Apologique

Oprah and Michael J. Fox told Embryonic Stem Cell debate dead

2009-05-22T18:53:00.000-07:00

SEBC Alumni

2008-08-29T07:49:00.001-07:00

View my page on Southeastern Bible College Alumni

A Good Day

2008-05-19T16:46:00.001-07:00

Last Saturday was a good day for me. (This line keeps running through my head from a rap song in the 90's-"I have to say it was a good day." I'm glad none of the readers of this blog probably know that song. I shudder to think what the rest of the words may be. I think it was one of the Ice's-i.e. T or Cube, please don't research and let me know. Let's just say, they had a juke box in the UAB Pizza Hut when I was in junior high and that's the kinda stuff they used to play...I'm sure I can come up with some other excuses if that one doesn't get me off the hook...but, I digress.)

Last Saturday was a good day for me. My son (whom I shall call "junior" here because of all those weirdos on the internet-you know, the adults that have a myspace page and all of their friends are under 18...um...all those other adults with such pages, I'm a high school teacher and they all want to be my friends and I want to know what they are up to-don't tell them...I digress again)...My son "junior" played his final "regular season" baseball game Saturday. He had prayed for a win for my birthday, but it was not to be. Saturday was to be different. Friday night we prayed for a win and if possible for junior to score a run (he hadn't gotten past second base since the season started, mainly because of where he has been in the batting order and the inning ending with him on base). Not only did he score a run (much to his own bewilderment) but his team also won the game in the bottom of the last inning of the game.

My younger son had a t-ball game earlier that morning, and it was a typical t-ball affair. Mass confusion, half the team dog-piling on the ball, and someone emerging from the bottom of the pile to hurl the ball in the general direction of the first base dugout while the batter finds first base...and the dirt pile beside it. Every player is an artist and the grass and dirt of the field is his/her canvas. The most exciting player on the team is a little girl with a pink helmet about 5 sizes too big (even though it's probably the smallest one they make) and a face mask she has to hold onto while running. There are two reasons she holds onto it: 1) the keep it from falling off 2) to turn the helmet so her legs will know which way to run. It is hilarious to see her turn the helmet and 2 steps later her legs turn the rest of her. Also, while running, it is difficult to keep the helmet straight so she often runs as if someone spiked her sippy cup with a little pre-game go-juice...or vitameatavegamin. Her explanation has been that snakes, alligators, or some other wild animals are snapping at her feet. Whatever is going on inside that helmet, it makes the game more enjoyable for all of us.

After the games were over, we went to see Prince Caspian, the newest movie installment of the Narnia series. The boys thoroughly enjoyed it (if a 4 year old never leaving the edge of your seat or taking his eyes off the screen for 2+ hours is a sign of enjoyment). The movie didn't follow the book as closely as we would have liked, but the action scenes really held the boys' attention.
(Somebody on some blog that I have seen over the past two hours said that they like the movie better than the book. I can't find that blog again for some reason, and I really don't understand why someone would like a movie better because usually, the original books are better than the movies. I am somewhat of a purist and don't like for people to monkey with the details, but that's just me.)

All that to say, last Saturday was a good day after almost a whole school year of seemingly pointless, depressing, and stressful days. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel know and God's glorious grace is apparent to me once again. Here's to more days of enjoying the family and the life with which God has blessed me.

Dawkins/Lennox debate

2007-10-05T17:47:00.000-07:00

OK, it was Wed. night and I was supposed to leave church early to listen to the debate on the radio. However, the conversation was was too interesting to walk out (and I figured that I could buy a recording of the debate but not the class at church). I tuned in about 45 minutes into the debate and got to listen for over an hour. The following are some of the points I heard during the debate.

Part of Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, says something to the effect of, Along with John Lenin, imagine a world with no religion, with no Crusades, no terrorists, no 9/11, etc.
John Lennox's reply began with, Along with John Lennox, imagine a world with no atheism, no Hitler, Stalin, Communism, etc.

Later, Dawkins said that "faith" is believing something in the absence of reason. A lot of times, people believe that faith is only available if there is no evidence (or at least, not sufficient evidence). Those of faith should be encouraged to seek reasons.
Lennox stated that "faith" means "to believe in x." It is correct that people need reasons for what they believe. He then stated that Dawkins has faith in his own wife, and he has this faith on the basis of evidence from his experience of knowing her for years. Lennox agreed that it is proper to believe on evidence, but that we have evidence for Christianity so it is proper for us to believe.
Lennox stated that "Atheism is a faith as well."
To which Dawkins replied, "No it's not!"
Under Lennox's definition, atheism does qualify as a faith b/c Dawkins believes it. Atheism is not just a lack of belief, it is a positive belief that God does not exist. Even agnosticism is the belief that there is not enough evidence to warrant belief in God. This qualifies both as faiths. [Geisler has written a book entitled, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.]

