E-Flash Quote:
“He’d had to make his way alone, and no one—not rock stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires, not even geniuses—ever makes it alone.”
Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers
Dear E-Flash Friends;
I picked up my brand new bifocals, two days ago. I’ve never had bifocals before. Since then I’ve fallen down the stairs twice, wandered unknowingly into dangerous traffic, and had a fifteen minute conversation with Nadia that turned out to occur while I was in a room by myself.
. . . And I haven’t even started wearing the new glasses yet. [Comic rim shot, here.]
But I was told that this was all a normal part of the adjustment procedure. So, pretty soon things should be fine.
How’s your life going? Good, I hope.
I always like to send out a little reminder about the time change prior to the conversion to “Daylight Savings Time”. So, don’t forget to move your clock ahead one hour this Saturday night, March 7th.
By the way, hope you’re planning to be here this Sunday. We’re going to look at a very important and encouraging and well known passage of Scripture, Ephesians chapter 2, verses 8-10. This passage contains wonderful, hopeful truth about the incredible saving grace of God and His excellent work in our lives. I believe we will be blessed.
We have had very good attendance at church, lately. It sure seems like people are in a spiritually receptive mood, these days. So, this would a great time for all of us to take a little risk and invite someone to church. Can you think of someone you could invite? Who knows what God might do? I’m praying for something exciting!
Have a great week.
Blessings,
Dan
P.S. Don’t forget that we’ll be showing the video presentation of “Indescribable” on Sunday evening at 5:30 p.m. It’s a highly rated, “image-rich journey through the cosmos, allowing us to peer into God’s universe to discover the amazing magnitude of His greatness and grace.”
Showing posts with label visitusonline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label visitusonline. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Are You Ready For Some Verbal Judo?
Review of "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day.
Sarcasm? Check.
Witty jabs? Check.
Tender words of warmth and kindness? Check. (Not!)
Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” is a little edgier and a little more aggressive than most books that could be labeled “Christian apologetics”, but that’s part of what makes it interesting to read. And Vox’s logical critique of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is sort of like a philosophical straight jab to the solar plexus. Can you tell I’ve been waiting for a long time to be able to throw some martial arts references into a book review?
Day actually extends a little more respect to Daniel Dennett because Dennett’s “Breaking The Spell” is “substantially different than” the books written by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Although Day strongly disagrees with Dennett’s conclusions he feels that Dennett, at least, offers a “reasonable perspective” and that Dennett’s “intellectual honesty” is “refreshing”.
Day gives a strong argument for atheism’s failure as a worldview and particularly it’s failure as a political system by sharing some of atheism’s sad history. Yes, there are some stains in Christianity’s history, as well. That can never honestly be denied and Day addresses that subject. But it’s fair to do a little comparison. Over the course of more than 300 years 3,230 people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. That’s 3,230 too many and it’s an embarrassment to Christians. But compare that to this: “the total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheist [regimes], three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.”
Is “The Irrational Atheist” gentle? No. Is it convincing? Yes.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Note: Day uses a few swear words in the book. If that would be offensive to you then you shouldn't read "The Irrational Atheist".
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Sarcasm? Check.
Witty jabs? Check.
Tender words of warmth and kindness? Check. (Not!)
Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist” is a little edgier and a little more aggressive than most books that could be labeled “Christian apologetics”, but that’s part of what makes it interesting to read. And Vox’s logical critique of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is sort of like a philosophical straight jab to the solar plexus. Can you tell I’ve been waiting for a long time to be able to throw some martial arts references into a book review?
Day actually extends a little more respect to Daniel Dennett because Dennett’s “Breaking The Spell” is “substantially different than” the books written by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Although Day strongly disagrees with Dennett’s conclusions he feels that Dennett, at least, offers a “reasonable perspective” and that Dennett’s “intellectual honesty” is “refreshing”.
Day gives a strong argument for atheism’s failure as a worldview and particularly it’s failure as a political system by sharing some of atheism’s sad history. Yes, there are some stains in Christianity’s history, as well. That can never honestly be denied and Day addresses that subject. But it’s fair to do a little comparison. Over the course of more than 300 years 3,230 people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition. That’s 3,230 too many and it’s an embarrassment to Christians. But compare that to this: “the total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheist [regimes], three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.”
