian colleges. Here's the link. Now, I try to maintain a level of anonymity on this blog, so I won't specify which college it is (not that you care). But the important thing is that I went to an uncompromising Christian college (for a year), and still ended up accepting the heathen doctrine of "millions of years."

Insights from The Unlikely Disciple

2011-09-24T01:55:00.000-07:00

I've recently finished reading The Unlikely Disciple by Kevin Roose. I needed to use the remaining balance on a Borders gift card, and I ended up walking out of the store with a copy of The Unlikely Disciple. I'm glad I chose it. It's an easy read with a good amount of humor, yet I was still able to glean some insights from it. Here's a quote that was source of one of those insights:

The trick to being a rebel at Liberty, I've learned, is knowing which parts of the Liberty social code are non-negotiable. For example Joey and his friends listen to vulgarity filled secular hip-hop, but you'll never catch them defending homosexuality. (On the contrary, Joey's insults of choice are "queer" and "gaywad").... In other words, Liberty's true social code, the one they don't put in a forty-six page manual, has everything to do with being a social and religious conservative and not a whole lot to do with acting in any traditionally virtuous way.

Now, you might be thinking "yeah, duh. that's obvious." However, I found this section insightful, because it articulated something that I'd already perceived/experienced, yet never really considered in depth. In fact, after some reflection, I realized that the sentiment expressed in the aforementioned quote is one of the reasons I want nothing to do with conservative Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism. As long as you remain a theological and political conservative, you can completely disregard things like empathy and kindness and still remain in good standing within conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.I've seen this played out one too many times.

The Universalism of Fundies

2011-08-01T17:37:00.000-07:00

Yep. You read that right. The majority of fundies that I've interacted with hold to a form of universalism. Now I'm not referring to universalism of the type advocated by MacDonald or Talbott. Nooooooo. That kind of universalism is downright HERESY.

I'm talking about what I'll call "deathbed decisionism" (for lack of a better term). Deathbed decisionism is defined by the belief/hope that the majority of unsaved people "get saved" minutes or seconds (or nanoseconds) before they breathe their last. In practice this means all the close friends and relatives of fundies end up miraculously "praying the prayer" in the moments before their deaths. It doesn't matter if there's any evidence of a last-minute conversion. Fundies act at least as if there were conclusive evidence that their unsaved friends or relatives converted to Christianity in their last few breaths regardless of the actual evidence. Most fundies will never admit with any definiteness that their unsaved loved ones failed to meet the fundy criteria for admittance into the Shining City; and, thus, are likely experiencing fire and brimstone.

Now, lest I come across as being too critical of fundies, I'll hasten to say that I find the use of the deathbed decisionism card to be perfectly understandable. After all, how could anybody (but sociopaths) stand to apply consistently the beliefs of fundamentalist (and conservative evangelical) about the afterlife?

John Stott said of Eternal Conscious Torment:

Emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain.

Rev. John Stott, I present to you deathbed decisionism.

College, Christianity, and Change Part 2

2011-05-22T17:31:00.000-07:00

Prior to college, I read The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel, so I'd have a good response for the godless evolutionists. Also, since I was home educated, all my science textbooks were filled with YEC dogma. I mention this only to emphasize that I was well-grounded in Creationist pseudoscience prior to my time in college.

However, as I mentioned in my last post, my own observations started to conflict with YEC dogma. I couldn't find a satisfying answer to this conflict in YEC resources. I, therefore, decided to investigate the other side. After reading a number of blog posts on this issue and the bookWhy Evolution is True by Coyne, I became fully convinced of common descent and an 4.5 billion year old earth.

Although the evidence for evolution is impressive (esp, the genetic evidence), my rejection of Creationism was based more on the critical study of the Bible. I find it incomprehensible that an individual can read Giglamesh or Enuma Elish and still cling to the claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate.

Now, even with the rejection of Creationism, I was still fully convinced that theism is not disproven by evolutionary science. I did and do find scientific reductionism to be philosophically shallow and incompatible with reality as I experience it.

