C.S. Lewis Society Blog

This was a fascinating interview, thanks for shari...

2009-10-08T01:19:23.397-05:00

This was a fascinating interview, thanks for sharing! Contrary to the above comment, I thought it was a very fair shake given to Behe, who has been widely criticized by both Christians and non-Christians. For someone like me, who is trying to learn all about what we know in the Biological sciences, particularly natural selection, it was extremely helpful in setting the terms and ideas of the debate.

Thanks!

2009-09-24T11:51:37.851-05:00

Thanks!

There is no debate in the video. There is a non-sp...

2009-09-02T20:41:33.293-05:00

There is no debate in the video. There is a non-specialist bamboozled by what appears to him to be an awesome sscientific breakthrough gushing all over the person responsible of the "breakthrough", totally unaware that it has been thoroughly debunked, botht as science and as philosophy.

I do not think that the diavlog should have been published in the first place; of course, taking it down was a wrong idea and played right into the paranoia of creationist circles.

Thanks Mark. I think we need to distinguish betwe...

2009-04-20T11:10:00.000-05:00

Thanks Mark.

I think we need to distinguish between historically reliable and inspired. They are--in their own way--two very different conversations.

Let's take your suggestion regarding 2 Peter,the Pastorals and you could even through in 2, 3 John and Jude here as well that they didn't belong.

My own view is that a case can be made for their acceptance (Paul or Peter's use of an amanuensis (Scribe) would certainly account for different style, grammar, and syntax among other considerations).

But for the sake of argument, I will grant that they aren't in the Canon. What follows from that? at most it affects the doctrine of inspiration.

What it does not affect is the historical nature of the earliest proclamation of Jesus, his resurrection, and his earliest followers devotion to him as a God--this is part of the oral tradition that goes back to within a year or two of the crucifixion (cf. Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ and Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses).

The historical core of Christianity, the person of Jesus, and his teachings remain untouched. So even if they picked second peter by mistake (which I don't think they did), that doesn't change the fundmaental nature or reality of historic Christianity. At most it leads to an interesting discussion about Inspiration.

Finally, we know that 22 of the 27 books of the NT were functioning as authoritative within the earliest Christian communities by the close of the 2nd century. Certain texts were to be read along side the Hebrew Scriptures, others were not.

From this and what I've heard previously of the pr...

2009-04-16T18:04:00.000-05:00

From this and what I've heard previously of the process of NT formation, I'm comfortable assuming your concluding paragraph is correct. This wasn't corrupt power play and there was a real attempt to pick out the most suitable and authentic books for the NT. The important question though is whether this honest attempt by fallible humans could and did succeed in its aims.

For example, you point out the importance of apostolicity, and the efforts made to determine if a book was apostolic. Letters like 2 Peter or the pastoral epistles are generally considered pseudepigraphical by modern scholars. Hence using the standard of apostolicity, these epistles shouldn't really belong in the canon.

Given the strong possibility of some NT books having been selected for the canon due to an honest error on the part of the fallible humans doing the selecting, how can you be confident that the NT includes only genuinely inspired books, containing only apostolic teachings?

In response to Richard...We can confirm seven thin...

2009-03-18T01:06:00.000-05:00

In response to Richard...

We can confirm seven things about Jesus outside of Scripture.

1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher
2) Many people believed that He performed healings and drove out demons.
3) Some people believed Him to be the Messiah.
4) He was rejected by the Jewish leaders.
5) He was crucified under Pilate in the region of Tiberius.
6) Despite His shameful death, His followers who believed He was still alive grew in numbers in Palestine and reached Rome by 64 A.D.
7) All classes of people, master and slave, poor and rich, followed Him.

And that is all without ever opening the Bible. We are able to get a basic outline of who He was. These come from three sources, Josephus, Taticus, and Pliny the Younger.

And in reference to the passage Josephus, many scholars believe that Christians added to it later on. But they agree that Josephus did originally write it.

Three things are commonly believed by scholars to be interpolations added later.

1) "if indeed we ought to call him a man."
2) "He was the Christ"
3) "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life."

All three of those points show a belief in Jesus that He was the Messiah and rose form the dead. Josephus would have stated somewhere in his extensive writings that he changed his mind to believe in Jesus. So for that reason, scholars believe those three lines to be false.

However, most of them agree, that the rest of it is believed to be written by Josephus. It fits the tone of his writing and the rest of the passage does not meet the usual standards of how Christians of the time would talk about Jesus. For instance, in the beginning, he calls Jesus a wise man. A Christian would have surpassed that.

The rest of the passage is unexceptional apart from the three lines taken out above. Christians would most likely have romanticized it much more than what is written here.

Hello Richard. That is a common objection. But I w...

2009-03-13T18:34:00.000-05:00

Hello Richard. That is a common objection. But I would encourage you to challenge the premise. Why must we look outside the NT if the earliest and best historical documents are the New Testament?

