Okay, Ben Witherington is back in my good graces, because he’s got a really decent sense of humor. Check out today’s post, which has one of the best collection of puns and one-liners I’ve seen in a while (some of which I’ve not heard before).
No bull.
Whether or not you agree with the label “new atheists,” I’m sure you know that it refers to a handful of very vocal writers who are proposing among other things that religion is the real root of all evil. This morning I ran across this insightful article on the City Journal website by Theodore Dalrymple, who refers to himself in the article as “the village atheist.” In the article, entitled “What the New Atheists Don’t See,” Dalrymple discusses his thoughts on the “epidemic rash of books” by these “new atheist” authors. And, he’s not at all impressed by what he has seen:
The curious thing about these books is that the authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave. They imagine themselves to be like the intrepid explorer Sir Richard Burton, who in 1853 disguised himself as a Muslim merchant, went to Mecca, and then wrote a book about his unprecedented feat. The public appears to agree, for the neo-atheist books have sold by the hundred thousand. Yet with the possible exception of Dennett’s, they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14 (Saint Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence gave me the greatest difficulty, but I had taken Hume to heart on the weakness of the argument from design).
Dalrymple deals with several of the authors, giving quite general thoughts on their arguments and overall positions, in general feeling that at the very least, they are being quite myopic in their approach:
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.
“Thinness,” I think, is very appropriate as he goes on to explain what, in his opinion, the new atheism is missing, and where it is failing. Of course, Dalrymple is not arguing for the existence of God – he, however, does point out that there is an obvious depth in at least the Christian religion that is missing in the new atheism.
On the other hand, in this article at least, he does not provide support for any other type of atheism, but I recognize that was not his point here. Overall, it’s a well-written, thought-provoking look at the recent flood of atheist literature from a fellow atheist.
I’ve always loved horror movies, and still do (rent 1408 if you haven’t already). So, when my friend Mike tagged me with the Hallowmeme, I couldn’t resist. (A meme in blog-talk is kind of like a chain letter, without the curse attached.)
The Hallowmeme is to show a trailer from a horror movie from your childhood. In my case, the difficulty was deciding which one… every Halloween the Hallock City Hall was open for a big Halloween party, which included witches stirring cauldrons of something, candy, games, and short versions of the then-classic horror films like Frankenstein or Bella Lugosi’s Dracula. But, my favorite horror flicks were the ones they used to show on Saturday afternoons on one of our 2 or 3 area TV stations. I never knew if the films were in color or black and white, as all we had was an old B&W set. That, along with the bad reception that we were used to in those days, made everything seem just a little bit scarier.
One of the big special effects in use in the 50′s was to take something small and blow it up to gigantic size, so we had movies about giant bugs and anything else that would be scary in large sizes. One of my favorites was The Amazing Colossal Man, which was more of a sci-fi than a pure horror flick, but had the same “attack of the giant
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Fw3J2G_bM]
But, my selection for a true horror flick is none other than The Blob, starring a young and then unkown Steve McQueen:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAKfGjdh5as]
Be afraid… be very afraid…
Now, who shall I tag?
fredzone
accidental procrastination
KenComments
Michael Krahn
That’s enough.
It seems that Mr. Osteen is still generating some commentary from Ben Witherington. Now, I don’t know why Osteen bugs him so much; compared to what else is on TV in the name of Christianity, Osteen is pretty bland. But, he is incredibly successful. Today, all BW does is provide this quote from John Wesley under the title, “Memo to Mr. Osteen from John Wesley:
I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.
(Now, I first tried to leave a comment on Witherington’s blog, but I always have issues trying to log in to Blogger, so I gave up and decided to comment over here, not that he reads my blog.)
This afternoon I was flipping through the TV channels and happened upon Mr. Osteen. This particular sermon did, in fact, step over the line (in my opinion) into the “believe it, receive it” territory, which I don’t agree with. He was not, however, teaching that God will make you rich, but rather to have faith for things like getting out of debt.