However, over time, I began to see the extent to which Christian theology (esp. the typical Evangelical understanding of the Bible) must change in order to accommodate modern science. This lead me to the exploration of higher criticism and the issues of inspiration and inerrrancy, which will be the subject of my next post.

College, Christianity, and Change Part 1

2011-05-22T02:21:00.000-07:00

Wow, it's been quite a bit since I last updated this blog! I guess I'll have to attempt to resurrect it.

So much has transpired since I first began sharing my thoughts on this blog. Specifically, my religious/spiritual transformation has been rather dramatic.

The impetus for my decision to discuss this change is my recent graduation from college. I've been reflectiong on where I was in terms of religious/philosophical beliefs at the beginning of my 4 yrs in college compared to where I am today.

Unlike other accounts I've read, I didn't enter college with an indomitable fundamentalist spirit only to have it crushed by modern scholarship. I entered college with a strict fundy background, but also a raging internal struggle focused on finding a religious/philosophical paradigm that would make sense of my reality.

Now, I admit to holding some rather fundy beliefs at the beginning of my college career. But those beliefs were not held with any sort of dogmatism or certainty. On entry to college I was willing and ready to question everything. And I did.

My first undergraduate year was spent at a Christian college that is rather fundamentalist (in the SBC sense). This college was "liberal" and "compromising" compared to my IFB background. However, even there I challenged the theology professor on issues such as the position of women in church. Regarding that specific issue, the professor eventually conceded to me (privately) that the main reason females should not lead males in the church setting is because they are more easily deceived. Funny, he still thought it was appropriate for females to teach other females. I guess as long as women only deceive each other then it doesn't matter?

Anyway, my year in the Christian college left me with Calvinistic leanings and the hope that maybe the resolution to my internal struggle could be found in Tim Keller's brand of Christianity (i.e. moderately Reformed).

During my three years in secular college, nothing that was taught in class really challenged my beliefs to a great degree. I find that rather humorous, because conservative Evangelicals and Fundies are always ranting about how secular college can destroy the faith of young believers. Not me, the questions that I had prior to entering secular college were much more compelling than any passing remarks made by "pagan" professors.

Evolution was one aspect of my internal struggle. At the Christian college, young earth creationism was highly emphasized (although I suspect that my biology teacher may have secretly been an old earth IDer). There was a banner prominently displayed in the biology lab that stated something like: "Microevolution true. Macroevolution a lie."

I left the Christian college somewhat convinced that at least intelligent design was true. However, not without some cognitive dissonance. When I looked at the biological "creation" I saw lots of evidence for characteristics that only allow for survival in a harsh world. If no biological death took place prior to "the fall" how did animals without rumens digest cellulose? Why do buzzards have talons? Why does the Viceroy butterfly need to be a mullerian mimic with the Monarch? These supposed features of Divine design only make sense in a world "red in tooth and claw." They don't align with the Edenic vision where everything was created good...

I'll further elaborate on how evolution influenced my religious transformation in part two.

Conor Cunningham on evolution and theism

2011-01-07T22:59:00.000-08:00

10 yrs, 10 things that make Evangelicalism unappealing (or worse)

2011-01-01T03:15:00.000-08:00

1. Post 9/11 comments by Jerry Falwell:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen.

2. The Creation Museum

3. Dobson's "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America"

4. The American Patriot's Bible

5. Attempts to execute gays in Uganda

6. Pat Robertson's comments after the earthquake in Haiti

7. The Ergun Caner story

8. The Ted Haggard scandal

9. The millions wasted by Evangelicals in support of Proposition 8

10. Carrie Prejean worship

Note: Order of list has no significance.

On the use of the reasoning process

2010-11-26T19:17:00.000-08:00

"The reasoning process does not first serve truth, but rather the needs of the person exercising it. . . . Do you have a position and, more importantly, a sense of security that needs defending? Call on reason and it will generate defenses ad infinitum."