Dawkins stated that he does not see a logical path from atheism to "It is ok to do evil action x" whereas theists can believe deeply that God told them to do x and be perfectly rational b/c they are operating under the assumption that God exists and He told them to do x. If an atheist does x, he is acting irrationally.
The problem is that atheism lacks a rational ground for morality. There is no rational reason for the categories or moral goodness or evil in the absence of God's existence.
Dawkins: "You don't need God to be moral or immoral." IOW, you can act in either a moral or immoral way without God. He also said that you picked or chose how to read the Bible based on prior presuppositions which the atheist also has (but different ones). His point is that we pick or choose what we choose from the Bible to be representations of moral actions which we should emulate rather than purely descriptive accounts of wrong actions which were committed but should not be repeated.
He also states that there is a universal idea of what is moral which we get from common sense. Even though there are disagreements over what specific actions are moral in different cultures, there is a common moral sense of what is right or wrong in general. [One point at which we agree.] Finally, Dawkins says that we evolved in clans with a lust for good. It is difficult at best to see how any altruistic actions would be supported by evolution. It may be good for the clan but not for the individual. I'm sure there is some reason that can be developed for this, but it will take some work.

Lennox agrees that the atheist can be good (i.e. do good actions) without a proper ground for his behavior. [Though Augustine would insist that we can't even do good without being reconciled to God first.]
Lennox gives the example of a rock falling from a cliff which lands on your head. This just happened as a result of physical processes and is thus not an immoral action: physical processes are not moral agents. If our choice of preferred actions is simply the result of physical, evolutionary development, then it is also merely a physical process resulting the way our DNA evolved. Our actions, as the result of how our physical DNA was formed, are no more members of any moral category than the result of the physical processes which led to your being smitten by the boulder. Thus, the categories of good and evil cease to exist. No action can be called wrong because they are all simply resulting from our DNA.

That is what I got from the debate. I hope to hear the rest of it soon.

On teaching Creationism in Christian schools

2007-10-05T16:32:00.000-07:00

I attended a session at the before mentioned conference which was to cover how to effectively teach creationism to Christian high school students. I was underwhelmed to say the least. One of the first things said was that there are 2 options on how the world came into existence: evolution and creationism. Evolution was defined as a purely naturalistic system of natural selection. Creationism was defined as a supernaturalistic theory of how God created the world in 6 literal days, 6000 years ago. The speaker apparently believed that these two mutually exclusive options were the only ones available. He then stated that other views of creation (all of which were conflated with theistic evolution) were self-contradictory because they try to combine, in one way or another, a supernatural with a purely naturalistic theory. Of course, you can't both have God involved and not have Him involved in the creation process; this is contradictory. To combine a natural, physical phenomenon with a supernatural one is not contradictory. Is this not what we find in the world even if we assume Young Earth Creationism? A natural, physical world that involves a supernatural cause. The two can apparently mix. What he meant was that naturalistic processes cannot be used by God because this would mix two mutually contradictory options (the only two, according to him). Do we really want to limit God in this way? I think not. [Even if we want to say this, for whatever reason, our simply saying it does not in fact limit God in this way.] It does not seem to entail a contradiction for God to use naturalistic processes (i.e. processes in the physical world which He set into place).

The conflation of theistic evolution with the processes of intelligent design seems to be an obvious problem. Theistic evolution does not allow for God to step back into the process once He has set it in place (similar to Deism, except that God is allowed to remain imminent in the world as long as He doesn't violate the created order). Intelligent Design postulates a much different idea: God has to step in at certain junctures in the "evolving" process. Without God's intervention at certain points, the physical world could not have evolved past certain points. (Just as in the micro-evolution that takes place now. Human beings may be taller than they have been in the past, but they will never be 20 feet tall.)

The one good point that I got from the session was that the Flood during Noah's time could not have been a local flood. Noah was on the ark for 1 year according to the flood account in the Bible. No localized flood would have remained for 1 year. It only rained for 40 days and nights, but the water did not recede enough for the animals and Noah's family to get off for a whole year. Why would the animals need to be protected if they could just migrate anyway? This is the only argument that made sense to me and seemed to be valid.

I grew up being taught the Young Earth Creationist position, but the lack of (or poor) intellectual interaction with the arguments is unfortunate for someone that would like to see Y.E.C. succeed. It would certainly make the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 much easier to defend.

That's my take on it. For at least nostalgic reasons, I would like to hear good, scientific interaction by Y.E.C., but as of yet, very few of them offer more than strawmen arguments and invalid arguments. There seems to be a general sense of giving academia and scientific reasoning over to the world and setting up a fort to protect the religious world from intellectual interaction with the world. It is sad. Those of us who can help need to serve the Lord and the church in this way, today!

But seriously

2007-10-05T16:20:00.000-07:00

I spent the last couple of days at a very conservative Christian school convention. I met some interesting people and reconnected with some of my former teachers. On balance, it was a good experience.

The difficult parts: I am teaching at a school that is conservative but probably considered liberal or worldly by the other schools at the conference. We were wearing comfortable clothing while the others were wearing suits. Some of my fellow teachers were not accustomed to the ultra-conservative genre in which the other schools operate. I was in the middle and tried to explain where each other was coming from but there were several blank stairs and lack of understanding between the groups. No super bad arguments took place but a general sense of not understanding why the other group is not like "us." If you've ever been to a convention where members of a former school meet along with members of your current school, you have some idea of what I felt. I also have a few friends that went to elementary/high school and college with me. It is neat to look at someone you have known for so long and not have to say anything but have a complete understanding of what is going through each other's head (or close enough).

