What are You Reading?
Brian Healy
BTW Let's stipulate here and now that yes we are all reading our bibles
like good little christians.....
My currents are:
For A "Christian America" A History Of The Religious Right
By Ruth Murray Brown Ph.D..
Great long term study of the movement from it's inception a very
readable social history that can be enjoyed by both sides of the
political spectrum.
Slaves, Woman & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
By: William J. Webb
<http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/search/84507102?author=William%20J.%20Webb&detailed_search=1&action=Search>
This book successfully walks the reader through the hermeneutical maze
that accompanies the treatment of each of these areas and a few others
like dare I say drinking and mixed fabrics in clothing as well as many
common misnomers.
Grace & Peace,
Brian Healy
Chad Fenner
Every man has deep inside of him, a desire to have an adventure to
lead, a battle to fight, and a beauty to rescue. John shows how this
is actually a reflection of the nature of God and how the church has
emsaculated men such that their goal in life is to "be good people,
and stay out of trouble". Instead, each man should find his dream
ministry that allows him to lead his adventure, fight his battle, and
rescue his beauty.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 03:39:10 GMT, Brian Healy
<BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
>
>BTW Let's stipulate here and now that yes we are all reading our bibles
>like good little christians.....
>
>My currents are:
> SNIP
Jeff Edwards
I've been reading a lot of apologetics lately, and have noticed a few
things. One, much of the material is written from the standpoint of extreme
bias, obviously, and therefore the line to the conclusions can be somewhat
wiggly in some cases. Second, despite this, it is a good jumping off point
for a lot of learning regarding various aspects of the theology, history and
linguistics of scripture. Third, in the sense of scientific "proof", it
can't be done for faith - thus the term "faith".
Craig's book is great in that he lays that out at the very beginning -that
his book alone will not prove anything and that it is the work of the Holy
Spirit in the life of the believer that provides the individual "proof" that
is needed. Interesting stuff, and I'm just a small portion of the way
through the book. Especially interesting since I read "Case For Christ" by
Strobel just before this, and that was more of a primer of some of the more
popular ideas in apologetics.
Further to rmc tie-in - apologetics, when spelled with an x, should be
avoided entirely :).
Jeff Edwards
paranoi...@attbi.com
"Brian Healy" <BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D92815C...@verizon.net...
pink elephant
oldie, but i enjoyed it.
Also, "Surprised by Joy" by CS Lewis
and rereading Stephen King's "The Stand".
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: Apologetix _Biblical Graffiti_ .... :-P
"Fear tolerated is faith contaminated."
--Kenneth Copeland
Shadow
I just read "Fast Food Nation" and will be diving into a little Terry
Pratchett in a little while.
I have yet to find any Pop Christian literature either fiction or nonfiction
that wasn't the literary equivalent of cotton candy.
Mattias Hembruch
Jeff Edwards <paranoi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>"Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig.
>
>I've been reading a lot of apologetics lately, and have noticed a few
>things. One, much of the material is written from the standpoint of extreme
>bias, obviously, and therefore the line to the conclusions can be somewhat
>wiggly in some cases. Second, despite this, it is a good jumping off point
>for a lot of learning regarding various aspects of the theology, history and
>linguistics of scripture. Third, in the sense of scientific "proof", it
>can't be done for faith - thus the term "faith".
Wow.. I've always had a hard time reading apologetics. Mainly because I
think half the time they're saying things so obvious they don't need to be
said, and the other half I don't really see the point they're making, or
don't agree they've proven it.
Then again, maybe I'm self-righteous and don't want to be convicted of
wrong attitudes or such.
I've started "Purity of Heart.. is to will one thing" by Kierkegaard a
couple of times, but never seem to stick with it.
OTOH, I love to read fiction. My current selection is:
"Das Vermaechtnis des Inka" by the german author Karl May.
