Archive for category Debate/Discussion
The beginning and Science
I wanted to quote from one of my favorite authors, Henri Blocher:
On “the place of the sciences” [in interpreting Genesis and scripture in general]:
… Therefore we must curb the desire to make the scientific view play a part in the actual interpretation; the interpretation must cling solely to the text and its context. The inescapable comparison with the sciences of cosmic, biological and human origins will not come until after; this will no doubt have repercussions on the work of interpretation which is never completed, but they will be of a merely external nature. The sciences will stimulate the interpreter from without, driving him to verify his exegesis and test the evidence, or encouraging him to favorable convergences which bear witness to the common origin of the books of God. In order to submit ourselves to God in his sovereign declarations and in the condescension of his inspiration of men, we conclude that the places of sciences in the reading of the bible is this; they have neither authority, or even a substantial ministerial role within the actual interpretation; they act as warnings and confirmations at a later stage.
He continues:
The pathway is free, therefore, and our calling clear; to study Genesis as God’s Word and as human words, in harmony with the whole of Scripture and according to the characteristics of its language.
(empahsis mine)
Also posted at theology.geek.nz
A disgusting example of a ‘Christian’

- Image via Wikipedia
Ken Pulliam a former evangelical Christian turned agnostic or the such has died (you can read his story here), and yet his blog lives on. At least until the posts which he has written stops auto-posting. His latest one questions whether or not Adam and Eve had freewill. To be honest, I haven’t read much of Ken’s work, but I am sure he will be missed. What disgusts me however, is the comment left by a ‘Christian’ blogger on that latest post. Rhology, who is a militant anti-whatever he is not, it seems, left a commet which reads,
Goodbye Dr Pulliam. Your pitiful arguments against Christianity will be missed. I pity you greatly.
As a Christian, I believe that one of the greatest things to happen to my faith is the interaction with those who so strongly challenge it, and the more so, with those so hurt by it, destroyed by it, or those who simply see no value in it. People in some way like Dr. Ken Pulliam.
People like Rhology are those who needed Pulliam the most. But, they also need more importantly, the love of the Christ Whom they claim to serve. I do not pity Dr. Pulliam; I pity Rhology.
Related articles
- RIP, Ken Pulliam (unreasonablefaith.com)
- The evangelical identity crisis | Alan Wilson (guardian.co.uk)
Question of the Day: Does the law of God change?
Posted by Joel in Debate/Discussion on October 29, 2010

