Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Speaking of the problem of evil ...
Obama's alleged non-"natural-born citizen" status is not the big stink pile this election cycle: Al Franken and the DNC stealing an election in MN is the real stink bomb.
You meant it for evil (2)
Anyway, the last time we mentioned that if Joseph had never been sold into slavery, he would have never been in a position to become what he became.
And the wily atheist -- the one who admits, btw, that even he might be willing to suffer for the sake of something, like being part of the 60 million who had to die to bring to an end the suffering of 6 million others in a small minority group -- would probably say, "hey: that's an overstatement at best. Maybe Joseph could not have made his way from Potipher's house to the jail to the right hand of Pharaoh (granting, implausibly, that there is a shred of truth in this story), but to say there was no way for him to become Pharaoh's agent to make the storehouses of grain without him suffering is far-fetched at best. He didn't have to suffer to become king of the world: God could have just wedged him in there either by birth or by some other non-suffering method."
But the thing that the wily atheist overlooks here is that this objection is speculative at best, and disjointed from reality at worst. He has abandoned his existential reasoning for fantasy exactly when the existential truth betrays him.
Let's take Barack Obama for example -- who didn't get sold into slavery in order to become President-elect of the United States. Someone might have the audacity to say he certainly didn't suffer to become leader of the Free World -- but those people, frankly, have never tried to lead the life he lead to run for President.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not hardly shilling for Sen. Obama here. What I'm saying is that the reality check against the atheist claim that suffering is theoretically not necessary to achieve power is against the existential fact that he cannot produce one person in the history of the world who came to significant power without suffering. They had to pay some kind of price to get what they wanted, and it was not a small price.
See: the measuring stick here is existential fact. The "problem of evil" is measured by the atheist by the existential fact that there is pain in the world. Having pointed this out, and having set the groundwork for his complaint, if we allow his complaint to stand we cannot then walk away from its basis after he has finished complaining.
If the existential fact of pain is the problem, and it exists when we rule out God as a cause or a solution, we cannot then just toss out pain as a factor in the world.
As in, for example, Joseph's life. Existentially, the story of Joseph makes sense. That is, it fits the pattern of the world we know to say that Joseph had to suffer some kind of hardship to become a close advisor to the ruler of Egypt.
One may say, "well, fie upon the dreams and the miracles -- those condemn that story as complete nonsense," but that is a different complaint. The Bible uses the story of Joseph to make one singular point: in some way, men intend some actions for the sake of evil, but somehow those actions play out to redeem them in spite of themselves.
These men intended what happened to Joseph for evil -- but because Joseph was sold into slavery, and made a prisoner under false pretenses something which saves many is made to happen.
Mull that over, and I'll be back again later to give you some more of the remedy to the problem of evil.
Monday, December 29, 2008
The way we wish we were
AP news is reporting this gem about Herman Rosenblat and his wife Roma. I'm not going to spoil it for you by giving ypou the summary, so go read it.
Now, I have two axes to grind here -- both of which have to do with the Gospel. The first is the important factoid reported in the UK that Oprah has called this "the single greatest love story we have ever told on the air". Oprah's track record in sniffing out liars and fabricators and people who shouldn't be trusted is pretty poor. So when people are then turning to her to listen to, for example, Eckhart Tolle in order to reinvent themselves and the whole Earth ... eh. Nobody would listen to Tolle except that Oprah has endorsed him -- yet Oprah herself is a monumental dupe for things that look like the way she wishes they were.
The other thing is this: this story strikes me as an interesting case study for comparison to The Shack. You know: the Shack is fiction, right? So what harm can it do? Well, it turns out that Herman Rosenblat's story is just fiction -- so what harm can it do? Why should we repudiate Rosenblat but embrace the Shack?
It's just fiction, people. Right?
You think about that as we prepare for a new year, and I'll come back later in the week to fix up what is bound to be quite the brawl in the meta.
UPDATED: Aha!
Now, I have two axes to grind here -- both of which have to do with the Gospel. The first is the important factoid reported in the UK that Oprah has called this "the single greatest love story we have ever told on the air". Oprah's track record in sniffing out liars and fabricators and people who shouldn't be trusted is pretty poor. So when people are then turning to her to listen to, for example, Eckhart Tolle in order to reinvent themselves and the whole Earth ... eh. Nobody would listen to Tolle except that Oprah has endorsed him -- yet Oprah herself is a monumental dupe for things that look like the way she wishes they were.
The other thing is this: this story strikes me as an interesting case study for comparison to The Shack. You know: the Shack is fiction, right? So what harm can it do? Well, it turns out that Herman Rosenblat's story is just fiction -- so what harm can it do? Why should we repudiate Rosenblat but embrace the Shack?
It's just fiction, people. Right?
You think about that as we prepare for a new year, and I'll come back later in the week to fix up what is bound to be quite the brawl in the meta.
UPDATED: Aha!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
There ya go: happy new year
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Everyone hates Rick Warren
Gays denounce Obama for choosing Rick Warren for the Inaugural Invocation.
The next step is to get the abortionists to denounce him for saving a baby's life. After that, the next 4 years will be cake.
The next step is to get the abortionists to denounce him for saving a baby's life. After that, the next 4 years will be cake.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
seriously now ...
... but go here and listen to NPR's discussion between Al Mohler and Lisa Miller. Particularly, listen to what Ms. Miller says between 17:35 and 17:45.
Make no mistake: her vivid expression is the fact that the Christian view of divorce informs her hermeneutics and her use of that book as an authority.
HT: JT.
Make no mistake: her vivid expression is the fact that the Christian view of divorce informs her hermeneutics and her use of that book as an authority.
HT: JT.
Worth Blogrolling
Turns out that Jay Adams has a blog. There is nobody who talks straighter in the American evangelical scene than Jay Adams.
You will be edified.
You will be edified.