(It's in german. May wrote - with some posthumous editing help on a few
volumes - over 80 books. I have about 65 of them. I really enjoy that he
writes with a christian worldview in his novels, and debates various points
against other religions, etc, so in some ways, it's like reading apologetics :-)
Mattias
Jay
>
Just finished reading Dune: House Corrino, the last book of the Dune prequel
trilogy. If you liked Dune, you should really dig this. These books are written
by Frank Herbert's son, Brian, and Kevin J. Anderson.
Also reading Profiles in Courageous Manhood (Edwin Louis Cole) during
breakfast. It's ok. Each chapter is about a different man, known by the author,
and how they overcame various obstacles in life.
Next up, I have a large pile of other books to read, but I am starting
Bradbury's From the Dust Returned tomorrow morning.
Jay
Make me a wish, mind over matter
________________________________________
www.underheaven.com
Bruce A. Brown
Hearing God by Dallas Willard
Joy
> Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
Joy Harjo's collection "The Woman who fell from the sky"
Angela Carter's "Wise Children"
and nothing on the Christian front at the moment except the good ol' Manual.
-joy
Joy
> Just finished reading Dune: House Corrino, the last book of
> the Dune prequel trilogy. If you liked Dune, you should really
> dig this. These books are written by Frank Herbert's son,
> Brian, and Kevin J. Anderson.
ROFL!! Ah, the people in the Dune NG would roast you! (Just as the people in
the Tolkien NG would roast anyone who claimed to like the old cartoon...)
But I thought they were kinda fun. Certainly not as intense as the original
trilogy (and I hear they're inaccurate regarding story-internal stuff, but I
haven't paid much attention), but fun nonetheless.
-joy
Cap'n Nemo
<BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
>
A Civil Campaign by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Gotta love that Vorkosigan stuff.
:)
Nemo
TroutHound
The Tlingit Indians
The Road - Jack Karouac (great prose)
George MacDonald - Unspoken Sermons (great meaty stuff)
dt
--
Virtuosity
Spiritual Progressive Rock Reviews
http://home.att.net/~virtuosity
snail
>Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
Just starting _The Misery of Christianity_ by Joachim Kahl. Really
should get round to reading Ian McEwan's Atonement one of these
days and Tim Winton's _Dirt Music_ (was reminded of this one today
as it's been shortlisted for the Booker).
--
snail @ careless net | What's behind the sky ? - 5 year old.
T. Painter
news:3d928645...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> Wild at Heart by John Eldridge.
>
> Every man has deep inside of him, a desire to have an adventure to
> lead, a battle to fight, and a beauty to rescue. John shows how this
> is actually a reflection of the nature of God and how the church has
> emsaculated men such that their goal in life is to "be good people,
> and stay out of trouble". Instead, each man should find his dream
> ministry that allows him to lead his adventure, fight his battle, and
> rescue his beauty.
>
I'm reading this one too -- boy this one is great! I highly recommend this
one, it has been kicking my butt for the past few weeks...
Tim P.
Skaught
>
> BTW Let's stipulate here and now that yes we are all reading our bibles
> like good little christians.....
"To Your Scatteried Bodies Go" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Scott
Michael Martin
news:Gewk9.3686$wH.169@sccrnsc01...
>
> "Brian Healy" <BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3D92815C...@verizon.net...
> > Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
>
> I just read "Fast Food Nation" and will be diving into a little Terry
> Pratchett in a little while.
I love early Pratchett - the two-book Rincewind series, Mort, Pyramids, etc.
I found as he wrote longer novels, my interest just wasn't sustained. Too
much seemed to happen simply to string the story along, pad it out. He
seemed better when he stuck to the roughly 300 page mark.
> I have yet to find any Pop Christian literature either fiction or
nonfiction
> that wasn't the literary equivalent of cotton candy.
Have you read Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Phillip Yancey? John Fischer? William
Lane Craig? All non-fiction, BTW. Agree with you that anything blatantly
"Christian fiction" (i.e. on display at your local CBS and/or published by
one of the Christian publishers) is essentially crap. Badly written crap,
at that.
--
Michael Martin
http://www.stormraven.com
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in
return."