- Image via Wikipedia
During a discussion group yesterday, we were discussion liberalism and legalism, and finding the sweet-spot between the two to empower believers. But…
The discussion turned to the notion of God’s laws and man’s laws, regarding legalism. One position put forth was that God’s laws does not change.
The counter position was that God’s laws do change, otherwise, we should endeavor to kill adulterers, homosexuals, and unruly children (Of course, this is coming from a conservative Christian reading of Leviticus 20). But, we don’t. Further, there is the notion of the ‘New Covenant’.
So, anyway, what do you think? Has God changed laws on us from time to time? But, more importantly, how many of God’s laws have we remade as the laws of man by our interpretation?
I will not tell you my position yet…
Christ or Creationism? The Church’s Pork Problem
First, I want to introduce you to a post from Gordon, and then we’ll discuss Ken Ham. I know, lame pun, but in all sincerity, it is a problem when one person hogs the gospel for himself, and loves to root around in the slop while hamming it up for others, fattening himself up on misdirection and anti-intellectualism.
Gordon writes,
My own faith was shipwrecked by this issue because I had been told time and again that belief in a young earth and creation of the species as they currently are without evolution was essential to being a proper, soundly converted, bible believing Christian….
And yes, Ken Ham will state that one doesn’t have to believe in YEC, but will roundly attack those who do not. Gordon goes on to note what is actually in the doctrine of Young Earth Creationism, rightly, I believe. When you view of God is based on having to accept something as literal, when we have a long history of it not being required as well as it being proven wrong… you have no real connection to God.
Next up, Ken is again attacking in a very shrewd way Dr. James McGrath. If my readers will remember, I’ve dined with the good Doctor and his family. I have a great respect for him and none for Ken Ham. Why? What fruit is found in Ken Ham? What humility? What is his gospel message? Did Paul so rebuke Reason? Intellectualism? Did Paul add to the Gospel’s message? If Ken is the Christian that he says he is, where are his answers, in season and out of season? As a matter of fact, he is on record stating that he will not be asked questions. And his staff? What credentials? And his love? Does Ken Love anyone anymore?
And to blame the collapsing of a Christian World View in the U.S. on such as Dr. McGrath is silly. Instead, I would charge that if we had a Christian World View, if we were truly a Christian nation at any point in our history, that the likes of Ken Ham is what is causing the downfall with his insistence on something more than Christ. We no longer look to Christ, but our own interpretations of Scripture, believing that they are inerrant. His notion of the authority of the word of God is bound up in his interpretation, and not reality.
I am a believe in Jesus Christ. I believe Him to be just what the Scriptures state He is. I believe in Scripture as inspired. I believe that all are lost but through Christ’s faithfulness righteousness is imputed. I believe that God is still calling through Christ, that we must respond, that Scripture is central, and that sin is real. I do not believe that creationism or evolution makes one more or less a Christian, a believer, or even sanctified. I believe instead that we must endeavor to understand the word of God as it was meant to be understood and that I don’t have to understand it all in order for it to be Truth. I further believe that my understandings and interpretations are second, third – fourth! to what the word of God actually says.
I believe that people like Ken Ham are causing undue divisions in the Body of Christ and instead of reaching towards one another in Christ, we are doing our best to fracture even more our mission. Christ asked us to believe upon Him. I do. I believe that my life has forever been changed because of my faith in Christ, because of, if you will, an unquantifiable religious experience and a continued presence by the Spirit of the Living God.
I believe that both Ken and James are brothers in Christ, but that one is rejecting the Father and in doing so, becoming a home-wrecker.
I believe in
- God the Father Almighty,
- Maker of heaven and earth:
- And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
- Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
- Born of the Virgin Mary,
- Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
- Was crucified, dead, and buried:
- He descended into hell;
- The third day he rose again from the dead;
- He ascended into heaven,
- And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
- From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
- I believe in the Holy Ghost;
- The holy Catholick Church;
- The Communion of Saints;
- The Forgiveness of sins;
- The Resurrection of the body,
- And the Life everlasting.
- Amen.
Anything else you need me to believe in to be saved?
The Laws of Physics are more messed up than Congress

- Image via Wikipedia
A friend of mine shared this story with me, and after my braining going boom, I though that I might share it with you as well.
The laws of physics only work in a finite universe, but we likely live in an infinite multiverse. Resolving this discrepancy could mean a 50-50 chance time will end in 3.7 billion years. Yeah, this one’s going to get weird.
The problem starts with eternal inflation, an offshoot of the inflationary universe model used to explain the Big Bang. In the original inflation model, the early universe very quickly and exponentially expanded in volume, pushing apart different sectors of the universe into causally disconnected patches. That means you could leave one patch traveling at the speed of light forever and never reach any of the others, because the ongoing expansion of the universe makes them too far apart.
The universe might have to end in 3.7 billion years so that the laws of physics make sense.
Read that article and the ones below, and if you have any brain matter left…
Related articles
- Zany Scientists Claim the Laws of Physics Change Throughout the Universe [Mind Blowing] (gizmodo.com)
- Laws of physics may just be ‘local by-laws’ (gizmag.com)
- Constant change: Are there no universal laws? (newscientist.com)
- The Laws Of Physics May Vary By Jurisdiction [Science] (kotaku.com)
- Physicist Says There’s a 50% Chance Time Itself Will End Within Earth’s Lifespan [Physics] (gizmodo.com)
Question of the Day: Is there a positive shift coming in our culture
Posted by Joel in Debate/Discussion on October 22, 2010
Adam Hamilton writes,
Our culture is in the midst of an important shift in which more people will be able to accept paradox and to hold fast to a compelling faith while living with ambiguity. (p30)
This was one of the issues we discussed yesterday at the discussion group. I don’t see it. I see more polarization, more extremism, and more black and white.
Hamilton’s book was published in 2008, and my point for the group was that during that time, our culture was excited, for the most part, about the Presidential election and the real possibility of electing someone completely different in appearance from those who had gone before. There was a great promise and a great hope.
Now? Now we have bigots for pundits, morons for movement leaders, and we are slipping back into those extremists positions – on both sides. Compromise is an evil word.
Do you see our culture shifting? Positive? Negative?
Question of the Day: Justification
Posted by Joel in Debate/Discussion on October 15, 2010
I ain’t telling you mine, but what is yours? How do you describe Justification? And for those of you who want to simply use bible verses…. well…. how do you interpret them?
Related articles
- A critique on N T Wright’s view of justification by faith (thechurchofjesuschrist.us)






