Jim Pierce, who blogs at confessionalbytes.blogspot.com, was formerly an atheist who discovered an old essay dating back to his atheist years was still online. He is now writing a series of posts arguing against his former beliefs (or lack thereof). In the first post of the series, he reprints his original essay. The 2nd post begins his rebuttal.
Good stuff.
This is a pretty cool video about a growing Lutheran church in Tulsa (yes, Lutherans in Tulsa!).
One aspect of liturgical worship I keep coming back to is intentionality. Many contemporary churches are blown to and fro, if not by “every wind of doctrine,” by every faddish worship concept. It’s one thing to be “culturally relevant,” it’s another thing to lose hold of the gospel to gain market share. Liturgy is grounded in nearly 2000 years of theology and tradition; it’s about as intentional as you can get. And, reciting words written in the 3rd and 4th centuries certainly keeps you grounded in historical truth.
Another interesting thing pointed out by one of the people interviewed is that everybody does the same thing in worship; it is a true corporate experience rather than the “do your own thing” approach that promotes individuality rather than unity.
Thanks to Paul McCain for this.
This is an interesting look at the development of the Church of England. Good reading for a holiday.
This post is in response to 2 different posts I’ve read in the last couple of days. First, here’s one from Common Sense Atheism on Why Philosophy of Religion is Awesome. He has some good points about why it’s fun to talk about things you don’t necessarily believe in (he is an atheist, after all). At the same time, that should give Christians pause: Do we spend time arguing about meaningless issues for fun? I confess, sometimes I do (not that I think they are necessarily meaningless). I like a good intellectual, philosophical discussion. It helps me think, challenges my thinking, and helps me think some more.
But now, here’s another post from The Prosblogion (a Philosophy of Religion blog), An Eschatological Paradox:
Suppose God distributes punishments and rewards based on how well we live up to moral standards over time and God determines when we die and when will be judged.
The question is, is God justified in punishing someone whom God kills off before he can earn enough rewards to go to Heaven (more or less).
I wrote a comment saying essentially that this was a waste of time, because it’s an unreal situation; Paul solved this paradox in Galatians by proving that the living up to moral codes can”t possibly justify you in the first place. My comment was not posted; instead, there are 8 or 9 comments by folks willing to play this stupid game.
It’s one thing to discuss issues that are true, may be true, and which have an impact on other issues if they are true. It’s another thing to argue about completely irrelevant issues. I’m sure I was written off as a fundamentalist or something, for actually talking about truth instead of meaningless mental games, the equivalent of a spiritual Dungeons and Dragons (“Can I be the wizard?”). As many of us know, Paul warns in Titus 3:9, “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.”
The philosophy of religion is indeed fun. However, there comes a point where it is just stupid.