I met a really nice apologetics teacher with whom I connected pretty well. Also, the other high school teachers and I got to hang out more than we do at school since we're usually teaching most of the time. They are a great bunch.

I'll make a separate post about one of the sessions I attended. When it rains, it pours and when I blog, I really start blogging. Check the next post.

My apologies

2007-10-05T16:14:00.000-07:00

It was a complete oversight on my part to follow a blog entry on a weight loss program with one on amputation. It is true that the quickest way to lose 15 pounds is to cut your head off (according to certain of my in-laws, who are always there for helpful advice), but there was no intention on my part to connect the two entries.

My last suggestion for easy weight loss for the foreseeable future is to use the potty before you weigh. The most results for the least effort (in most cases).

"Amputee Wannabes" have healthy limbs removed

2007-07-20T09:08:00.001-07:00

We studied this in ethics class. It seems so bizarre when this is the result, but the underlying problem is prevalent in today's society. People often say that they have a need to feel like "themselves." They either lack something that would make them the person they feel they "really are" on the inside or they have some additional characteristic which they feel is foreign to "the real me." Think about it though, do you feel like the real you when you don't have on makeup or are in some other state in which you'd rather not have people see you? Today, all kinds of cosmetic surgeries are looked at with little more thought than wearing makeup. We seldom ask why the person feels that he or she needs the surgery in order to feel "right." Part of a consumerist society leads advertising to give us a sense of lacking something. When we buy into this idea that we are always lacking something, we do not have an accurate perception of what it means to be an authentic self. We look at what others say we should be and only feed the beast when we agree and join their ranks. We pride ourselves on using our autonomy to become "ourselves" when we are really only copies of what our society has said we should be. Instead of becoming our own selves, we have become one of the faceless masses--the very thing we were trying to avoid by "bettering" ourselves.
As Christians, we can avoid this problem by thinking about Jesus' love for us. My grandfather (Pawpaw) used to talk about ways he had failed as a father or some other capacity, but when he got done thinking about what a poor job he had done he always followed it up with, "but the Lord Jesus knows all about that." I've been thinking about what this means. Because God has full knowledge of all past and future truths, He has always known what we would do, and fail to do, our entire lives. Here's the kicker, the chose to save us knowing full well when and where we would fail. Our hope is not in our own merits but in the fact that Jesus looked at us and chose us as His own in spite of what He knew about us, how we would fail Him and others. So fear not, we need not determine who we really are or what society wants us to be; we are to become like Christ and are loved by Him. He is our standard of what it means to be an authentic self, and this only comes through pursuing a life in loving submission to Him.

clipped from www.slate.com

Baz remembers first seeing an amputee when he was a 4-year old boy in Liverpool. By the time he was 7 he had begun to think, "This is the way I should be." It was not until Baz was in his 50s, however, that he actually had his leg amputated. Baz froze his leg in dry ice until it was irreversibly damaged, then persuaded a surgeon to complete the job. When he awoke from the anesthetic and his left leg was gone, he says, "All my torment had disappeared."

Wannabes desperately wish to have their healthy limbs removed, and some have succeeded in having it done.

Why? Nobody really knows, including the wannabes themselves, who often say they have had the desire since they were children. "It's obviously peculiar," admits Kevin. "But knowing it is peculiar and saying it is weird does not do away with the problem."

In the meantime, psychiatrists are no closer to understanding the condition, and they are proposing no therapy other than amputation.

My weight loss program

2007-07-20T08:30:00.001-07:00

Everybody has a new diet or weight loss program these days. Mine? Go back to school. As this article states, you burn calories while thinking about difficult topics. Your food consumption will go down as well. 1. You won't have time to eat and 2. Even if you had time, you couldn't afford food anyway.
So go back to school, lose weight, create jobs for teachers, and give me something better to do than create blog entries. We'll all be happy!

clipped from www.popsci.com

Need to lose some flab? Sit your big butt down with a math book—and feel the burn. The human brain is a 24-hour workhorse.

While you’re thinking, millions of neurons fire messages back and forth to each other and to the various tissues in the body. These neurons need fuel, consuming a full 75 percent of the blood sugar from the liver and 20 percent of the body’s total used oxygen

Here’s how your neurons feed: Astrocytes—the cells near the capillary walls in your brain—suck energy-rich glucose from the bloodstream and convert it into a form that the neurons can soak up. The neurons then use it to fuel the production of neurotransmitters and, eventually, conscious thought.

“The more energy an area of the brain wants, the more glucose that part of the brain will break down,”

when you’re hunched over a crossword puzzle? Your brain is blasting through a respectable 1.5 calories a minute.

Graduation

2007-05-26T14:43:00.001-07:00

On Friday, May 25, 2007, I received my master's degree in philosophy of religion and ethics from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Some of you may recognize the fellow in the middle. I think he teaches philosophy or something...

Some of you who are progressing through the current dispensation may recognize this prof.

This one's a little blurry, but we had to fit all six of us in the picture. (Our friends Ed and Dana are having a little boy in the near future.) Also in the picture is my friend Dr. Geivett.