Breezy
> Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
If you stacked 1" thick books on top of each other, I'd be up to about 69.
> BTW Let's stipulate here and now that yes we are all reading our bibles
> like good little christians.....
I once saw a big bad christian reading his bible too.
--
Be free,
Breezy
"It is a subtle effort to pose as deity ourselves by somehow sharing in the
shame of sins committed."
- Steve McVey www.gracewalk.org
Breezy
I like books that focus on God's life working through people, rather than
people trying to do things "for" God.
Reading again "Grace Rules" by Steve McVey. www.gracewalk.org
Part of the first chapter is called "Jesus Never Did One Thing for God."
---
How did Jesus live in this world? Didn't He do some great things for God?
He did not. Jesus came to reveal His Father to the world, but He didn't
accomplish that goal by His own strength and ability. Jesus once had a
conversation with Philip which clearly shows how He functioned as a man in
this world.
John 14:8 records: Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is
enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet
you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who had seen Me has seen the
Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am
in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do
not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His
works."
---
The point is that Jesus, while being God, emptied Himself of His divine
prerogatives. He didn't live his earthy life on his own initiative, but was
totally dependent upon the Father for everything. He didn't perform
miracles because He was God, but rather the Father performed His work
through Jesus. The same is with our life in Christ. He does the work
through us. Our job is not to muster enough strength and courage to "do
things for God," but to empty ourselves of our seeming abilities and become
weak for God to work through and in us.
Also recommend Grace Walk and Grace Land by the same author, and In the Grip
of Grace by Lucado.
Jason Steiner
> Wild at Heart by John Eldridge.
>
> Every man has deep inside of him, a desire to have an adventure to
> lead, a battle to fight, and a beauty to rescue. John shows how this
> is actually a reflection of the nature of God and how the church has
> emsaculated men such that their goal in life is to "be good people,
> and stay out of trouble". Instead, each man should find his dream
> ministry that allows him to lead his adventure, fight his battle, and
> rescue his beauty.
And John would know about emasculation, 'cause no man who has a pair
would think "rescue my beauty" sounded like a reasonable goal.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Jason Steiner
> beginning -that his book alone will not prove anything and that it
> is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer that
> provides the individual "proof" that is needed.
Which makes you wonder what the point of a book called "Reasonable
Faith" is. Basically all this does is to give him a handy excuse when
his arguments are refuted. "Well, I wasn't trying to prove anything
anyway."
Peter A. Schott
content there. Tells a lot of stories about martyrs from the distant and not-too-distant
past. I really enjoyed reading it.
As for my current books - just finished "Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life" and
am moving on the "Worship Evangelism". I can highly recommend both of them. The
Disciplines book gives some good motivation to practice the disciplines more
(Bible-reading, prayer, fasting, silence, worship, etc.) and talks a little about the
practical side of the disciplines as well.
-Pete Schott
Joy
> "Shadow" <NOearl...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > I have yet to find any Pop Christian literature either fiction
> > or nonfiction that wasn't the literary equivalent of cotton
> > candy.
>
> 2 - sorta poppish, but some good content there. Tells a lot
> of stories about martyrs from the distant and not-too-distant
> past. I really enjoyed reading it.
I read the first one, but really - you might as well just read any of the
other books about martyrs out there. The only different thing about 'Jesus
Freaks' is that the cover looked kinda cool and it was written in a
reeeeeally pop-ish style.
Not sure if Shadow is male or female, but Francine Rivers writes some
powerful fiction that women would go for (and even some men, I know that for
a fact....) The "Mark of the Lion" trilogy is really good, although the
first two books were the best. The third got really kind of implausible. Not
that I don't believe in miracles (I definitely do) but it just got... well,
WAY too miraculous. Rivers' "Lineage of Grace" series is also very
interesting - novellas about the 5 women in Jesus' genealogy.
(This makes me think - are there any other female posters here on RMC
besides Susan?)
Frank Peretti's "This Present Darkness" and "Piercing the Darkness" were
cool. You could call them "cotton candy", but they were fun and COOL,
darnit.