From The Myth of Certainty by Daniel Taylor

What people need to do (according to Ken Ham)

2010-11-01T17:59:00.000-07:00

I normally don't give a shit what Ken Ham says, but this is just too good (or rather bad) to pass by. From Ken Ham's latest blog post:

Reporters in the secular media seem to do all they can to brainwash people with atheistic evolutionary ideas. This is just another good reason why more and more people need to do the following:

Hmm. I wonder what people need to do? I assume since AIG constantly emphasizes the need to be literalistic biblicists he'll say that people need to read the Bible more. Right? Wrong.

1.Read the articles on www.answersingenesis.org each day.
2.Subscribe to Answers magazine (our next issue even has a special multiple-article section about astronomy).
3.Go to AiG’s online bookstore for resources that tell the truth about origins.
4.Visit the Creation Museum (we’re near Cincinnati, Ohio) and walk through the true history of the world.
5.Go to an AiG conference in your area—visit the AiG conference website for more information.
6.Visit the Creation Museum’s Christmas Town event.

I'm confused. No mention of reading the Bible? And why do all but one of the recommendations involve handing over the greenbacks to AIG?

Biblical clarity

2010-10-03T13:46:00.000-07:00

I think the more I hear "[the Bible, God's Word, Scripture] is very clear on the subject" the less likely I am to think it's clear at all.

Found here

Reason and Faith

2010-09-30T20:34:00.000-07:00

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, “Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?” The young sceptic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.”

~G.K. Chesterton

Mysticism

2010-09-30T20:04:00.000-07:00

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but. . .free also to believe in them.

~G.K. Chesterton

narrow ideas

2010-09-30T19:47:00.000-07:00

"But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel."

~G.K. Chesterton

ultimate and proximate causality

2010-07-08T03:31:00.000-07:00

"Science can't explain away God if God works through proximate causes to carry out his ultimate purposes."

An interesting quote from this video.

In the land of believers

2010-06-25T03:18:00.000-07:00

Gina Welch: In the Land of Believers from DANGEROUS MINDS on Vimeo.

For further details: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1977701,00.html

Shoes or a life?

2010-06-10T21:18:00.000-07:00

I found this compelling vid on Unreasonable Faith:

BTW, I regularly read the blogs of nontheists (which is where I found this video). I'd definitely recommend that, whether you're a theist or atheist, you read quality blogs by those on the other side of the God divide. It's a good reality check.

Simply Christian

2010-06-08T22:42:00.000-07:00

I've heard a lot about the former Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, so I decided to read one of his books, Simply Christian.

Here are some of my favorite quotes (with commentary):

We are made for each other. Yet making relationships work, let alone making them flourish, is often remarkably difficult. . . We all know that justice matters, yet it slips through our fingers. We mostly know that there is such a thing as spirituality, that it's important, yet it's hard to refute the charge that it's all wishful thinking. In the same way, we all know that we belong in communities, that we were made to be social creatures. Yet there are many times when we are tempted to slam the door and stomp off into the night by ourselves, simultaneously making the statement that we don't belong anymore and that we want someone to take pity on us, to come to the rescue and comfort us. We all know we belong in relationships, but we can't quite work out how to get them right. The voice we hear echoing in our heads and our hearts keeps reminding us of both parts of this paradox, and it's worth pondering why.

This quote is a good summary of the main emphasis of the book. Wright discusses the echoes of a voice we hear in our longing for justice, beauty, relationships, and spirituality.

The closer we come to beauty, the more it baffles us. If we simply take the world as it is, with all its drama, delicacy, and majesty, we tend to be pulled either toward the sentimentality of pantheism or the brutalism of a world in which only power realy matters, a world from which God seems to have vanished. . . . The solution I proposed earlier was that the beauty we glimpse in creation can best be understood as one part of a larger whole, and that the larger whole is what will be accomplished when God renews heaven and earth.

I wonder how an nontheist reconciles the beauty (why do we even experience/appreciate beauty?) and brutality of the world?

The Bible is there to enable God's people to be equipped to do God's work in God's world, not to give them an exuse to sit back smugly, knowing they possess all God's truth

As one who doesn't buy into the inerrant/infallible/comprehensive textbook view of the Bible I find Wright's insights on this issue to be refreshing.