But, is Wesley’s comment above any better? Is poverty more “holy” than prosperity? In fact, it seems that Wesley was a might confused and had mixed emotions about any kind of “religious” revival. If, in fact, the Gospel takes root in an area, he proposes that industry and frugality is a necessary result. Therefore, people prosper, which he theorizes will “kill” religion. It would seem that revival is self-defeating by his analysis.
Reading between the lines, however, I sense something which is perhaps more insidious than a prosperity gospel: the belief that poverty is tied to holiness. I am not an expert on Wesley or Methodism, but I do know that while he remained an Anglican, he was one of the early holiness preachers, holding an Arminian belief in man’s free will, and a belief that man can achieve (with the help of grace) a certain state of holiness. The problem with this thinking is that even with a professed belief in the prevenient grace of God, it results (often, if not always) in a works-based Christianity which stands in opposition to the Gospel of grace as taught by Paul. If this is the case, then Paul would say that it is no gospel at all:
Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? – Galatians 3:3
Certainly an Earthly prosperity is not to be our goal; that much is clear. However, I don’t believe that a goal of poverty is in accordance with the abundant life that God has promised us, either. And, I do not see that our spirituality is tied to either poverty or prosperity. Either extreme can result in totally screwed up lives; however, a belief in prosperity is usually not (at least that I’ve heard) tied to our salvation. On the other hand, if we fall into a works-based gospel where our sanctification (and possibly our salvation) is dependent upon our own free will, then perhaps we have no gospel at all. I’m guessing that if one has to err, it would be better to err in faith in God than to put faith in your lack of wealth.
Obviously, Paul did not assign anything spiritual to a state of poverty or prosperity, and that’s where I’m going to have to come down on this issue:
I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. – Philippians 4:12
(However, plenty is a lot more fun.)
Thanks to my friend Mike for pointing out “former homosexual and HIV-positive Christian activist” James Hartline, who demonstrates that ultra right wing Christian fundamentalists also take advantage of our freedom of speech. Now, I’ve never heard of Mr. Hartline, but I felt compelled to go to the source and check him out. Wow. That’s all I can say.
Here, from his very own blog, is the quote that won him this prestigious award:
They shook their fists at God and said, “We don’t care what God says, we will issue our legal brief to support gay marriage in San Diego!” Then Mayor Jerry Sanders mocked the Christian vote and signed off on this rebellious legal document to support same-sex marriage.
And then the streets of La Jolla under the Mt. Soledad Cross began to cave in.They shook their fists at God and said, “We don’t care what the Bible says, We want the California school children indoctrinated into homosexuality!” And then Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the heinous SB777 which bans the use of “mom” and “dad” in the text books and promotes homosexuality to all school children in California.
And then the wildfires of Southern California engulfed the land like a raging judgment against the radicalized anti-christian California rebels.
Apparently Harry Reid was wrong. It’s not global warming, it is the gays. We should have known. So, Mr. Hartline, you win! If this blog made a profit, I’d send you a trophy or something. But, as it is, the prestige will have to suffice. I should point out, if you’re new to the blog, that the Freedom of Speech award is given to those who proudly take advantage of the First Amendment, which guarantees us the right to say really stupid things in front of millions of people.
What’s “really stupid” about the statement I quoted? Well, one of the commenters on Hartline’s blog had this to say:
god demolished new orleans via katrina. well, except bourbon street, where all the homos are.
currently, fires are burning in southern california, but the city of los angeles has been spared. west hollywood is still standing, but republican strongholds have been turned to ash.
clearly, god hates black people and republicans.
What’s wrong with this “judgment” mentality? Well, consider these Old Testament examples: God sends the flood, but saves the only “righteous” man left (and his family). When Abraham negotiated with God for Sodom & Gomorrah, God agreed to hold off judgment if a mere handful of righteous people remained; as it turned out, he removed Lot and family from the place first. Does God have a pattern of destroying the righteous and leaving the “sinners” behind? It wouldn’t seem so. By the way, in San Diego, you’d expect the Hillcrest area to go up in flames first (along with my favorite restaurants…), not conservative Poway and Rancho Bernardo. Were the people who died gay?