-joy
pink elephant
Jerusaalem Chronicles? not sure on series name
most recent 2 books in series are actually flashbacks...historical novels
from Jesus' era, set in the framework of two men trapped in a cave with TONS
of rare, rabbinic scrolls.
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: Gryp s/t (too Korn-y for my tastes, but perhaps
my bro will dig it...)
Mattias Hembruch
Michael Martin <baltez...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Shadow" <NOearl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:Gewk9.3686$wH.169@sccrnsc01...
>>
>> "Brian Healy" <BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:3D92815C...@verizon.net...
>> > Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
>>
>> I just read "Fast Food Nation" and will be diving into a little Terry
>> Pratchett in a little while.
>
>I love early Pratchett - the two-book Rincewind series, Mort, Pyramids, etc.
>I found as he wrote longer novels, my interest just wasn't sustained. Too
>much seemed to happen simply to string the story along, pad it out. He
>seemed better when he stuck to the roughly 300 page mark.
>
>> I have yet to find any Pop Christian literature either fiction or
>nonfiction
>> that wasn't the literary equivalent of cotton candy.
>
>Have you read Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Phillip Yancey? John Fischer? William
>Lane Craig? All non-fiction, BTW. Agree with you that anything blatantly
>"Christian fiction" (i.e. on display at your local CBS and/or published by
>one of the Christian publishers) is essentially crap. Badly written crap,
>at that.
Try C.S. Lewis' space series (esp. the first two. "That Hideous Strength"
isn't as fun, IMHO). Also hunt down Charles Williams' fictional stuff, if
you like complicated/weird fiction. Williams isn't necessarily easy to read,
and some of the books are difficult to follow.
Here's a link to an commentary about his works:
http://freepages.pavilion.net/users/tartarus/williams.html
It may not be your thing, and you will probably not agree with everything he
writes, but it's CERTAINLY not "essentially crap". "Essentially Crap" is
what I thought of Roger Elwood's stuff (for the most part).
Then again, since I bought the 5 or 6 books of his I have in the clearance
bin at the local christian bookstore, I haven't seem them come around again,
so maybe you're right after all :-)
Mattias
Michael Martin
news:amvkc6$etr$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca...
I meant modern "Christian" fiction - Elwood, LaHaye, Peretti, etc. For me,
Lewis (and Williams) were WRITERS whose work naturally reflected their
faith. I don't internally group them in with the crap sitting on the CBS
shelf that's been published in the last 10 years or so.
PuzzleShift
Heart" amazed and penetrated me like no other "Christian living"-class
book ever has! Every sentence either described me perfectly, spoke to
me in some deep way, or opened my mind to some great thing. Three
cheers to John Eldredge and, of course, the late Brent Curtis (esp.
cuz he shared my first name). Although I am a bit...wary, I guess, of
some of the ways he uses Scripture and stuff, but I have to read them
all again to pin down what's bugging me.
-PS
BrightBoy
"The Ragamuffin Gospel" by Brennan Manning
Jeff
PuzzleShift
Trilogy, and read for the first time The Silmarillion.
Read the three John Eldredge books once, plan to again with the study
guides sometime soon.
Since last summer I've been re-reading the whole Tom Clancy library in
order written; I recently finished The Sum of All Fears.
And I HIGHLY recommend We Caught You Plotting Murder, a book of poetry
and other writings by Andrew Schwab, the lead singer/songwriter of
Project 86. Even if you don't like that band, he has written THE most
incredible poems and ideas I have ever come across. Super-cool stuff.
I don't think it's available right now, though it recently went into
second printing and should be up on the web store at www.project86.com
soon. CHECK IT OUT!!!
I'm also looking forward to Marc Salomon of Stavesacre fame's book.
Don't know when that's coming, though.
I've been thinking recently that I would like to read the entire
unabridged King Arthur chronicles next.
-PS
rose
"Joy" <queen_y...@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:191C91BDFE8ED411B844...@pfs21.ex.nus.edu.sg...