The arts are not the pretty but irrelevant bits around the border of reality. They are highways into the center of a reality which cannot be glimpsed, let alone grasped, any other way. The present world is good, but broken and in any case incomplete; art of all kinds enables us to understand that paradox in its many dimensions. . . . Perhaps art can. . . glimpse the future possiblilities pregnant within the present time. It is like a chalice: again, beautiful to look at, pleasing to hold, but waiting to be filled with the wine which, itself full of sacramental possibilities, gives the chalice its fullest meaning. Perhaps art can help us to look beyond the immediate beauty with all its puzzles, and to glimpse that new creation which makes sense not only of beauty but of the world as a whole, and ourselves within it.

Overall, the emphasis of the book isn't apologetics, but, rather, a new way of understanding the Christian faith. I intend to read more books by this author in the future. His understanding of the Christian faith is one that more Christians should become acquainted with.

Human lab rats

2010-06-07T14:33:00.000-07:00

My question for God (in response to this post by Jason Boyett):

Why does the entire metanarrative of humanity, as described in the Scriptures, seem as if God is carrying out some colossal experiment, with human beings serving as the often unfortunate lab rats??

Quote of the week

2010-06-01T20:01:00.000-07:00

“Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn’t commit.” – Eli Khamarov

The decreasing empathy of college students

2010-05-31T23:41:00.000-07:00

I realize I haven't been keeping up with this blog recently. I hope to change that in the near future.

Here is a fascinating article from Science Daily regarding the decreasing empathy of college students. Our world isn't going to get any better if those with the greatest potential to bring about positive change lack empathy.

free will & the Divine

2010-05-06T21:45:00.000-07:00

In my personal opinion, true free will necessitates the Divine. If one's fate is not ultimately determined by chemical reactions in her/his brain it seems as if humans must possess a nonphysical component, such as a soul/spirit/mind etc.

Therefore, it appears that we must look beyond the physical to the spiritual for the source of this component of our beings.

I "know" from my experience that part of my being, a non-physical component, is not controlled by chemical reactions.

It seems it would be difficult for one to reconcile this belief with disbelief in the Divine.

So this is how I see it: The Divine results in soul/spirit/mind, which is the only way "you" could ultimately be in control of your destiny.

How could one contend that chemical reactions are not responsible for his/her destiny without a belief in a non-physical component of humans? And if one believes in that non-physical component how can the Divine be denied?

confession 1: my complicity in the collective cruelty of humanity

2010-05-06T21:32:00.000-07:00

Often the collective cruelty of humanity is emphasized; however, change must occur at the level of the individual.

In order for individual change to occur, individual wrongs must be recognized.

One of my ideals is to never criticize/judge/make fun of individuals. However, sadly, I sometimes have gone along with negative comments my friends have made. I never say anything mean in front of the “targeted” individuals, but I have laughed at negative comments my friends have made when the individuals were not present. I'm ashamed to admit this, but it's the truth. :(

Probably the greatest motivation for this cruelty on my part is the pressure to conform. It's very popular to criticize people (though I don't understand why).

However, when I conform in the face of this relatively “minor” evil, I increase the collective cruelty of humanity.

I definitely have made an effort recently not to respond in a reinforcing way to people's criticism of others. I sincerely hope my reality regarding this issue (and others) will continue to become more compatible with my ideals.

I'm sorry for my failure to live up to an ideal that I truly value.

I'm sorry

2010-05-06T21:13:00.000-07:00

This is for all non-Christians hurt by Christianity. I'm sorry.

an argument for agnosticism

2010-05-01T20:21:00.000-07:00

The most recent lecture in my astronomy class (at a secular college) was on cosmology. The professor (who, btw, has no covert agenda to make theists out of the students) remarked about the unlikeness of our universe. Anyway, I'm curious how an atheist (or non-theist, if you prefer) would respond to the fine tuning argument.