It was a long journey, but we made it. We learned a lot, not only from classes but also about life in general. SoCal is a lot different than the South, and we really learned a lot about making it without being able to depend on family for help. One of the best parts was all of the neat people we met. I made a lot of really good friends from all over the country. We are so glad that the Lord led us here, but we'll be glad to be back home. Hopefully, we still have friends back there.

Really Cool Free Stuff

2007-01-28T13:14:00.000-08:00

Since I am between semesters (at least for the weekend), I decided to check out some really cheep/free stuff to do on the web. I found several things that were interesting and wanted to share.

free e-books These are e-book formats of books that have expired copyrights. This includes Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, classic fairytales, tons of classic works both philosophical and political (everything from Nietzsche to Marx), basically anything too old to retain a copyright. Some of you homeschoolers can save money on books this way.

free theology texts A lot of works by church fathers. Really interesting stuff. You should try reading some of the theology they did in the early church. Really fascinating how deep they got, asking and answering questions I would have even thought of. While I'm thinking about it, gnosticism is a very old heresy and the early church dealt with the problems involved in it. Though some of the gnostic "gospels" have been found in the last few decades, their existence was well known and countered by the early church fathers.

listen to the Bible This site has links for you to listen to the Bible in mp3 format (which plays on Windows Media Player, etc. If you can get on the internet with your computer, you probably have something on your computer already that can play it.). If you want to hear what the Old Testament sounds like in Hebrew, they've got that, too.

Also, I found out that if you google and Bible reference and add "ESV" next to it, you will get a link to the English Standard Bible online which has a "Listen" option next to the title. Try it some time when you want to read the Bible but need to wash your dishes or fold your clothes at the same time or want your children to fall asleep listening to the Word (not saying that it would put you to sleep but find a good Psalm or something that is relaxing or comforting, though if you have trouble sleeping, the drone of a good genealogy sometimes works wonders).

Dr. Douglas Groothuis has given permission to this site to provide some of his lectures from Denver Seminary.

There are a ton of downloads on this site as well. Many of the are excellent for philosophy and theology geeks. Of particular interest to anyone, is C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity audio book. If you've ever wanted to read it but couldn't find the time, now it can be read to you while you are "redeeming the time" (or "seizing the day").

FOR ENTERTAINMENT

For those of us who are OCD and like to collect books, I've put the part of my collection that I have in CA online here. I think you can list up to 200 books without paying anything. A lifetime membership is only $25, I think, so it qualifies as cheap if not free (though you have to provide your own books).

I also found out that, similar to the copyright on old literature expiring, some software companies "abandon" their old programs that are out of date according to today's standards. Just imagine if someone came up to you on the street and handed you a nintendo with all of the games you used to play in the 80's/90's. These old PC games are now known as "abandonware." There are several sites that carry these, but I quickly found one that was overly sufficient for my present purposes. (I found Final Fantasy: Endless Nova there.)

Cure for wanting to move to California. Compare two things: the traffic and housing costs.
California traffic
vs
Alabama traffic

typical CA house (3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms) $500-600k (including a patch of grass that must be perfectly manicured and colored vibrant green 12 months of the year)
typical AL house (dito) $100-$150 k (including a yard, which is expected to change colors during season changes and normally receives water from some unknown source which the locals call "rain")

If that doesn't do it for you, here's the earthquake tracker for CA.
Then, there's always the gas prices
CA
vs
AL

I'm sure there are some other cool things I could find, but school starts again tomorrow so I'd better quit for now. Enjoy!

Where I've Been

2007-01-28T12:57:00.000-08:00

I could tell you that I was abducted by aliens for the past six months or so and most of my friends wouldn't have proof that I wasn't. (I hope you still call me a friends or at least remember me.) Last semester, I took a full load along with my duties as a stay at home father, cook (via microwave), taxi driver, and furniture holder down. I also took an interterm class in Philosophy of Religion that was like an apologetics class on steroids. I have finished that class as of last Friday and have the weekend off before classes begin again. What to do with myself? I found a number of free things on the web that I will share in a different post.

About the class, it was taught by William Lane Craig. If you haven't heard of him, you may have seen him on a tv special about the resurrection or debates about the existence of God, etc. He's really a top notch scholar. You should check him out some time. It seemed that everything I had been learning up to this point in my apologetics/philosophy education came out in this class. I was so glad to have the background information that I did or else I probably would not have understood the deeper implications of some of the points made in the class. By way of example, I just finished a class on epistemology in which I wrote a paper about Alvin Plantinga's A Critique of Internalism. If I had not done that, I probably wouldn't have understood the implications of his Reformed Epistemology that we studied in phil of religion. I also took a class from Craig last January on God's relation to time, in which we studied Einstein's theories and different theories of time. When we got to that section in phil of religion, I had some background info to work with. It's really cool when all the connections are being made between classes.

Anyway, I am only taking 3 classes this semester, and I'll be done in May so I may have more time to blog in the coming months if anyone is interested. If anybody really reads this and wants to drop me a line, either comment or email, I'll feel more motivated to post something as time permits.