> (This makes me think - are there any other female posters here on RMC
> besides Susan?)
I've been here for ages, and there are other female posters
occasionally. There's nothing worth posting about lately or responding
to (thanks to my killfile), so I've been lurking.
Peace,
Rose
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
rose
"BrightBoy" <jd...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:amvrit$e17$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> >Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise
>
> "The Ragamuffin Gospel" by Brennan Manning
And please be sure to visit Brennan's site at
http://www.brennanmanning.com!
Jeff Edwards
that a mention of apologetics might answer that.
Anyhow, I did a poor job in summing up Craig's point in my post, and I would
suggest that a reading of the first chapter is far more articulate than I
could be on the subject. It's not quite as simple as I made it, nor is it
as clear cut as your reply.
Jeff Edwards
paranoi...@attbi.com
"Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message
news:26cvma...@shell.gaydeceiver.com...
Jay
>the Tolkien NG would roast anyone who claimed to like the old cartoon...)
>But I thought they were kinda fun. Certainly not as intense as the original
>trilogy (and I hear they're inaccurate regarding story-internal stuff, but I
>haven't paid much attention), but fun nonetheless.
>
>-joy
Personally, I really liked them. I don't care what the Dune n/g types say.
There were a few inconsistancies, but overall it was quite enjoyable. As
intense as the originals? No, but sometimes the originals bored me, at least
around book 4 or 5.
Joy
> "Joy" <queen_y...@THIShotmail.com> wrote:>
> > (This makes me think - are there any other female posters here on RMC
> > besides Susan?)
>
> I've been here for ages, and there are other female posters
> occasionally. There's nothing worth posting about lately or responding
> to (thanks to my killfile), so I've been lurking.
Ah, wise...
So wait - there are only 3 of us? Yoikes!
-joy
rose
"Joy" <queen_y...@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:191C91BDFE8ED411B844...@pfs21.ex.nus.edu.sg...
Not if Wednesday's also around. =)
Jason Steiner
Incidentally, I've been reading...
"Baby, I Don't Care" - Biography of Robert Mitchum.
"No Life For a Lady" - Biography of a girl growing up in 1880s New Mexico.
"The Botany of Desire" - About the symbiotic relationship between humans
and plants.
"Killing Pablo" - The story of the hunt for Columbian drug lord Pablo Escobar.
"Against the Current" - Essays by Isaiah Berlin.
Jason Steiner
>
> I was wondering if you were still around, and the thought crossed
> my mind that a mention of apologetics might answer that.
>
> Anyhow, I did a poor job in summing up Craig's point in my post,
> and I would suggest that a reading of the first chapter is far more
> articulate than I could be on the subject. It's not quite as
> simple as I made it, nor is it as clear cut as your reply.
Actually, it's exactly that simple. There are presupposationalists and
there are evidentialists, and the two are mutually exclusive. You
cannot have it both ways.
Craig claims that his beliefs are self-evident and require no
evidence, which puts him firmly in the presupposationalist camp.
He even goes so far as to claim that it is self-evident for everyone
else too, and that those who don't agree are in denial.
His "logic" is not unlike that of certain militant gays who claim
that everyone is fundamentally bisexual, can go either way, has had
homosexual urgings at various times, and anyone who claims to be
totally straight is just in denial.
If you accept that logic, no evidence is necessary, and he's wasting
his time trying to present it. If you don't, then there's nothing
you can say to convince a person who does accept it to believe
otherwise.
T. Painter
"PuzzleShift" <five...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92481609.02092...@posting.google.com...
You've just described my experience perfectly. I don't mean to slam a
ministry like Promise Keepers, but if they were to teach and reach out like
this book does, then I could see a lot of people changed.
I got the same impression you did with his use of scriptures - possibly
taken out of context, but it doesn't negate the points he is making. There
were many times that I got so angry at myself while reading this book, I had
to put it down and walk away for a few minutes -- literally.
Tim P.
