Archive for December, 2007

Year End Awards: 2007

Published by Colin December 31, 2007 in General. 8 Comments

Ah 2007, you were only here for a short time, and we never really got to know ye. I thought I would take some time to hand out some awards based on Zeal For Truth’s coverage and commentary in 2007. This is only a smattering of things that deserve special mention. I encourage people to make their own lists, or correct my interpretation of the year’s events.

Man Of The Year
Ron Paul
Not because many of us love him, or because some of us hate him - but because he singlehandedly generated more discussion, more passion and more “zeal” than any other subject this year. Paul is the kind of candidate who is either worshiped with near religious fervor or despised with hellfire and brimstone. Lefties hate him for his complete rejection of socialism, his conservative values of life, immigration and free-markets and his disbelief of evolution. Right wingers get riled up over his anti-war, pro-freedom (freedom to do drugs and prostitution) and especially his constant sermons against the new GOP. Ron Paul’s name means fireworks.

Woman of the Year
The Christian Woman
Many of our posts this year dealt with concepts such as women’s roles in churches, feminism, anti-feminism and family values. Our authors have very different views on the subject, but we able to play nice in discussing this very important theme. Issues of equality in the church, women in authority, women in the family, women at work and women making independent decisions were fairly regular discussion.

Issue of the Year
Church and State
This was by far the most difficult award to decide. Much was made of the Iraq War and war in general. Also in politics, the presidential election was likely the most covered issue. But I think the most interesting discussions and careful thought came out of the articles dealing with issues of Church and State (Church and society as well). In the modern mantra of using political agendas to achieve social goals, Christians who are also strict separationists and “secularists” (to use a Bill O’Reilly term) and condemn the use of government to achieve morality are sometimes seen as a paradox to the world and heretics to the moral majority. This issue is one of tremendous importance to the site, as many of us are Christian libertarians, devout in our beliefs but cautious of the use of force in those beliefs

Church of the Year
The Emergent Church
Much like our man of the year, the Emergent Church brought with it some heated debate and engaging discussion. In dissecting this movement, people took a closer look at how they define both the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith and the proper role and function of church. This topic should continue to be an exciting one, as some elements in the movement continue to move out in more radical, divergent directions, and others tame their revolutionary ideas and begin to build traditions of their own.

Book of The Year
Decision Making and The Will of God
We had many book reviews on the site: historical biographies, science and Christian issues all were discussed. But Jasen Tracy’s five article extravaganza on Decision Making and The Will of God was an eye-opening look into perhaps the most widely held “hidden curriculum” in evangelical Christianity - the Individual Will of God. The language and teaching in many churches reinforces this idea on a constant basis, likely without even stopping to consider whether it is actually taught in the bible. The Authors, Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson, are experts at taking an inoffensive, yet critical look at the common teaching, and offering a potentially more biblical alternative to making decisions in the Christian walk.

Weekly Links: More “Cross”mas, Habeas Corpus History

Published by Colin December 28, 2007 in General and Politics. 1 Comment

We’ve had a great time discussing all issues Christmas this past week. Part of that discussion surrounded Mike Huckabee’s inclusion of a metaphorical cross in his Christmas ad. The governor received an abundance of flack from all corners of the media.

Lost in the fray however, and sadly revealing a possible media bias against the Huckster, John McCain had one-uped Huckabee on the Christmas front. McCain saw Huck’s implied cross and raised him a literal cross and a POW story. It should be considered interesting at least that McCain can do this and barely get a whisper of coverage, while Huckabee’s cross generated media disarray for days.

Habeas Corpus History
A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the FBI, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty. Hoover had been building the list of “radicals” since 1948 and, like any good politician, felt the best time to implement his plan was in war-time.

More Links
The NRA is looking to build a lawsuit over firearms stolen after Katrina.

Diesels may surpass hybrids as the vehicle choice for those concerned with emissions and gas mileage.

The Edge of Evolution

Published by Kenneth Martens December 27, 2007 in Book Reviews. 27 Comments

The Edge of Evolution

The Edge of Evolution, by Michael J. Behe
The Free Press, 2007
336 pages
Amazon.com link

More than a decade ago, in 1996, Michael Behe published Darwin’s Black Box. In it, Behe argued that Darwinian evolution is impossible: random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the intricate, irreducibly complex systems that make life possible. These systems–such as the way blood clots in mammals–are essential to life, and are made up of dozens–even hundreds–of parts. If even one part is missing, the system is useless and the creature dies. Behe argued that it is impossible for random mutations to build these irreducibly complex systems up piece by piece, step by step.