From a scientific perspective, there is no more reason to believe in the multiverse hypothesis than the God hypothesis in regard to an explanation for the fine tuning conundrum (hence the title of the post). Here is an article on fine tuning from the BioLogos Foundation.

plans changed

2010-03-30T15:07:00.000-07:00

During high school and my first year of college I was certain of my future plans. I intended to earn a biology degree and then enter a physician assistant program. Well, I'm currently a junior in a biology program and I no longer have that comforting certainty of knowing what grad program/occupation I should pursue after my days in college are over.

I have yet to find any occupation that would align with my interests and, at the same time, provide a definite and sufficient income. So, since I believe that the likelihood is rather low of determining in the next year what long-term career will work for me, I'm thinking of taking a year or two after graduation from college to do something that I won't do when (and if) I ever settle into a stable career. The only problem is that I don't know what to do.

Ideas I've considered include: working on a sheep farm in New Zealand or a Kibbutz in Israel, travelling through Europe, getting a job on a cruise ship, et al. A major consideration is that I need to find something that will provide an income or at least room and board since I don't have access to unlimited funds. Anyway, I thought I'd post this in case anybody has any helpful suggestions.

streams of protestantism

2010-02-22T15:24:00.000-08:00

For those outside of Protestantism, I'm posting this helpful synopsis from Undeception of the different streams of Protestant Christianity:

1) Fundamentalists/conservative evangelicals assume that the main body of church teaching is correct. When they encounter opposition to that teaching, they tend to marshal their most trusted apologists to defend the teaching.
Distrust: All unbelievers and Christians who disagree with certain (varying) core teachings except for on matters not perceived as influencing worldviews.
Boundaries: Uncertainty is strongly resisted. Very stable; those who unwillingly stumble into doubt tend toward a treacherous disillusionment with faith. May become progressive if enticed to begin critical examination of their tradition.

2) Progressive evangelicals hold to the main body of church teaching somewhat more provisionally. When they encounter opposition to that teaching, they more open-mindedly and critically evaluate the evidence.
Distrust: Fundamentalists; anti-Christian secularists except on non-worldview matters.
Boundaries: Certainty is still largely assumed possible and sought out. Tends to be a transitional stage; an overriding “thrill of the hunt” has been aroused. May become post-evangelicals or liberal Christians when core traditional assumptions are rejected and/or the belief forms that highly formulated theology is artificial and limiting.

3) Post-evangelicals have identified a very few core teachings and hold somewhat loosely to others until they are problematized, which they find happens fairly easily. Characterized by a pronounced agnosticism (in the general sense) and distrust of any systematic theology purporting to be based on Scripture/tradition alone. The assumption is still present that the Bible in the main presents an adequate and accurate picture of spiritual reality, but the burden of proof is not as heavily weighted toward the opposition’s side as it is for progressive evangelicals.
Distrust: Strident conservative evangelicals and strident anti-religious secularists in matters of worldview.
Boundaries: Content with or resigned to uncertainty. A potentially stable position for those who are more content with uncertainty, but many move on to agnosticism or liberal Christianity.

4) Liberal Christians are those whose view of God and spirituality is shaped almost exclusively by the ethics of Jesus/the Christian tradition, clinging to no teaching of the Bible or tradition without subjecting it to thorough critical scrutiny. They have (to varying degrees) adopted the conviction that such critical scrutiny has proved virtually all traditional conceptions of the Bible’s origin, nature, and accuracy to have been inaccurate. Typically regard Scripture as fully human and merely reflective or suggestive of the spiritual realities to which its human authors attest, lacking any coherent theme imposed upon it by God. Needless to say, there are at least as many different varieties of liberal Christian as there are evangelicals.
Distrust: Fundamentalists and the more conservative evangelicals.
Boundaries: Bask in uncertainty. Extremely stable.

Protestantism and especially Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism can be quite a mystery for those who have had the fortune or misfortune (depending on your perspective) of avoiding active involvment in this segment of the Christian religion. In the future, I'd like to attempt to describe my background, and an understanding of Protestantism is necessary in order to grasp different aspects of my experience. . .

this ain't your grandma's tea party

2010-02-12T13:25:00.000-08:00

I do not intend to make politics the major focus of this blog. (I have issues with both ends of the political spectrum, and can not fully embrace the agenda of either party.) However, radicalism, especially that with significant political potential, poses a very real threat to democracy.