Michael A. Vickers
>Time for my usual check to see what the gang is up to book wise,
Just finished _Why People Believe Weird Things_ by Michael Shermer. Just
about to finish _Orthodoxy_ by G.K. Chesterton. Haven't decided what's on
deck next. Either _City of God_ by St. Augustine or _The Whole Shebang_ by
Timothy Ferris.
Michael
The songs on the radio just suck, I'm afraid. - VOL
Michael Martin
> Craig claims that his beliefs are self-evident and require no
> evidence, which puts him firmly in the presupposationalist camp.
> He even goes so far as to claim that it is self-evident for everyone
> else too, and that those who don't agree are in denial.
Can you cite any text for your interpretation of Craig's stance? Granted,
my exposure to Craig has been limited, but I have yet to read anything where
he does not at least attempt to use evidence and reason. I know you don't
agree with his arguments and conclusions, but I don't recall him saying that
Christianity requires no evidence.
scholar and fool
> Just finished _Why People Believe Weird Things_ by Michael Shermer. Just
> about to finish _Orthodoxy_ by G.K. Chesterton. Haven't decided what's on
> deck next. Either _City of God_ by St. Augustine or _The Whole Shebang_ by
> Timothy Ferris.
i go to an informal book study that my wife does, and we are currently
in the middle of reading _city of G-d_. although i must admit that i
am several chapters behind. most of the first 10 or so "books" (i.e.,
chapters) are about the roman gods and roman history, and while it is
to some degree interesting, sometimes augustine goes to great detail to
discuss matters that were important then but don't really matter much
now. i hear that around book 11 it gets into theology more, so i'm
looking forward to that.
some of the other books we've read include _escape from reason_ by
francis shaeffer, _love your G-d with all your mind_ by j.p. moreland,
_sham pearls for real swine_ by franky shaeffer, and _finding darwin's
G-d_ by kenneth miller.
if anyone lives in houston and would be interested in maybe attending,
write me an e-mail and let me know and i'll send you more information.
other than that, i haven't read much lately. i sort of go in spurts.
there for a while i was going back and reading a lot of "classics"
that i'd never read. dante, swift, aesop's, grimm's, that kind of
stuff. plus i read some of the classic cyberpunk. and i like to
read computer history stuff. lately though...nothing.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with phliktid to e-mail me
Jason Steiner
> "Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>
> > Craig claims that his beliefs are self-evident and require no
> > evidence, which puts him firmly in the presupposationalist camp.
> > He even goes so far as to claim that it is self-evident for everyone
> > else too, and that those who don't agree are in denial.
>
> Can you cite any text for your interpretation of Craig's stance? Granted,
> my exposure to Craig has been limited, but I have yet to read anything where
> he does not at least attempt to use evidence and reason. I know you don't
> agree with his arguments and conclusions, but I don't recall him saying that
> Christianity requires no evidence.
"The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and
above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of
argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when
reason submits to and serves the gospel. Only the ministerial use
of reason can be allowed. ... Should a conflict arise between the
witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the
Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it
is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice
versa." (p. 36)
Evidence is only allowed when it supports his presupposed conclusions.
Which makes evidence absolutely irrelevant. If evidence doesn't have
the power to change or challenge one's theories, then there's no point
gathering or presenting evidence.
Actually, there is _one_ point to presenting evidence.
If you know that other people respect evidence, and you want to get
their respect, then you may use evidence when convenient - and only
when convenient - in order to deceive them into believing that you
hold the same standards they do.
Michael Martin
> Michael Martin <baltez...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Can you cite any text for your interpretation of Craig's stance?
Granted,
> > my exposure to Craig has been limited, but I have yet to read anything
where
> > he does not at least attempt to use evidence and reason. I know you
don't
> > agree with his arguments and conclusions, but I don't recall him saying
that
> > Christianity requires no evidence.