Is “The Irrational Atheist” gentle? No. Is it convincing? Yes.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
Note: Day uses a few swear words in the book. If that would be offensive to you then you shouldn't read "The Irrational Atheist".
http://www.visitusonline.org/
Monday, April 28, 2008
Review of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"
What is Ben Stein’s beef? In his documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, you begin to realize from the opening shots at the Berlin Wall, that the main issue in the movie is freedom; freedom to pursue a line of thinking.
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Anyone familiar with the literature of Intelligent Design knows that its proponents complain that it is misunderstood; that it’s opponents do not attempt to consider it’s arguments fairly and honestly; and that it is falsely mischaracterized in the media.
The false mischaracterization by the media is probably true since ID is already treated as a punch line on the late night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.
Of course, opponents of Intelligent Design will mock the complaints of ID proponents and assert that ID just, simply, does not qualify as real science. They will suggest that it is not a line of thinking that should be pursued because it is not worth pursuing.
That’s where the idea of freedom comes in. Stein asserts that the freedom to follow these thoughts should be allowed, even if you don’t like the implications of the thoughts. In human history there have always been those—and there always will be those—who are all the more motivated to investigate ideas when they have been told that they are not allowed to do so.
“Expelled” introduces audiences to some of the people in the academic world who made the mistake of merely throwing the idea of ID on the table for discussion and were punished for doing so. One of the more well known of these persons is Richard von Sternberg who is a biologist with two PhDs and was working, at the time, for the Smithsonian Institute. The irony is that von Sternberg, as an evolutionary biologist wasn’t even promoting Intelligent Design, but as the editor of a journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he merely allowed a peer reviewed paper by, credentialed scientist, Stephen Meyers to be published in the journal.
The article in question cast doubt on whether Darwinian evolution can truly explain the monumental question of genetic information—it’s a pretty interesting argument, by the way, for anyone who is willing to give it honest consideration—and goes on to suggest that, perhaps, some type of intelligence had to have played a role. Since intelligence can be strongly and persuasively argued to be a necessary requirement for the presence of “information” and since intelligence has even been put forth as an explanation by evolutionists in the form of the “panspermia hypothesis” it does not seem like the suggestion of intelligent causation should have been that upsetting of a thought. However, von Sternberg was fired for allowing such a frightening concept to be published in the journal.
Shouldn’t a scientist, be allowed to suggest a hypothesis, even what someone might consider to be an outlandish hypothesis? Sometimes it is the hypothesis that is least expected that turns out to be true. This represents the issue of freedom that Stein is raising with his film.
“Expelled” looks at ID’s fight in the academic world, in the media, and even in the courts. One of the salient points the movie makes is that science questions should not be determined in courtrooms. Of course, this will lead to a very robust discussion of “what constitutes science?” and “what are proper scientific pursuits?” and “who gets to decide what science is, then?” If you read philosophers of science, you discover that the answer to those questions are not as simple and obvious as you might expect. But it does seem reasonable to say that the answers to those questions should not be determined by a court of law.
A side note? Scientists, believe it or not, are not the best equipped to answer the question “what is science?” That is a philosophical question which most scientists are, actually, not trained to answer. It is a question that is studied and answered best by philosophers of science.
Although “Expelled” presents comments from scientists who oppose Intelligent Design, it is fair to say that it is defending one side of an argument. But since it is the side of the argument that is shut down by those who are supposed to be fair and impartial and free-thinking and open to debate, it’s the side of the argument that deserves to be heard.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL 60453
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Before Time Began, God Knew I'd Write This Review
Review of:
What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?
By Millard J. Erickson
Several years ago, I discovered that some serious, evangelical Christian scholars believed that God may not know everything about the future. That surprised me, to say the least. I wonder if God saw this coming.
I had always been taught that God knew everything, past, present and future. In fact, I was taught that He even knew future contingencies that wouldn’t actually occur, but, if they did, this is how it would happen. God’s complete omniscience seemed to be a reasonable concept to me. After all, He’s God, right? He exists outside of time, so how could a matter that hinges on time (past, present, future) present a limitation for Him?
Well, I discovered that some theologians would be quick to say, “Wait, just a minute, buddy boy. What about this passage where God seems to change his mind?”
Or, “what about this passage where God’s actions are changed based upon what a person does?”
Or, “what about this passage where God seems to truly discover something about a person based upon a test He has given the person?”