In 1996, Behe could offer no actual evidence for the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. All he offered was the idea of irreducible complexity. In the decade since Darwin’s Black Box, studies of mutation rates have furnished Behe with real-world data to support his earlier conclusions. In a new book published earlier this year, The Edge of Evolution, Behe uses scientific data to reveal what Darwinism can and cannot accomplish.

Definition of terms
Behe begins The Edge of Evolution by defining some terms. The word Darwinism encompasses three distinct ideas:

  • common descent
  • natural selection
  • random mutation

Common descent is the idea that all living creatures have similar features that were inherited from a common ancestor. For example, dolphins and whales are descended from a common ancestor, as are dogs and cats, and even elephants and mice. “Common descent is what most people think of when they hear the word ‘evolution,’” says Behe. But common descent is not the full story.

Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It merely says that certain shared features [e.g., complex cells with nuclei] were there from the beginning–the ancestor had them. But all by itself, it doesn’t try to explain how either the features or the ancestor got there in the first place, or why the descendants differ.

This brings us to Darwin. Darwin’s theory is that small random mutations, coupled with the mechanism of natural selection, can account for all the forms of life on earth. Natural selection means simply survival of the fittest: the creatures that have some natural advantage will produce more offspring, and thus pass on their natural advantages. Random mutations introduce small changes; natural selection weeds out the useless and harmful mutations; the beneficial mutations survive. Eventually, a lot of small changes add up to big changes–and thus life evolves into different forms and species.

So Darwinism means common descent by means of random mutation and natural selection. If Darwinism is true, all three ideas must be true, and they must be sufficient to account for all the different forms of life on Earth. Behe considers the DNA evidence in support of common descent to be overwhelming, and he does not dispute its truth. Random mutation and natural selection have been studied, and they “can modify life in important ways.” But not in ways sufficient to account for the origin of species, Behe concludes. For proof, he turns to some real-world studies of mutation rates in the malaria parasite.
Continue reading ‘The Edge of Evolution’

Christmas Prayers

Published by Bryan December 25, 2007 in General. 2 Comments

Today is Christmas, the day that a birth of our Lord and Saviour is celebrated across the vast majority of Christian denominations. Being a church celebration that crosses denominational, cultural, and temporal lines, it is a wonderful opportunity to pray with the church today. Here are some Christmas prayers from various people and denominations throughout the history of the church to consider and pray.

Canadian Anglican Collect For Christmas Day:

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us thy only begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin: Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Alternative Catholic Christmas Collect At Dawn:

Almighty God and Father of light,
a child is born to us an a Son is given to us.
Your eternal Word leaped down from heaven
in the silent watches of the night,
and now your Church is filled with wonder
at the nearness of her God.
Open our hearts to receive His life
and increase our vision with the rising of dawn,
that our lives may be filled with His glory and His peace,
who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

Nativity Prayer Of Saint Augustine:

Let the just rejoice,
for their justifier is born.
Let the sick and infirm rejoice,
For their saviour is born.
Let the captives rejoice,
For their Redeemer is born.
Let slaves rejoice,
for their Master is born.
Let free men rejoice,
For their Liberator is born.
Let All Christians rejoice,
For Jesus Christ is born.

Orthodox Prayer Book:

Thy birth, O Christ our God, rose upon the world as the light of knowledge; for through it those who worshipped the stars were taught by a star to adore Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Sunrise from on high. O Lord, glory to Thee.

Charles Wesley:

Come, Thou long expected Jesus
Born to set Thy people free;
From our fears and sins release us,
Let us find our rest in Thee.
Israel’s Strength and Consolation,
Hope of all the earth Thou art;
Dear Desire of every nation,
Joy of every longing heart.