The radicalism that I would like to discuss in this post is that of the tea party movement. Now, maybe some would question whether this movement is truly radical. Let's allow the words of Sarah Palin, a prominant figure in this movement, to give us an indication of the nature of this movement. At the first Tea Party Convention, which took place last month, Palin stated: "America is ready for another revolution." Sound radical? I thought so.

The fiscal policies supported by this movement do not concern me as much as the social policies. Although there is a definite libertarian element to the movement, many in this movement would like to see an American theocracy. Here is a video that covers a tea party that took place in September of last year (it includes an interview with a man wearing a shirt that reads: "Christian, American, Heterosexual, Pro-gun, Conservative"):

Speaking of tea parties, check out this amusing commercial for Firefly Sweet Tea Flavored Vodka (I haven't tried it, but hear it's quite good).

negatives of home education (part 1)

2010-02-03T15:44:00.000-08:00

Based on my experience, I'll detail three negatives I have observed:

1. One of the virtually unavoidable negatives of homeschooling is the barrier of experience that exists between homeschoolers and 98% of society. Homeschoolers will never experience the traditional classroom environment and everything that goes with it. Obviously there are aspects of homeschoolers' reality that are not experienced by those who have attended "normal" school. However, there is not a sense of "missing out" or "being different" for non-homeschoolers, because the majority of the population attended public/private school.

2. A negative that can be more easily avoided than the first is the potential for close-mindedness. While this is a risk posed by any mode of education, certain aspects of the homeschooling experience are especially conducive to the development of a very narrow perspective on life. For example, in a "normal" school there are multiple teachers, so the viewpoints of one are easily challenged (in most cases). In contrast, homeschooling involves (usually) only the parents, allowing a limited exposure to to different perspectives. If parents deliberately expose their children to different viewpoints this potential negative is clearly not an issue.

3. Lack of social development is a potential concern that may be overemphasized relative to other concerns (especially in terms of frequency of occurence). For example, the "stereotypical homeschooler" is lacking in the area of social development. This probably is not true in most cases. However, there is a huge potential for parents (esp. those in fundamentalism of various forms) to utilize home education to isolate their kids and, thus, create various social issues.

In later posts, I will relate these negatives to my experience.

emerging. . . "hip"ocrisy (part 1)

2010-01-29T17:01:00.000-08:00

This is something that really disturbs me. It's fairly obvious that the younger generation of Evangelicals is changing. . . at least their rhetoric. Now, many young Evangelicals will list poverty and AIDS on their list of social concerns along with abortion and gay marriage. On the surface, this would seem to be a positive development. However, I can think of a very appropriate cliche that should be applied to these developments: "Actions speak louder than words."

Somehow, I'm missing the action. Those Evangelicals that are most outspoken about issues such as poverty seem to live a lifestyle diametrically opposed to their values. They are the Evangelicals that choose Starbucks over Eight O'Clock Coffee, Grey Goose over Smirnoff, Hollister over Old Navy, etc. etc.

There's no doubt that these Evangelicals are hipper than the older brand of Evangelicals. In fact, a desire to be hip seems like it just might be more of the reason for the new rhetoric rather than actual concern about issues such as poverty.

To be continued. . . (when I don't have a test on the nervous system to worry about. ugh!)

I hate college (at least some of it)

2010-01-22T18:29:00.000-08:00

This guy can't sing, but he sure does express my current feelings (in the first part). :]

1 quip & some quotes

2010-01-15T23:21:00.000-08:00

Here are some insightful quotes (and a quippy one) that I discovered over the last month:

“I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy”

Berdyaev stated that the "greatest sin of our age is in trying to make the concrete abstract."