Or, “how can people really have a free will and, yet, God already knows what they’re going to do?”
And, so, the debate is on.
Millard J. Erickson’s book, “What Does God Know And When Does He Know It?” presents the issues of this debate in a reasonably fair and comprehensive manner.
Erickson presents the arguments for the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he presents the Open View of God. He offers a biblical basis for each position. He examines the hermeneutics and doctrinal structure of the issues. He looks at the historical development of the matters and the philosophical influences. And he presents some of the practical issues that follow.
Erickson has a keen eye for identifying the logical inconsistencies of the Open View.
Erickson, himself, holds the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he makes that clear, in the book. However, he also states that his book represents an attempt “to deal with these issues with an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments on both sides.” He does acknowledge the strength of the Open View on the points where he perceives they have the stronger argument, especially in the “Evaluation and Conclusion” section of the book.
Summing it up, he writes this, “On balance, then, while no single view has given final answers to the issues involved in the foreknowledge debate, the traditional view of God’s exhaustive definitive foreknowledge appears to have considerably more cogent intellectual support and fewer difficulties than does the alternative.”
This is a good introduction to Open Theism.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?
By Millard J. Erickson
Several years ago, I discovered that some serious, evangelical Christian scholars believed that God may not know everything about the future. That surprised me, to say the least. I wonder if God saw this coming.
I had always been taught that God knew everything, past, present and future. In fact, I was taught that He even knew future contingencies that wouldn’t actually occur, but, if they did, this is how it would happen. God’s complete omniscience seemed to be a reasonable concept to me. After all, He’s God, right? He exists outside of time, so how could a matter that hinges on time (past, present, future) present a limitation for Him?
Well, I discovered that some theologians would be quick to say, “Wait, just a minute, buddy boy. What about this passage where God seems to change his mind?”
Or, “what about this passage where God’s actions are changed based upon what a person does?”
Or, “what about this passage where God seems to truly discover something about a person based upon a test He has given the person?”
Or, “how can people really have a free will and, yet, God already knows what they’re going to do?”
And, so, the debate is on.
Millard J. Erickson’s book, “What Does God Know And When Does He Know It?” presents the issues of this debate in a reasonably fair and comprehensive manner.
Erickson presents the arguments for the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he presents the Open View of God. He offers a biblical basis for each position. He examines the hermeneutics and doctrinal structure of the issues. He looks at the historical development of the matters and the philosophical influences. And he presents some of the practical issues that follow.
Erickson has a keen eye for identifying the logical inconsistencies of the Open View.
Erickson, himself, holds the Traditional View of God’s foreknowledge and he makes that clear, in the book. However, he also states that his book represents an attempt “to deal with these issues with an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments on both sides.” He does acknowledge the strength of the Open View on the points where he perceives they have the stronger argument, especially in the “Evaluation and Conclusion” section of the book.
Summing it up, he writes this, “On balance, then, while no single view has given final answers to the issues involved in the foreknowledge debate, the traditional view of God’s exhaustive definitive foreknowledge appears to have considerably more cogent intellectual support and fewer difficulties than does the alternative.”
This is a good introduction to Open Theism.
Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL
www.VisitUsOnline.org
Friday, March 14, 2008
E-Flash From Dan, March 13, 2008
E-Flash Awesome Quote:
“For we are God’s workmanship . . .” Ephesians 2:10(a)
“The word ‘workmanship’ comes from the Greek word poiema,
from which we get the word ‘poem’. So we can say that God
creates each of us as a piece of art, as a piece of poetry. Every
one of us is a poem that God writes, something that He has
created to be of use for the mission He has given us.”
Dan Kimball
From the book, “Practitioners”
Dear E-Flash Friends;
Thought it might be a good idea to remind you that this weekend we “spring ahead” one hour. The change to Daylight Saving Time always seems to slip past a few folks every year. When that happens they show up at 12 o’clock for the 11 o’clock service on Sunday. I have this idea that, one spring—on Daylight Saving Time weekend—we should all hide at 11:55. And when the people who forgot about the time change show up at noon, we jump out of the shadows and shout “Boo!” really loud. Then we simply walk out of the building with no further comment.
I haven’t implemented the idea, yet, because it feels like it still needs a little more refining. Anyhow, until that idea pans out, here’s your reminder: Don’t forget to set your clocks ahead, one hour, this Saturday, March 8th.