It’s bad theology, bad logic, and just plain ignorant. From this comment, it appears that Mr. Hartline doesn’t know his Bible, and doesn’t know his God (or maybe we have different gods…). I am not “pro-gay” by the way. I’m just pro-truth.
To Freedom of Speech!
Harry Reid!
For those who may not be aware, since it’s been some time since I gave out this award, The Freedom of Speech Award is given to those who go above and beyond in celebrating their right of freedom of speech. And, as I’ve explained before, the freedom of speech is defined by me as “the right to say really stupid things in front of millions of people.”
Which brings us to Harry Reid, who could qualify for this award on a fairly regular basis. But, I wait until I see a prime example of public stupidity – I mean, free speech – to take up space here. As reported on the Maverick Philosopher blog, The Hill posted an article Wednesday which included the following gem from our man Reid:
“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.
In a perfect example of America’s much-valued privilege of Freedom of Speech, Reid is completely shameless in being a political opportunist as well as a speaker of public stupidity. Where else but in America! The Maverick P’s post goes on to make the following observation: “The hot air of a jackass like Reid plays more of a role that any supposed global warming.” However, as the Maverick P goes on to state, Hugh Hewitt doesn’t seem to appreciate free speech as much as I do:
Reid is a witless opportunist. Half a million people are evacuated, at least 1,200 homes have been lost so far, federal, state, county and local resources are performing acts of heroism all over California to save lives and property, and Harry Reid wants to blame it on global warming to score political points for his energy bill? What a creep.
Oh well… Hugh has his First Amendment rights, too. I just like to look at the positive side of things.
From the i-monk:
If you want to see genuine worshipers, I’m not sure your local evangelical “praise and worship” service is necessarily the right place to go. Maybe….maybe you might want to stop in that 8 a.m. mass over at St. William’s.
This is a nice companion to something I wrote a while back. Someday soon I’ll write about why I’d consider rejoining a Lutheran church… if one (in the original sense of the word) still exists.
While browsing around the web this morning I came across this article by Doug McManaman, a philosophy instructor at Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy in Markham, Ontario, and also the President of the Canadian Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. In the paper, apparently written to his students to deal with the apparent issues raised by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, he deals with two of Dawkins’ arguments:
What I like about McManaman’s article is that it is written for his high-school students, thus I have a fair chance of understanding it. About the issue of the existence of God, he writes:
But the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis that is meant to fill in the blank to the question of the origin of the universe. It is certainly possible for God or gods to be taken in this way, that is, to attribute certain unexplained natural phenomena to a god, as if the sun is a god, or the rain, etc. If one thinks along these lines, one will certainly have to provide evidence for such an hypothesis. But that is not what Jews and Christians mean when they speak of God.
He goes on to explain, as I have attempted to do in the past, that God is not a contingent being of the sort that Dawkins argues against. Of course, Dawkins has built in an opposition to that question in the book, (“don’t argue that you don’t believe in this god either, I can’t deal with everybody’s particular god!”), but that’s simply because that argument is a rather good one.
With regard to the claim that “all truth is scientific,” he presents a simple exercise in logic that demonstrates the error of this assertion, then deals briefly with Dawkins’ claim that the God of the Old Testament is immoral. Summing up, he says:
So how does Dawkins get away with this? To be honest, I’m not sure how much he’s getting away with. It seems that most of the bloggers and book reviewers I read are able to see through him to some degree or another.
It’s a fairly short, simple, look at these issues, but I think he’s done a good job. Now, having never been Roman Catholic, I doubt that I will agree with some of McManaman’s thoughts on other issues, such as purgatory, penance and the Pope. However, he’s also put together a basic primer on philosophy (from a Catholic viewpoint, of course) which I have bookmarked and will look through.