"For man's sense is falsely asserted to be the standard of things: on the contrary all the perceptions, both of the senses and the mind, bear reference to man and not to the universe." --Francis Bacon

"Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to wish and desire."
--Spinoza

"Hatred has its pleasures. It is, therefore, often the compensation by which a frightened man reimburses himself for the miseries of fear. The more he fears, the more he will hate. And hatred is also a great anodyne for shame." --C.S. Lewis

"Love. . .makes everything complicated. While hate simplifies everything. Hatred puts accents on things and beings, and on what separates them. Love erases accents." --Elie Wiesel

". . . for the Present is the point at which time touches eternity. Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous the the experience which our Enemy [God] of reality as a whole; in it alone freedom and actuality are offered them." --C.S. Lewis (in The Screwtape Letters, thus the equation of God with "our Enemy")

state your views. . .

2010-01-15T16:23:00.001-08:00

I found an interesting list of questions on the blog Triangulations.

Here's the list:

My Denomination:
God’s Nature:
Perfect / All-knowing / All-powerful / Omni-present / All-Loving / Perfect / Eternal / Personal / Perfectly Just / Perfectly Merciful
Christology:
High / Low
Theology of Scripture: Inerrant / Errant
Infallible / Fallible
Soteriology 1: Exclusivist, Inclusivist, Pluralist, Universalist
Soteriology 2: Calvinism / Arminianism / Moninism
Atonement Theology:
Moral Influence Theory / Recapitulation Theory / Ransom Theory / Satisfaction Theory / Penal Substitutionary Theory / Governmental Theory / Participatory Theory / Mystical Theory
Literal Bodily Resurrection: No / Yes
Cosmology: Young Earth Creationist / Gap Creationist / Old Earth Creationist / Evolutionist
View on State of Israel: Christian Zionist / Pro-Israel / Israel-Neutral
Missionology:
Salvation First / Service First
Eschatology:
Premillenialist / Postmillenialist / Amillenialist / Preterist / No Millenialist
View on Science:
Science leery / Science friendly
Women can be priest or minister: No / Yes
Homosexuality can be valid life style:
No / Yes

And here are my answers (or lack thereof):

–My Denomination: undecided–-appreciate the pacifism of the Anabaptists, the intellectual depth of the Reformed tradition, the intellectual freedom of the emerging movement
–God’s Nature:
Perfect / All-knowing / All-powerful / Omni-present / All-Loving / Perfect / Eternal / Personal / Perfectly Just / Perfectly Merciful
–Christology:
High
–Theology of Scripture: Inspired (whatever that means)
–Soteriology 1: Inclusivist (i think)
–Soteriology 2: undecided
–Atonement Theology: uncertain but prob. either
Ransom Theory / Satisfaction Theory / Penal Substitutionary Theory
–Literal Bodily Resurrection: Yes
–Cosmology: either Progessive Creationism or Theistic Evolution
–View on State of Israel: Not christian zionist, but also not a passionate critic of Israel
–Missionology:
both ? If you could elaborate on this question that would great. . .
–Eschatology:
undecided
–View on Science:
Science friendly
–Women can be priest or minister: Yes
–Homosexuality can be valid life style:
undecided

I guess answering these questions has demonstrated my lack of definite answers at this point in my life. . . It will be interesting to see how my answers change as the years progress. . .

". . .no Holy War can ever be a just war"

2009-12-11T00:03:00.000-08:00

Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech was unusual. Why? It was sufficiently thought-provoking to cause me to intently listen to the entire speech.

Here is a quote that I'd like to ruminate on: "A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies."

It interests me because this one sentence provides a major challenge to the ideal of pacifism. I have considered many times, prior to hearing this statement, the challenge Nazi Germany/the Holocaust presents to those (like myself) who feel an attraction to pacifism. However, this statement raises an important question: is it truly impossible for a movement that is commited to non-violence to halt the advance of evils comparable to Nazism?

Here's another quote that I greatly enjoyed: "But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

2009-12-06T09:36:00.000-08:00

Came across this insight of Blaise Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

I find Pascal's Wager to be rather intriguing, so this quote piqued my interest. . .

the lost baby

2009-11-24T07:13:00.000-08:00

I want to share the account of the baby Owens case. I came across this sad account in my bioethics class, and was surprised that I had no knowledge of this case prior to taking the class. Regardless of one's opinions regarding abortion, the barbaric nature of this case cannot be denied. Here is a link to the case:babyowens