Donald Miller’s Lifeboat Theory

Published by Jasen Tracy December 24, 2007 in Religion, Christian Books and Philosophy. 3 Comments

One of the main ideas in Searching For God Knows What, is an idea I’ll call the Lifeboat Theory. It serves as a sort of personality theory, or an alternative or addition to something like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

The Lifeboat Theory’s name comes from the classic lifeboat scenario which is an exercise in “values clarification” that is sometimes used in schools. The scenario pictures a number of different people who have different backgrounds, belief systems, attributes, capabilities, etc. It’s also revealed that there’s not enough room or supplies for everyone, and that a person (or people) have to be selected to leave the lifeboat (and presumably be left to their death). The class then discusses who should be ejected from the lifeboat and why.

The basic idea of Miller’s theory is that people have the need for something outside themselves to tell them who they are, and that this thing seems to be gone. Because this something seems to be gone, people often let other people tell them what their identity and purpose are. Miller found this idea to be of much greater use than the other personality theories he had studied:

It explained why I wanted to be seen as smart, why religious people wanted so desperately to be right, why Shirley MaClaine wanted to be God, and just about everything else a human did.

All of us are in the lifeboat, if we weren’t, feelings like pride, jealousy, and embarrassment would be foreign to us. We also wouldn’t get so upset when we feel we are disrespected. We get upset because when someone disrespects us, it’s a message that they think they we are less important than they are. That really shouldn’t matter, but it often feels to us that there is some sort of punishment for being thought less of; we fear that if people regard us as less important we’ll be thrown out of the lifeboat.

This is why cliques and the battle for popularity in schools and workplaces can be so vicious; it’s the establishment of a hierarchy with a punishment for those at the bottom. It’s why people like to associate with winners. Miller notes that some people (as he did) will say “we won” when their favorite team wins, but say “they lost” when they lose. People do not want to be associated with a loser. It’s why arguments over such silly things as if a movie is good or not can become heated, having wrong opinions can also be dangerous in the lifeboat.

This commercial reminded me of this idea:

Why does the driver care that his passenger may find he has “uncool” music? It’s because he’s operating in a lifeboat mentality.

There are ways to make sure you survive in the lifeboat: be an athlete, have good looks, be intelligent, have lots of money, be right. Basically, it’s to have or be something that the people of the world value. Another way is to participate in racism or other types of discrimination, that way there’s a whole group of people on the list to get thrown out of the lifeboat before you.

Miller says that this situation, this being in the lifeboat, is a result of the Fall. God had given Adam and Eve their meaning, but now separated from Him, people are desperately scrambling for something to tell them who they are. As Miller puts in:

All this is to say that when the Bible indicates life comes from God, and death comes from separation from God, it makes complete sense, and this truth serves as an explanation for all of our feelings, for the ways in which we entertain ourselves, and for the general precepts of the human plot. Without Him, we feel that we are being thrown out of a boat.

Weekly Links: Moneybombs, Huckaboom and the Nativity “Legend”

Published by Colin December 21, 2007 in General. 10 Comments

The all-time one day fund raising record was broken on Sunday by Congressman Ron Paul. His supporters staged a fund raising “moneybomb” on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, raising a record $6 million. Naturally all that most of the media wants to talk about is that $500 comes from a white supremacist.

Huck in the News
Mike Huckabee is clearly not the most intelligent man. Aside from exadurating about his formal education (Huckabee lied about having a theology degree) we now have to wonder if he knows what he’s doing regarding foreign policy:

You just don’t want to believe that a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, two steps from power in the free world, really thought that Canada had a national igloo. When Rick Mercer comes on the phone to talk about Mike Huckabee, we expect he’ll explain it was a joke. Surely, he’ll assure us that the wisecracking former Arkansas governor was just playing along for a laugh in Mercer’s now-iconic Talking To Americans television spots…. “He wasn’t in on it,” Mercer says. “The governor of Arkansas thought there was a Canadian national igloo. The governor of Arkansas would have believed the world was flat.”

We Three Kings of Orient Aren’t?
The UK Telegraph wrote up a controversy generating piece: Archbishop says nativity ‘a legend’.According to Bryan in our forums, the transcript shows that this was a botched hack-job at best.

Environmental Hysteria (possibly)
US Senate passes a bill raising fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg. Chrysler estimates meeting the standards will cost $6,700 per vehicle.

Has Global Warming stopped?

More Links
Two prisoners escape a New Jersey prison by putting posters over their escape route.