>
> "The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and
> above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of
> argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when
> reason submits to and serves the gospel. Only the ministerial use
> of reason can be allowed. ... Should a conflict arise between the
> witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the
> Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it
> is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice
> versa." (p. 36)
What is that from? I am interested in the larger context in which he makes
the statement.
> Evidence is only allowed when it supports his presupposed conclusions.
> Which makes evidence absolutely irrelevant. If evidence doesn't have
> the power to change or challenge one's theories, then there's no point
> gathering or presenting evidence.
If that is how he consistently treats evidence, then I agree with you. As I
said, I have very little exposure to Craig's writings and arguments. What
little I have seems to point more to arguing for alternative understandings
of the evidence rather than outright dismissal. But that is from a very
small sampling.
> Actually, there is _one_ point to presenting evidence.
>
> If you know that other people respect evidence, and you want to get
> their respect, then you may use evidence when convenient - and only
> when convenient - in order to deceive them into believing that you
> hold the same standards they do.
So you are saying that Craig, while loudly proclaiming adherence and
proclivity towards logical readings of evidence, inwardly holds using any
and all evidence in contempt? Not bating you, just asking if that is what
you are saying.
Michael Martin
OK, after reading your post and posting my initial reply, I did some online
searching and found this site (I am sure you are familiar with it):
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm
What I found extremely interesting is the Website author's comparison of
Craig's statements with Mormonism. While I think Craig would disagree with
Smith's take on Craig's statements, there is a lot of what Smith observes
and says that I agree with.
When talking with friends over the years, and doing the "odd questions"
game, whenever the question of using a time machine came up, I have always
answered the same: Jerusalem, circa 30 AD. I want to know. I want to see.
And, if (and it is a might big IF) I were to observe nothing "for weeks," as
Smith says, then I would not be swayed by some inner voice. Resurrection
means the body is gone and not stolen, not decomposing.
Without getting into a line by line take on Smith's writings, I think I am
somewhere between Smith and Craig. I sure don't have the reliance on
subjective warm fuzzies that Craig SEEMS to support; but I also don't insist
on lab-replicable, empirical evidence for everything. "Evidence" is
necessary and useful, but not the end-all, be-all of finding what to
believe.
I don't expect an agreement from you Jason, but included the last paragraph
for any other lurkers/readers of the thread.
Jason Steiner
> > above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of
> > argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when
> > reason submits to and serves the gospel. Only the ministerial use
> > of reason can be allowed. ... Should a conflict arise between the
> > witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the
> > Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it
> > is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice
> > versa." (p. 36)
>
> What is that from? I am interested in the larger context in which he makes
> the statement.
"Reasonable Faith".
> > Evidence is only allowed when it supports his presupposed conclusions.
> > Which makes evidence absolutely irrelevant. If evidence doesn't have
> > the power to change or challenge one's theories, then there's no point
> > gathering or presenting evidence.
>
> If that is how he consistently treats evidence, then I agree with you.
That is his fundamental attitude toward evidence, which he lays out
right at the beginning of his book. "I'm going to give you all this
evidence, but remember, evidence only counts if we can make it support
what we believe, and if we can't make it support what we believe, it
doesn't matter."
> > Actually, there is _one_ point to presenting evidence.
> >
> > If you know that other people respect evidence, and you want to get
> > their respect, then you may use evidence when convenient - and only
> > when convenient - in order to deceive them into believing that you
> > hold the same standards they do.
>
> So you are saying that Craig, while loudly proclaiming adherence and
> proclivity towards logical readings of evidence, inwardly holds using any
> and all evidence in contempt? Not bating you, just asking if that is what
> you are saying.
Yes.
Except that his contempt is openly declared. He just expects his
audience to overlook or share his contempt for evidence.
Jason Steiner
>
> OK, after reading your post and posting my initial reply, I did some online
> searching and found this site (I am sure you are familiar with it):
>
> http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm
>
> What I found extremely interesting is the Website author's comparison of
> Craig's statements with Mormonism. While I think Craig would disagree with
> Smith's take on Craig's statements, there is a lot of what Smith observes
> and says that I agree with.