I also want to remind you that Easter is coming in just a few weeks. These are always powerful and awesome services—services of victory and joy and celebration! I’m getting excited just thinking about it. Aren’t you? We will have three Easter services, one on Saturday evening (March 22) at 5 pm and two on Sunday morning (March 23) at 9 and 11 am. I’m so fired up that I’m going to try to rearrange my schedule so that I can be at all three services. (Don’t analyze that last sentence too carefully.)
We want to make a little extra room at the 11 o’clock, Sunday morning Easter service, because that is the most well attended time and it is the most likely time that new guests to our church will show up. So, if it is possible, would you consider attending the 9 am Sunday morning service or the 5 pm Saturday service? I know that won’t fit into everybody’s plans and, that’s okay if it doesn’t. But if 9 am, Easter Sunday, or 5 pm Saturday won’t be a bother for you, that would help us provide space for the extra visitors. Thanks so much, you guys are always gracious and accommodating. There are folks who don’t go to church very often, or perhaps “ever” who will come on Easter and we want them to have a seat and be able to hear the life-changing message of the RISEN and Living, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! The greatest message of HOPE in the world.
One more thing: I’m asking each of us to think of one person for whom we could pray, every day, between now and Easter. Is there one person for whom you could pray and invite to our Easter service? If we will all pray and all invite, I believe God might do something really great. To Him be the glory!
Your friend and partner in ministry,
Dan Marler
www.VisitUsOnline.org
*If you would like to have the E-Flash delivered directly to your e-mail, send an e-mail to cog111st@aol.com and write, "I'd like to receive the E-Flash" in the subject field.
“For we are God’s workmanship . . .” Ephesians 2:10(a)
“The word ‘workmanship’ comes from the Greek word poiema,
from which we get the word ‘poem’. So we can say that God
creates each of us as a piece of art, as a piece of poetry. Every
one of us is a poem that God writes, something that He has
created to be of use for the mission He has given us.”
Dan Kimball
From the book, “Practitioners”
Dear E-Flash Friends;
Thought it might be a good idea to remind you that this weekend we “spring ahead” one hour. The change to Daylight Saving Time always seems to slip past a few folks every year. When that happens they show up at 12 o’clock for the 11 o’clock service on Sunday. I have this idea that, one spring—on Daylight Saving Time weekend—we should all hide at 11:55. And when the people who forgot about the time change show up at noon, we jump out of the shadows and shout “Boo!” really loud. Then we simply walk out of the building with no further comment.
I haven’t implemented the idea, yet, because it feels like it still needs a little more refining. Anyhow, until that idea pans out, here’s your reminder: Don’t forget to set your clocks ahead, one hour, this Saturday, March 8th.
I also want to remind you that Easter is coming in just a few weeks. These are always powerful and awesome services—services of victory and joy and celebration! I’m getting excited just thinking about it. Aren’t you? We will have three Easter services, one on Saturday evening (March 22) at 5 pm and two on Sunday morning (March 23) at 9 and 11 am. I’m so fired up that I’m going to try to rearrange my schedule so that I can be at all three services. (Don’t analyze that last sentence too carefully.)
We want to make a little extra room at the 11 o’clock, Sunday morning Easter service, because that is the most well attended time and it is the most likely time that new guests to our church will show up. So, if it is possible, would you consider attending the 9 am Sunday morning service or the 5 pm Saturday service? I know that won’t fit into everybody’s plans and, that’s okay if it doesn’t. But if 9 am, Easter Sunday, or 5 pm Saturday won’t be a bother for you, that would help us provide space for the extra visitors. Thanks so much, you guys are always gracious and accommodating. There are folks who don’t go to church very often, or perhaps “ever” who will come on Easter and we want them to have a seat and be able to hear the life-changing message of the RISEN and Living, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! The greatest message of HOPE in the world.
One more thing: I’m asking each of us to think of one person for whom we could pray, every day, between now and Easter. Is there one person for whom you could pray and invite to our Easter service? If we will all pray and all invite, I believe God might do something really great. To Him be the glory!
Your friend and partner in ministry,
Dan Marler
www.VisitUsOnline.org
*If you would like to have the E-Flash delivered directly to your e-mail, send an e-mail to cog111st@aol.com and write, "I'd like to receive the E-Flash" in the subject field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)