Vladimir Putin is Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.

Harold Meyerson examines the “mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.“

Christ Kicked out of Christmas: Are We Surprised?

Published by Colin December 20, 2007 in Religion and Politics. 93 Comments

It is inevitable every year that there are massive complaints from Christians about God, Jesus and all the other Christian traditions being either watered down or removed entirely from Christmas, especially in the public sector. Christian teachers, parents and students resent how the public schools now practice “holiday” events rather than Christmas ones. Citizens and public employees oppose the near complete secularization of the holiday in courthouses, libraries and other civic buildings.

But what in the world did we expect? Did people believe, when they infused a Christian tradition with secular society, that the rest of the country would conform their lifestyle to the holiday rather than conform the holiday to their lifestyle? Did Christians sincerely believe that, despite the complete failure to merge religion into secular society in other areas, Christmas would actually catch on?

Consider the state institutions of marriage or public schools. Christians lament about the “godless” state of both of them - public schools have abandoned prayer, bible instruction and Christian holidays while marriage has recently been augmented by civil unions and homosexual marriage.

In the schools, for example, Christians were a large proponent of public schooling - both out of a desire to provide education for the poor, and to convert all those idolatrous Catholics in their fancy-pants private schools. But secular society, and rightfully so, is not going to tolerate Christian institutions ramming doctrine down their kids throat by force. Eventually, there is going to be a backlash, and their was. The problem is not that “God got kicked out of public schools” it is that we put him there in the first place.

Likewise, unless the government gets out of holidays altogether (which seems to be the direction things are moving) then we should not be surprised to see Jews and Muslims wanting equal state acknowledgment of their religious celebrations.

We Christians need to learn that we cannot, and should not, attempt to force our values on the rest of society. Jesus was so effective because, rather than overthrow Herod and establish a new Christ oriented government, he taught, instructed, exampled and helped people in a private, non-coercive way, so as to allow them to choose to follow him. Every single time we inject our values into secular apparatuses, we restrict people’s ability to chose, bearing the fruit of forced (false) conversions, resentment and rejection.

It’s a wonderful thing to celebrate Christmas, and it is great to demonstrate a holiday spirit as we go about our business. Let’s chose to let go of the “war on Christmas” - its a war we can never win, and one we never should have started in the first place.

Gift Giving

Published by Thainamu December 19, 2007 in General. 7 Comments

It is that time of year again. When we were kids—admit it—we really hoped for a good haul on Christmas morning. And no matter how many nice things we got, we were somehow disappointed: there weren’t quite enough gifts with our name on them, our sister got something nicer than us, and the one thing we really wanted wasn’t there.

But now we’re adults, it’s different. It’s even worse now! How many times have we—admit it—stressed out about: who to give to; how much to spend; how to buy gifts you can’t afford; how to act happy when you receive a gift you don’t like; how to find a gift for someone who has everything; feeling like you have to give a gift when you don’t really want to; feeling like the gifts you give won’t be appreciated; feeling like the gifts you give won’t be as expensive as the gifts other people give; and–my personal favorite–how to find a perfect gift for someone who thinks you ought to be able to do so without so much as a hint! Oh, wait. We Christians aren’t supposed to worry about those things. I almost forgot.

From a strictly Emily Post point of view, one can learn how to do right by taking this 10-question quiz on the etiquette of gift-giving. Sadly, I only got a 70.

From a Biblical point of view, there is a lot to learn about gift-giving too. Here are some examples:

Perhaps the most well-known passages about gifts are about spiritual gifts (Romans 12 and I Corinthains 12). Interestingly enough, one of those gifts is giving (aka generosity).

My favorite Bible passage about gifts is Matthew 7:9-11:

Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

No matter how bad our kids have been all year long, when Christmas comes, we forgive and forget, and we lavish all we can upon them because we love them so much. No wonder Jesus uses that as an example of how he loves and gives good gifts to us. We evil and imperfect parents still give good gifts to our children, whether they deserve them or not. Our Father in heaven does the same to us, only more so!

You’ve only got a couple more shopping days before Christmas, but don’t stress out—give thanks to God for his indescribable gift (2 Corinthians 9:15).