In other words, if I am in conversation with someone, I am not appealing on the basis of inspired infallible Scripture that Jesus was raised from the dead. I am saying let's look at the historical evidence and there are 27 different historical documents to consider. So for example, Paul makes the case for the resurrection 1 Cor 15. No liberal scholar denies pauline authorship and they all accept a date of around 53 AD. That is within 20 years of Jesus' crucifixion. Allowing for the received / delivered language of 1 Cor 15:1-5 (a technical term for the passing of oral tradition in Judaism), Several prominant scholars (J.Dunn, L.Hurtado, R. Bauckham, G. Habermas) have made compeeling arguments that this tradition goes back ot within a couple of years of the crucifixion.

The best palce to start is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and then track down the scholars above).

Another that I hear is that there is very little o...

2009-03-13T17:56:00.000-05:00

Another that I hear is that there is very little or no supporting evidence for Jesus, especially the resurrection OUTSIDE of Scripture.

This is generally followed by berating the most famous Josephus reference as an editorial added long after the time of Josephus.

Can anyone help with this?

Hello jimtrox. Thanks for your input on my post. I...

2009-03-07T15:06:00.000-06:00

Hello jimtrox. Thanks for your input on my post. I understand and agree with you that this isn't a pro-Christian argument.

apologetics has defensive (i.e., responding to specific objections against Christianity) and also, offensive apologetics (i.e.,which seeks to commend the Christian worldview to others.)

This particular approach, as prodigal observed, is defensive responding to a very popular and common New Atheist argument. So I wanted to weigh in on the historical facts of the matter.

I am also certainly not trying to whitewash evil done in the name of Christianity either--but this does put into perspective the magnitude of evil done by Atheistic regimes.

Thanks for your input.

I understand what you're saying but he's made a go...

2009-03-06T21:10:00.000-06:00

I understand what you're saying but he's made a good point. If you speak with atheists or watch a debate between Christians and atheists, this is a stone regularly thrown by atheists.

I think the argument here is that there case is grossly overstated and/or based on misconception.

This is very good material.

I am not very impressed with this argument. So Chr...

2009-03-05T23:06:00.000-06:00

I am not very impressed with this argument. So Christians are better than Hitler, is this supposed to make me want to join a Church? I think in doing apologetics we do well not to focus on the history of the Church which we should simply admit isn't pretty but on demonstrating the wisdom of the Biblical worldview and its ability to give life sense and purpose.

Wow!An outstanding piece. Thank you, I'll be sure ...

2009-01-28T00:40:00.000-06:00

Wow!
An outstanding piece. Thank you, I'll be sure to read it again.

Olorin, thanks for your comments. You made a comme...

2009-01-02T15:59:00.000-06:00

Olorin, thanks for your comments. You made a comment about ID needing to be "demonstrated by evidence".

What kind of evidence would satisfy that? Do you have necessary and sufficient conditions in mind?

been designed. That is, if we do noi now have pos...

2008-12-31T16:54:00.000-06:00

been designed. That is, if we do noi now have positive evidence that some presently known natural law explains the universe, then it “must have been” designed. IGNORANCE=DESIGN, in other words.

As to being able to somehow “see” design, that argument rests upon two unproven assumptions. One is that human beings designed the universe (and life). The only intelligence we know of that designs “complex” things is human intelligence. Claiming that life is designed by analogy to human artifacts is something that needs to be demonstrated by evidence. Life, for example, has more differences than similarities to human-designed artifacts. At the very least, then, you need positive physical evidence of some intelligence other than human that has the capabilities, characteristics, and motives for creating such artifacts. (Analogy may have some value in framing hypotheses, but it has no probative value whatsoever in demonstrating their validity. That requires evidence.)

I saw it about a week ago... Excellent stuff!

2008-10-30T16:10:00.000-05:00

I saw it about a week ago... Excellent stuff!

Here some response to some recent comments:Endiana...

2008-10-16T16:35:00.000-05:00

Here some response to some recent comments:
Endiana.com, my name is Jon, good to meet you.
Drew, thanks for dropping by. I think we can propose anything we like as possibilities; but the question really is what do we believe deep down. And I think the view you suggest is in fact unlivable. The sex slave trade is not only illegal; it is immoral and objectively so—even though a lot of people out their prefer sex slaves. Child molestation and abuse is objectively morally wrong—in every society everywhere. Rape is objectively wrong—even if the majority thinks it is OK. These aren’t illusory; they are obvious when we think about them. And these are what need a sufficient grounding.
Valdemar.
A couple of things. 1) objective moral values are not due to majority opinion, Christian or otherwise. So, the Christians that did those things were objectively wrong. 2) Your other point seems to get rid of the idea of moral progress. As people grow and mature in virtue and understanding they change. 3) “If there is objective morality, we must conclude it is a very weak thing indeed”, well I would say values aren’t weak, humans are—we fail to do the good. The world is a messed up place. That is why in Christianity you have grace and a savior / teacher in Jesus Christ to teach us how to live and forgive our many mistakes.
Also, Christians aren’t the only one who struggle with conforming to objective moral values. In the 20th century alone, the big 3 atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler killed 100 million of their country men in the name of “progress.”

In the 18th century, most Christians thought buyin...