Hahahahaha! That's great! I hadn't seen that site before.
I like the comparison of Craig's theology to paranoid schizophrenia.
> Without getting into a line by line take on Smith's writings, I think I am
> somewhere between Smith and Craig. I sure don't have the reliance on
> subjective warm fuzzies that Craig SEEMS to support; but I also don't insist
> on lab-replicable, empirical evidence for everything. "Evidence" is
> necessary and useful, but not the end-all, be-all of finding what to
> believe.
Then what is?
GoteeSpy
may be familiar with her husband, Charlie Peacock-Ashworth.)
--Jay S.
Michael A. Vickers
>i go to an informal book study that my wife does, and we are currently
>in the middle of reading _city of G-d_. although i must admit that i
>am several chapters behind. most of the first 10 or so "books" (i.e.,
>chapters) are about the roman gods and roman history, and while it is
>to some degree interesting, sometimes augustine goes to great detail to
>discuss matters that were important then but don't really matter much
>now. i hear that around book 11 it gets into theology more, so i'm
>looking forward to that.
From the introduction by Thomas Merton in my version (Modern Library
Classics, 2000):
The saint does not settle down to treat the real theme of his work
until he reaces Book Eleven. And even then, he takes such a broad view
of his subject that his approach to the main point seems to us
extraordinarily unhurried...
He then goes on to loosely suggest that if you haven't read _Confessions_ yet
to start at Book Fourteen.
>_finding darwin's G-d_ by kenneth miller.
How was this?
Michael
Ah, how quick men are to blame the gods! From us, they say, all their
evils come, when they themselves, by their own ridiculous pride, bring
horrors on far beyond anything fate would have ever done. - Homer
scholar and fool
> From the introduction by Thomas Merton in my version (Modern Library
> Classics, 2000):
>
> The saint does not settle down to treat the real theme of his
> work
> until he reaces Book Eleven. And even then, he takes such a broad
> view of his subject that his approach to the main point seems to
> us extraordinarily unhurried...
>
> He then goes on to loosely suggest that if you haven't read
> _Confessions_ yet to start at Book Fourteen.
i think we are reading the modern library classics version. we knew
that they suggested reading it out of order, but we decided to try to
plow straight through it. i would agree that his writing seems quite
unhurried. although it was kind of funny, in chapter five or somewhere,
he spent about 5 lines answering the incongruency of predestination and
free will (if i recall...it was some major issue). meanwhile he was
writing pages and pages about the roman gods. perhaps he will pick the
issue back up later in the book. he's certainly got enough space to
do so. :)
>>_finding darwin's G-d_ by kenneth miller.
>
> How was this?
i thought it was pretty good. miller seemed kind of cocky about his
beliefs soemtimes, but it was funny to watch him slice through young
earthers. i don't know that i agree with some of his ideas, at times
i felt like some of his views didn't mesh together very well, and it
seemed like the book was centered around him being able to use the pun
at the very end of the book, but it had good info in it and was fun to
read. i'm not knowledgeable enough about a number of the things he
was talking about, but enough of it was written at a layman's level
that it was able to get around that stuff without having to rely on
his interpretations the whole time.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with phliktid to e-mail me.
Shadow
"Peter A. Schott" <pasc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cvd6pus6i89b58thm...@4ax.com...
> You may want to check out Jesus Freaks or Jesus Freaks 2 - sorta poppish,
but some good
> content there. Tells a lot of stories about martyrs from the distant and
not-too-distant
> past. I really enjoyed reading it.
Fox' Book of Martyrs is a volume I can only imagine has a bit more substance
and I've read some of that.
Michael Eshom
Right now, I've started reading Jesus Freak, which is an awesome book
of stories of those who have been jailed, killed, or suffered some
other way because of their faith in God. Unfortunately, classes just
started up again at my college (University of Cincinnati College of
Applied Science), so I haven't had time to read it in a few weeks.
When I'm done with this one, I plan to buy the new "Shine" book by the
Newsboys.