I'm still here

2006-10-26T12:02:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I posted. Seems like everybody has a post entitled "Been a While" so I chose a different one just to spice up our lives. I found a quote that justifies my not blogging for a while:

SILENCE is one of the deepest disciplines of the Spirit simply because it puts the stopper on all self-justification. One of the fruits of silence is the freedom to let God be our justifier. We don't need to straighten others out.
Richard J. Foster, Seeking the Kingdom

Really though, I just haven't had time with studies and everything, but here is the quote that I really wanted to post:

A REALIST is an idealist who has gone through the fire and been purified. A skeptic is an idealist who has gone through the fire and been burned.
Warren W. Wiersbe in Leadership

Ravi on Nietzsche

2006-08-10T17:31:00.000-07:00

For those of you who keep up with Ravi Zacharias this probably won't be new info, but I have heard him talk several times about Nietzsche. The interesting thing about Nietzsche is that after being the major force behind the "God is dead" idea, he only lived to the age of 56 and spent much of his last 13 years in and out of insane asylums. While he was having this mental trouble, sometimes the only talking he did was to repeat Bible verse that he had learned from his father and grandfather (both of whom were preachers).

Another interesting fact about Nietsche is that he made the prediction that if the "God is dead" idea were to catch on around the world, the next century would be the bloodiest and would be characterized by widespread insanity.

I thought these observations were interesting. He saw the implications of believing what he taught and actually lived out part of them.

Should we pray?

2006-08-09T09:49:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had one of those questions that follows you around and it is so deep or complicated that you can barely formulate it coherently? For quite some time now, I have been wondering about prayer. I have had to simply rely on "childlike faith" for a while, trusting that prayer really does change things, and I should still pray for God to work in the situations in my life. I have even asked for specific things to happen but have wondered how my prayers could change things or even if I (being finite of understanding) could know what I should be asking for in the first place. I mean, it may seem to me that if someone were healed of a horrible disease that life would be better, but what if I asked for that and it would have been better if they had not been healed. Perhaps some greater good would have come about if I hadn't asked for their healing and God hadn't granted my request. These types of questions followed me around.
Yesterday, on a whim, I pulled out God in the Dock by C.S. Lewis. If you are not familiar with this book, it contains short essays on different subjects. Sometimes Lewis is responding to particular people and sometimes he is just mulling over certain subjects. All of the articles are short and not necessarily connected so it can easily be read in short amounts of time (think bathroom reading material length). Anyway, in the article on "Work and Prayer," I seem to have found, if not a final answer, at least a good starting point for working through these difficulties.
Lewis points out that the problem with this thinking is that we believe that God has a certain , all-encompassing plan that rules all the details of our lives. Now, I never believed that God's plan controlled the minute details such as what type of jelly to put on my sandwich, but anything slightly more important than that could have been controlled by "the plan." Knowing that God's plan is perfect, I never wanted to circumvent His plan by asking for things that were not part of it. Then, it seems odd to even ask for anything at all because it might be the wrong thing. Lewis also notes that this leads to thinking that if God is in control of everything, knows everything, is perfect, and omnibenevolent, then He will cause the best possible thing to come about whether we ask for that or something else. So why should we pray for life to go differently if God will not change His plan to something lesser just because we asked for it. Here, Lewis likens prayer to work: both actions are an attempt to change the (then) current state of affairs. He argues that, if we believe God will not allow us to change the situation and will bring about what is going to happen whether we pray (or work) or not, then why should we get up out of our chair to do anything at all? If our hands are meant to be clean, why bother washing them? They will be clean whether we make the effort or not. On the contrary, the result only comes about by performing the action of washing. Lewis further says,

We know that we can act and that our actions produce results. Everyone who believes in God must therefore admit (quite apart from the question of prayer) that God has not chosen to write the whole of history with His own hand. Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise. It may be a mystery why He should have allowed us to cause real events at all; but it is no odder that He should allow us to cause them by praying than by any other method.

So, I guess that my idea that there are minute choices we can make should have been broadened to larger categories of choices. Still, I don't have trouble believing that sometimes God has me wear a particular shirt so that someone will read it or stop to read a sign for a certain amount of time so that I will arrive at the bus stop at just the right time to have a conversation with someone (a divine appointment, if you will). It seems reasonable, in keeping with Lewis, that we really can, on some level at least, effect changes by both physical actions (or work) and prayer.

Lewis distinguishes between the two types of effort by noting that physical work allows man to accomplish his immediate goal. A man cannot guarantee a productive harvest by hard work, but he can be sure that once he has pulled a certain weed, it won't be there when he comes back. Prayer is different though in that God does not guarantee that our prayer will be answered.

God has left Himself a discretionary power. Had He not done so, prayer would be an activity too dangerous for man.... Prayers are not always--in the crude, factual sense of the word--'granted'. This is not because prayer is a weaker kind of causality, but because it is a stronger kind. When it 'works' at all it works unlimited by space and time. That is why God has retained a discretinary power of granting or refusing it; except on that condition prayer would destroy us.

I think that this has solved at least two problems for me. One is that I now feel that there is sufficient leeway in God's plan for me to request that things work out in a way that I believe would be good (personalize my own journey, if you will). Secondly, I need not worry about messing up God's perfect plan by asking for the wrong thing because He provides a safety net for me by not granting every request when He knows it would disrupt His perfect plan.