Global Warming: The Real Crisis

Published by Sadie December 18, 2007 in Politics. 30 Comments

Global warming is perhaps the most discussed “global” issue in news media today. Turn on the radio, television, or hop onto the internet and somehow the issue of global warming is waiting to be debated or touted as the impending crisis of the 21st century. However, the real crisis behind the issue of global warming is freedom.

Never mind that global warming proponents would like to control your car, where and how often you drive, how much energy you consume, where you live, and all things livestock related, society nods their head and tips their hat to such notions. After all, no one really minds as long as these are suggestions or “encouragements.” Enthusiasts discuss their ideas and most people replace at least one light bulb in their house.

Politicians around the world are lobbying for better climate control laws via global treaties such as the Kyoto Treaty. In fact, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation surrounding climate change. However, aside from emission-control state laws most legislation has a small trickle down affect being aimed at corporations rather than individuals. The hat tipping and light-bulb changing continues and family life is relatively unimpacted.

Stop to consider for a moment what would happen if these aforementioned “encouragements” became law. How these laws would be enforced? The only way to enforce climate change laws is to restrict the freedom of individuals. Once a suggestion becomes law, the choice to comply is removed or rather, it is becomes a non-choice of compliance or penalty. Perhaps many people would not mind small penalties for using non-incandescent bulbs in their homes. In fact, most people don’t mind that cars are mandated to be more fuel efficient. Yet, the philosophy behind global climate change legislation is dangerous. The implication behind the “need” for such laws is that of removing the choice from individuals and giving control to governing authorities.

It grows immediately more concerning when such ideas potentially impact entire families on a personal level. Recently, politicians and professors in both Australia and Britain suggested that population control and baby carbon taxes should be strongly considered. Australian editor, Michael Cook explains:

The Aussie proposals may sound wacky, but in truth they are the logical conclusion to today’s trend for measuring humanity by its waste and ‘carbon footprint’. After all, if human life is seen as fundamentally polluting, then why shouldn’t the creation of new human life be viewed as irresponsible and problematic?

The viewpoint of regulating individual actions is based on the idea that others have the right and responsibility to control your choices and penalize you accordingly. It goes beyond choosing to calculate your carbon footprint to deciding who has a right to reproduce and breathe air. It assumes that life is owned by a collective group of strangers rather than one’s self.

“While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources.”-North West England MEP, Chris Davies

The first loss of personal freedom may just be a light bulb, or car, however it when carried further it will inevitably lead to the marginalization of the natural rights to life and liberty and possibly the loss of both.

Inerrancy: The Useless Doctrine

Published by Jasen Tracy December 17, 2007 in Religion. 23 Comments

Inerrancy, as believed by most Evangelicals, means that the bible, in the original manuscripts, is free from error and completely truthful in all that it addresses. The Chicago Statement has a detailed explanation of the doctrine. It is my contention that this doctrine is of little or no practical use.

We do not have the original manuscripts of the bible. It is true that we can reconstruct 98 to 99 percent of it with a very high degree of confidence and that few issues of any importance are contained in the areas most in dispute. Nevertheless, this leaves us in the position that, even if inerrancy in the original manuscripts was accepted, in which we do not have an inerrant bible today.

Another major problem is the issue of canon, or just what should be considered to be a part of the bible. Famously, Protestants and Roman Catholics have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, and the various Oriental Churches, also have slightly different canons.

This is important because a major benefit of having an inerrant bible is to have a 100% accurate highest authority. But of course, the bible did not fall to us from the sky a complete, single entity. Any “highest” authority must make a circular argument for itself, that is, it must say that it is the highest authority. The bible fails a crucial element of this task in that it contains no list of what should be included in itself. That is, the bible does not say which works should be in the bible. So, should Tobit be considered inerrant? Heck, what about Jude? And if Jude, why not the Book of Enoch? Where is the inerrant source that decides?

There are other issues, but I think the two above are enough to show why the doctrine of inerrancy has little practical use.

The doctrine forces people to defend a position that is not provable, as well as forcing focus on a verse-by-verse defense of apparently mistaken or inconsistent passages and textually uncertainties. Instead the focus should be on just how well preserved the biblical texts are and it’s amazing contents

All and all, I’d say we need a better way to express our view of the bible.

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the month December, 2007.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the month December, 2007.

December 2007
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the month December, 2007.