2008-10-11T10:27:00.000-05:00

In the 18th century, most Christians thought buying and selling black people was morally acceptable. Indeed, many fine churches were built with the proceeds of slavery. What changed? If morality is truly objective, it must have remained the same. Were Christians then simply too stupid to perceive what was good? Too greedy? Too drunk? If there is objective morality, we must conclude it is a very weak thing indeed, if it can blind us - or at least some of us - to the difference between human beings and cattle. Better to accept that morality is a cultural invention.

What if I disagreed with premise 2? I propose that...

2008-10-10T15:26:00.000-05:00

What if I disagreed with premise 2? I propose that there are no moral absolutes, only personal preferences.

I propose that which we call moral is that which we perceive as desirable in society and immoral is that which we perceive as non desirable.

Hence, the illusion of objective morality.

What say you?

Burden of proof, by the way, falls upon the one ma...

2008-10-09T19:21:00.000-05:00

Burden of proof, by the way, falls upon the one making the original allegation.

Unless, of cource, you are the IRS.

You're welcome. I would like to add my comments to...

2008-10-09T19:18:00.000-05:00

You're welcome.

I would like to add my comments to other posts, but would appreciate being privileged to know to whom I am conversing.

Hello and thanks for wieging in.a couple of though...

2008-10-09T12:12:00.000-05:00

Hello and thanks for wieging in.

a couple of thoughts:
1. why is survival a good to be sought? (on a naturalistic phsyics and chemistry level that is. In a theistic worldview, this of course is not an issue)

2. natural selection is not an "it" with powers or purposes. I think too often it is personified like Mother nature. it is a description of things--that's it. no end game. Blind, random chance is all that is available.

3.even if I grant for the sake of discussion that those with the "stronger sense of morality" survived, that is still just a description or explanation of what has happened up until now. It does not however provide me, today, an ought to do the same. On that scheme a person has no obligations whatsoever to further the species. Why not act in complete accordance to one's desires--whatever they happen to be. There is no objective sense of morality provided--only a description.

regarding the argument:
I am not saying that no other "possible" explanations exist. But the more modest claim of plausability - more likley than not. So in light of a more plausable explantion, God as an agent makes the best sense of obligations and objective moral values. Proof in the formal sense is only available in Mathmatics.

It seems to me a sound deductive argument--the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

the burden of proof here is on the one who would disagree with premise 1. Premise 2 seems unavoidable by a properly functioning human being.

No cowardly conspiracy here. We just use blog admin for ease of use. ;) Thanks!

It's been suggested that morality in humans points...

2008-10-09T01:15:00.000-05:00

It's been suggested that morality in humans points to the power of natural selection in that those with a sense or morality also possessed a sense of community responsibility. So, the argument goes, humans with a strong sense of morality were more likely to survive to pass along that trait to subsequent generations while those without a sense or morality were less likely to survive.

Regarding your syllogism:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
To suppose that moral values do not exist apart from God seems unconcluded.

Another thought: What do those who post on this blog not identify themselves. It seems cowardly.

The thing is that the Christian doctrine of exclus...

2008-09-27T18:53:00.000-05:00

The thing is that the Christian doctrine of exclusivity states that all those that die "unsaved" will suffer eternally in Hell.

The New Age with it's doctrine of Reincarnation propsoses alteratively that it is not so much what Religion you define yourself as belonging to as that is important, as much as how you live your life, how you act, think and feel. This doctrine is supported by a large percentage of NDE accounts, also by mediumship, direct perception of Mystics and the traditional scriptures of many different cultures. Reincarnation allows Justice and Mercy to exist in balance, contrary to the Christian doctrine which inevatably throws these concepts out the window in proposing an infinite punishment for a finite crime.

You do not have to state that "All religions are the same" to reject exclusivity. I believe that there are Absolute Divine principles and Laws which can be found to varying degrees within different Religious and Philosophical systems.

Beleiving it tolerance and inclusivity will naturally put one against those that you see as intolerant. A human rights activist does not go soft on a tyrant concluding "It is his right to abuse others", this is basic common sense and exposed the clear fallacy of that argument.

I welcome dialogue, please feel free to respond to me. I also have a blog:

http://www.theparadigmexperiment.blogspot.com/

I'm currently working on two posts which you might have interest in, the first is on the doctrine of Sin, Salvation and Hell, and the second will be on basic Apologetics, Jesus and the Bible.

Take care,
God Bless,
Jim Clark

Thank you for the comments. I think this is a powe...

2008-09-06T16:14:00.000-05:00

Thank you for the comments. I think this is a powerful argument. And nothing has been said against either premise 1 or 2 of substance.

So I think it is important to 'stay on task.' To many times we change the conversation and thus never get anywhere.

More to come on this argument soon...

This is a very good example of the importance of m...

2008-09-06T13:44:00.000-05:00

This is a very good example of the importance of making a sound argument and using it to guide the discussion. Too many times, discussions digress to assertions (and inuendo in this case, leaving certain things necessarily assumed). Depending on the intent of the objection, you could be having a completely different discussion.

I look forward to part 2.