Further, the fact that I am allowed (and encouraged) to have a personal relationship with Him causes me to desire to ask Him for things through prayer so that we can commune about what my desires are and He can teach me lessons by granting prayers or not.

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a car?"

2006-05-26T11:55:00.000-07:00

As I was walking down the street the other day, I saw a parked car with an interesting bumper sticker: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" This struck me as rather odd, so I began to think about what it might mean? Does the analogy work?
First, what kind of "choice" are we talking about? The pro-abortion ("pro-choice") advocate would say that it is the choice to "terminate a pregnancy." To translate the meaning of this "choice" into plain English, it is the choice to take a viable human being out of the only place it can remain alive until it can live on its own. In other words, the choice to end the life of a human being. This is where the crux of the issue lies. The pro-choice advocate does not want the freedom to murder other people because everyone else would have the freedom to murder them. One thing that struck me as odd about the placement of this pro-choice message was that it was affixed to a vehicle. I found myself thinking about the choices I make with my car every day. There is usually someone crossing the street on my way to school. Do I have the choice to run them over? Well, yes, but not without consequence. The pro-choice defender would also have the choice to end a pregnancy even if abortion were illegal; the difference is that they would be punished for it just as I would be for running over a person who crossed the street in front of me.
Am I trusted with the choice to run over pedestrians? Yes, in the same sense that abortion seekers would be trusted with the choice to end their pregnancies if abortion were illegal. I am not trusted with this choice without consequence, nor does the government protect my "right" to run human persons over with my car. So, if anyone would understand what I meant, I might put a bumper sticker on my car that says, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a car?"
I have heard it said that the womb is the most dangerous place in America. If we want to truly provide a similar choice for automobile use, we should take away all sidewalks, force the pedestrians to walk in the street, and prevent them from fighting back in order to significantly reduce our ability to make a choice. The government should take away all legislation that enforces consequences for "terminating the pedestriancy."
For the vast majority of abortion seekers, a free choice was already given, and a bad decision was made. The fact that the woman is pregnant did not occur by itself. A prior choice was made and the "consequences" have resulted. A person's dislike of the results of a bad action does not warrant circumventing the punishment. (There are many women that are forced into pregnancy by rape, etc., but this is not the case for the vast majority of women. Not to downplay the horrible situation this is, but if someone rang your doorbell and left a child on your porch, you would be held liable if that child were not secured until another party-or you-chose to provide for it more permanently. You aren't allowed to just leave the child on the porch or worse.)
I believe that the choice being argued for from the bumper sticker is one of determining whether or not to allow another person to live without the constraints of punishment for those who make a murderous choice. The ethics of the choice come from the second statement of the sticker: "how can you trust me with a child?" The Planned Parenthood website says, "Every child deserves to be wanted, loved, and cared for. Parenting is a lifelong commitment, and should be considered carefully." This brings up the question of when life begins. I'm not going to get into all of the technical details here, but science has progressively pushed back the viability of the "fetus" and has shown that the child is "alive" much earlier than was previously thought. For the few weeks before some are positive that the child is alive, should we not err on the side of caution? The call to make sure that every child is "wanted, loved, and cared for" should not lead us to eliminate the ones that aren't, but should encourage us to take care of the children and show them love. We should allow families to adopt the children and show them that they are wanted. Parenting really is "a lifelong commitment," and if life begins at conception (which can be cogently argued for), then we should be committed to it beginning at that point.

Daniel part 1-Prophet vs. Psychics

2006-05-25T13:43:00.000-07:00

Ok, we've all seen the commercials for the 900 numbers with psychics who are supposed to be able to tell the future. If you are like me, it would almost be worth the $3.95/minute to call and see if they could tell me who I am and why I am calling. (Of course, the fine print says "for entertainment purposes only but wouldn't that be entertaining?)
Alright, what does this have to do with Daniel? Well, after Daniel arrived in Babylon, King Neb had a dream and wanted it interpreted. So, flipping through the yellow pages, he came across the Secret Society of pSychics and Dream Interpreters Extroardinare. One simple phone call and a credit card number later, and he had a court full of magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers. Apparently, he was like me in his distrust psychics. When they arrived, he told them to let me know what the dream meant. They said, "O king, live forever [ok, this may have been a normal greeting but it sounds like a marketing ploy to me], Tell your servants the dream, and we will interpret it." It's pretty easy to allegorize a dream (or biblical passage), but Neb wasn't interested in a nice allegorical story. He wanted to know how his dream corresponded to reality. How was the meaning or the dream tied to what was really going to happen in the future. To weed out the imposters, he made a further demand: "This is what I have firmly decided: If you do not tell me what my dream was and interpret it, I will have you cut into peices and yourr houses turned into piles of rubble. But if you tell me the dream and explain it, you will receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. So tell me the dream and interpret it for me." (Daniel 2:5-6) OK, I'm not to good at this, but if I had to read their minds at this point...let's see, it's coming in clearer now... "Uh oh. Is there a back door to this place?"
They tried again to get him to tell the dream. He said, "I can see from a mile away you're stalling, and you're not even good at that." The psychics told him that what he was asking was too hard, no body had ever asked to be told the dream, too. Very interestingly, they said that only gods could perform such a feat, and they didn't live there anymore. Neb's response? "You are so dead." The psychics response isn't recorded, but if my mind reading skills are working again, they were thinking "How about double or nothing?"
King Neb was so angry that he ordered all of the wise men to be killed, Daniel included. Because Daniel responded "with wisdom and tact," he was granted his request for more time. He formed a prayer circle with his roommates Rack, Shaq, and Benny (their veggietale identities). That night, God revealed the dream in a vision to Daniel.
Daniel then went before King Neb to explain the dream. Instead of bashing the psychics (as I have playfully done for him), he actually confirmed their position. No human wise man, magician, psychic or anyone was able to explain Neb's dream. In fact, as the wise men noted, on a god could do such a thing. Since Daniel happened to have connections to the only God that exists, he was able to hook up the king with an explanation for his dream. Daniel was humble in his reply, telling King Neb that "this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men...." What response did Daniel's interpretation draw from the king? "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery." (2:47)
Just think, if Daniel hadn't interpreted the dream, psychics may have gone the way of the dinosaur. Where would we be today without this important segment of our society?

