“He was a burning and shining light...” – John 5:35
As Jesus’ words testify to the alluring combination of both intelligence and passion (regarding John the Baptist) so I personally cannot help but look with both hope and admiration at those philosophers, apologists and truth-seekers who likewise hold a similar confluence of personal qualities.
To that admiration, this blog is devoted.
It is often observed that “all truth is God’s truth“. This blog is a humble attempt to glean, gather and appreciate passionate, lively defense of the truth from the Christian worldview.
Because if Truth exists in our universe, then nothing demands more passion then the articulation and defense of that Truth. Nothing.
So this blog will contain little of drawn-out, dispassionate theoreticalism. Rather limitation will be made to include only the most demonstrably living and passionately relevant expressions of dialogue and debate.
For the sake of the one in whom “we live and move and have our being” – Acts 17:28
Seems to me that if we lose this battle, we’ve lost it all. Ideologies have enduring consequences and Christ-centered, passionate dialogue, engaging a culture bent on its own destruction is where it must begin.
I found this to be a fascinating, succinct, and well-presented lecture on the noted Existentialist philosopher, Albert Camus. While he rejected the label, (“No, I am not an existentialist. Sartre and I are always surprised to see our names linked…“) he is most often identified philosophically with that tradition.
Who could be more passionate in dialogue than the person I consider to be that dearest of all philosophers of the Twentieth Century? Smart enough to be dispassionate, wise enough to be nothing other than…
“Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted. He demands our worship, our obedience, our prostration. Do we suppose that they can do Him any good, or fear, like the chorus in Milton, that human irreverence can bring about ‘His glory’s diminution’? A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell. But God wills our good, and our good is to love Him (with that responsive love proper to creatures) and to love Him we must know Him: and if we know Him, we shall in fact fall on our faces. If we do not, that only shows that what we are trying to love is not yet God—though it may be the nearest approximation to God which our thought and fantasy can attain. Yet the call is not only to prostration and awe; it is to a reflection of the Divine life, a creaturely participation in the Divine attributes which is far beyond our present desires. We are bidden to ‘put on Christ’, to become like God. That is, whether we like it or not, God intends to give us what we need, not what we now think we want. Once more, we are embarrassed by the intolerable compliment, by too much love, not too little.”
“During the month of June I will be debating Justin Schieber from Reasonable Doubts on the question: “Does the Christian God Exist?”. The debate is designed for a very substantive and rigorous interaction and exchange. The whole debate will be posted online closer to the end of June. The format will be“:
20 min. Opening (Max)
20 min. Opening (Mr. Schieber)
15 min. Rebuttal (Max)
15 min. Rebuttal (Mr. Schieber)
10 min. Second Rebuttal (Max)
10 min. Second Rebuttal (Mr. Schieber)
5 min. Closing (Max)
5 min. Closing (Mr. Schieber)
“The only downside to the debate is that the format takes away from the spirit of a live interaction. However, there are many perks to this. The time in between recordings will allow for a full, robust response from each of us. I anticipate this to be a very, very good exchange with thorough explications of the arguments. A transcript of the debate with our sources will also be made available.”
“Mr. Schieber and I have always had an amicable relationship and exchange online. In addition to an excellent debate, I anticipate this to be an example and model of a loving pursuit for truth. I can stand with you, though we don’t see the same. I want you to know the love that set me free. I don’t worship a concept–I follow a King. We walk the waters to bridge the gap between lives and separate sides.”
Excellent treatment on that thorny “moral” argument. Was Nietzsche just being consistent?
I believe cultural Nehilism is the default position of the blinded masses of our day. Whether they agree with our worldview or not, getting them awake enough to enter the debate is a HUGE step forward.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) described “New Atheists” as early twenty-first century atheist authors promoting atheism.
The “New Atheist” label for these critics [that include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens] of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.( The New Atheists, pub. James E. Taylor, IEP)
Taylor explained that “New Atheist authors share the central belief that there is no supernatural…