Why is everyone picking on Joel Osteen? Now, I have a reputation of being rather hard to please (I don’t know where that comes from, by the way. I like a lot of things. I guess it’s just that when I don’t like something, I’m pretty upfront about it.), but I have to admit, I like Joel Osteen. And, I can’t figure out why so many Christian bloggers and leaders dislike him so much.
I started catching Mr. Osteen on TV about 3 years ago, as I’d be flipping channels late in the evening. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a program from start to finish, and I can’t even tell you what channel or when he’s on. But, whenever I catch him I am compelled to watch, if only for a few minutes. I just happen to like him.
After catching him a few times, I realized that for one thing, he’s an excellent speaker. He speaks slowly and deliberately, taking time to address various sections of the 30,000 people in the stadium (when I first started watching, his church wasn’t nearly that big). He is also very honest, making himself the brunt of his jokes, and generally lifting up his wife in the process (that’s actually unusual – most pastors I’ve seen tend to use their families as object lessons, displaying their faults for the church to see, and I hate that). And, he’s positive; he either makes me feel better than I had a few minutes earlier, or he’s convinced me that I’ve got to change my attitude (which makes me feel better, too). So what’s not to like? My wife didn’t care for him at first, until one particular message caught her attention. She still doesn’t agree with everything she hears from him (not that we listen to him more than a few minutes every once in a while by accident), but she now understands why I like him.
Over the past few months I’ve read a few blog posts which take issue with Osteen; however, as I’ve read through them, I haven’t found much there. Michael Spencer, the internet monk, who I usually like, is pretty blunt: “Again, as I’ve said before, every evangelical leader needs to personally and by name repudiate and separate from Osteen….” Ben Witherington, whom I also like, has also come out against Osteen.
I’ve spent some time searching the web to find out more specifically why people don’t like Osteen, but I haven’t found anything that to me warrants all the vitriol. Granted, he teaches positive thinking. Granted, he doesn’t preach Billy Graham-type messages. But, does he have to? Perhaps he doesn’t think Sunday mornings are the place for evangelistic messages. There are plenty of people who agree with him. Even still, last year alone apparently 18,000 people came forward after the invitations he gives at the end of each sermon. Who’s to say that these people aren’t taught the “proper” gospel after the cameras are turned off? Has anyone actually investigated the church to see what they do with new converts? Does anyone really know what Osteen’s theology is? Are people in Lakewood Bible Church confused about who it is who has saved them? Not that I’ve been able to read. Perhaps he is a heretic; if so, please show me.
Personally, I think people have heard enough “works” based messages, if that’s what these people mean by their complaints that Osteen isn’t “preaching the cross” (which I tend to think it is). Those who believe in a works-based gospel (which according to Paul, is no gospel at all) don’t really believe in the cross. Osteen is not telling folks they can think their way into Heaven (or out of Hell). what Osteen tells people is to change the way they think and act; that their lives will improve as they stop being negative, and stop being jerks. People spend thousands on shrinks to tell them the same things, what’s wrong with hearing it for free?
As much as some may not want to believe this, the Bible is full of Good News. It gives us thousands of years of examples of how to live, and how not to live. Take a look at what Jesus taught- forgive others, love your neighbors, etc. Have you ever seen anyone criticize Jesus for failing to preach “the Gospel” to the Rich Young Ruler? What about when he refused to judge the woman caught in adultery. He merely gave her some good advice, and sent her on her way. Any criticism here?
Again, I’m not saying that Joel Osteen is a great theologian, or that he’s not got some issues. However, I fail to see enough error to justify him being criticized so strongly. if someone thinks that Osteen is failing in some way by not loading folks down with heavy guilt trips, I suggest that they go ahead and gather 30,000 people and tell them themselves. But then, there are plenty of people doing that already.
This was not the topic I had planned for today, but sometimes priorities and opportunities are what they are. So, please check out To All the Sheep Who’ve Left the Fold. It’s worth the listen. Trust me.