(All Bible quotations taken from the Nearly Inspired Version-that's the NIV).
Storyline is copyrighted and may appear in the forthcoming TIC version of the Bible--that's the Tongue-In Cheek Bible for those who haven't heard of it before).

Flew the coup

2006-05-25T13:18:00.000-07:00

It's been a busy month or so since I last posted. I had just gotten over a debate with an atheist that sent me trying to recall information from all over my academic career. It was fun but tiring. The last blog entry was in response to that. This one complements it by recalling my attending the awards ceremony for British philosopher Antony Flew. On May 11, 2006, he received the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth at Biola University. I'll just quote the announcement for the event:

"Once considered the most prominent defender of atheism in the English-speaking world, Flew stunned the intellectual world by relinquishing his long-held atheism in 2004, claiming that the natural sciences supplied evidence for the existence of a designing intelligence. Flew said that he simply "had to go where the evidence leads." The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth will be given to Flew for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."

If you've studied the existence of God scene much, you've probably run across Flew. He is getting older now, but he was once one of the premier debaters on the atheist side. He used to say that the burden of proof is on the theist to show that God exists and that he was simply going where the evidence led. Apparently, he believes that theists have met the burden of proof, and he has followed the evidence.
He has converted to theism, but don't confuse this with Christianity. He is technically a deist now. He has seen sufficient evidence to warrant believing that some god-like creator made the world but has not determined what he is like. Basically, a deist believes that God created the world, maybe even stopped long enough to admire His work, and then said, "Bon voyage!"
It is amazing to me that Flew can spend so much time with Gary Habermas and not believe in the Christian God. If you've never heard Habermas' presentation on the authenticity of the gospels, you are missing out. Seriously, find a copy to listen to or at least look up his website and read some. Amazing stuff. Who knew it could be so logical to believe?

Final's week is over!

2006-05-25T12:50:00.000-07:00

At the end of every semester, I am reminded of a joke Pawpaw used to tell me. There was a guy that walked around with a rope tied tight around his neck. Every 10 minutes or so, he would loosen it for a few seconds until his face was no longer blue. Then he would tighten it back up for another 10 minutes. Someone stopped and asked him why he was doing this. He replied, "It just feels so good when I stop."
Why do I keep going back semester after semester knowing that every one of them has a finals week at its culmination? Because it feels so good when it stops. (Not really, but a good laugh in the face of reality helps every once in a while).
At least I get the weekend off. Thursday to Monday I am a free man. After that, it's off to summer school and Symbolic Logic.

The Unfairness of Apologetics

2006-04-20T20:21:00.000-07:00

If you've ever gotten into an apologetic "discussion" (term used rather loosely at times), you know that it can be much like a tennis game. They keep hitting the ball (their arguments) to you, and you keep returning it (rebuttal) to them. At some point, this can become very tiring "just like playing tennis for an extended period of time. Sometimes, you get into a conversation with someone who really doesn't know what they are talking about. Perhaps they have heard a clever argument or two. If you've studied apologetics much, these can be very textbook cases which can easily be rebutted. Sometimes, you may find someone that easily outwits most people. Either they have studied philosophy or religion or have atheism as their hobby. Even these times can be useful as a means of encouraging you to keep studying (or increase your efforts) so that you may give reasons for the hope that is in you. Other times, you may be evenly matched with someone. Every time you answer an argument, they come right back with another one.

There is a difference between practicing apologetics with a cult member and with an atheist; a cult member usually remembers the reason they are trying to convince you; they believe that the way to God is through their religious beliefs. The presence of God in their system should keep them honest in their answers. If they purposefully lie (or give you an answer that even they don't think is right), they will have to answer for it in their version of the judgment. On the other hand, an atheist, who believes that life is over when the physical body ceases to function and there is no God to answer to, has little or no reason to be intellectually honest. What real reason would they have to be honest in their "atheistic apologetics?" If their apologetic end is to stamp out "irrational religious beliefs" and they have no judgment in which they would be punished if they don't get caught lying now, the end seems to justify the means. "If I lie or give this piece of evidence, even though I know it is either false or seriously suspect, but the person I am talking to gives up their irrational beliefs, then I have done well." This would seem to give the atheist an unfair advantage in an apologetic conversation. On the contrary, they may have the ability to lie without recourse and be able to justify it, but the Christian has the Holy Spirit living inside them. The Spirit often "whispers" answers at the most appropriate times. Cult members do not have this same Spirit within them. There is definitely spiritual warfare that goes on behind the scenes, but the Spirit is on the Christians' side.

So, as the title says, apologetics is unfair, but it is actually the Christian that has the unfair advantage with the Holy Spirit on our side.

If you have a minute, look up Colossians 4:2-6. Craig Branch of the Apologetics Resource Center encourages everyone to pray through these verses on a regular basis. From personal experience, I can tell you that this has led to amazing opportunities being dropped in my lap.

Quote of the day

2006-04-20T20:13:00.000-07:00

After running around the house for a few minutes, my older son laid down in the floor to rest because his "heart was bumping." He looked up and asked me, "Is my heart bumping because Jesus is running around in there?" Priceless.

Philosophy joke

2006-04-18T22:38:00.000-07:00

Actually, this may only be funny if you are not a philosopher.

What is the difference between a large pepperoni pizza and a philosopher?
The pizza can feed a family of 4.

I've heard this in several of my classes so it must be true. Come to think of it, it's not really that funny. People sometimes ask me what you do with a philosophy degree. Usually one (or both) of two things: teach or flip burgers (sometimes both).

Seriously, philosophy does have some major benefits for life. If you've ever gotten into a "discussion" with someone and knew they were wrong but didn't know just how, philosophy and/or logic can work wonders. They teach you how to wet the bag first so you can argue your way out of it. At the very least, you know some really big words that the other party will have to look up which gives you just the opportunity you need to slip out the back door.

I also know a couple of people who have really good methods for discussing a topic with someone even when you don't really know what in the world they are talking about.
The first works really good with philosophy. When a theory comes up that you know nothing about, you simply ask if the person opts for the strong or weak version. They usually give more than a one word answer. If you are still stumped, you can ask what the person thinks about the major arguments against their position and how they respond to them. Surely, you can find something intelligent sounding to say somewhere in the dialogue. (I believe I got this about second or third hand from Dr. DeWeese?)

The second method works rather well in apologetic or religious discussions. It is the "Columbo Tactic" which Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason ministries uses. If you are interested, check it out. Very basically, it consists of asking questions to get the person to be more specific about what they said. You never really have to say anything intelligent. Usually, people aren't as sure of their own beliefs as they initially sound. When they hear themselves say something that doesn't make any sense, you don't have to do much work at all.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that for some classical philosophers, you don't get a philosophy degree to do anything; simply being a better, more well-rounded person is reward enough.

Gospel of Judas

2006-04-15T13:44:00.000-07:00

I did not get to watch the National Geographic special on the Gospel of Judas but several people I know did. If you want to learn more about what this is all about, check these links out.

Biola Univeristy on the Gospel of Judas

A-Team blog

Apologetics Resource Center

Angels Opening Night

2006-04-14T21:57:00.000-07:00

This picture was from Opening Night at Angel Stadium. I was able to take my older son to both of our first opening day games. We frequent the cheap seats so if you want to see the flag in the shape of the United States, you might want to turn your head to the side (or use your imagination). There were also military jets that flew over during the National Anthem. They were declared far too loud by my young apprentice, but the overall ceremony was quite emotional/thrilling/grandiose.
This was the first of a three game series against the Yankees. On a mathematical note, the Yankees payroll to Angels payroll ration is 2:1 while the outcome of the series was 1:2. That math doesn't add up to me, but what would baseball be without the Yankees? Love 'em or hate 'em, they are a necessary part of America's favorite pasttime.

BEHIND THE TIMES NO MORE

2006-04-14T20:56:00.000-07:00

Well, Easter break has started, and I still did not have a blog even though everyone I know has one (except maybe Mawmaw, unless she just hasn't told me yet which wouldn't be surprising). Even my wife, the technologically savvy person that she is, has had a blog for a while now. So, without further ado, here is my first attempt at blogging.
I am open to discussing just about anything...I am interested in a wide variety of stuff so anything is fair game. My philosophy discussions tend to be more on a popular level than on a very theoretical level so that I can discuss them with a wider range of people, but I'm open to deeper discussions as time permits.
Currently, we (it's a family ordeal) are trying to get a Master's degree in Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology/Biola U. I am also a season ticket holder for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball team. I enjoy short walks on the beach and flying kites (which I have been told to do on occasion).

Now that I have blogged for the first time, I can feel safe saying that I am no longer behind the times. If that doesn't do it, then maybe I should discuss what time is. Since there is no consensus on what time really is, and I don't have time to discuss Einstein's theories, I'll just take a time out for the time being. I'll be back soon with more necessary tidbits of wisdom that you'll wonder how you ever lived without.