Business @ Build a Bear

- Posted using MobyPicture.com

Umstead park

- Posted using MobyPicture.com

My girl did this!

- Posted using MobyPicture.com

Something to Think About

I found this on www.christian-thinktank.com a while back. Pretty good stuff:

“A Few Ethical Vectors for Christians:

1. The God of Truth is NOT afraid of our questions.
2. Our God is God of the whole person: will, emotions, body, even our intellect.
3. God is seriously committed to truth–whatever the cost…as His children, so should we be.
4. Taking a person’s questions seriously is an act of respect and love, even when they don’t really take them seriously.
5. Distortion, misrepresentation, or deception through omission are unethical.
6. When we don’t know the answer, we must say ‘I do not know’…
7. If a sincere question (as a felt need) comes our way, we should attempt to meet that need through answers, resources, or encouragement to patience.
8. We are not allowed to be contentious or to argue for argument’s sake.
9. We should be changing the shape of eternity, one conversation at a time.
10. Sometimes the best answer is silence.
11. Prov. 18:13: “He who answers before listening — that is his folly and his shame.”
12. “Slander” includes misrepresentation.
13. Chronic ignorance can become irresponsibility, and chronic irresponsibly can become a moral failure.
14. It is not a sin to have unanswered questions and agonizing doubts–you can raise more questions in 5 minutes than you can answer in 50 years!
15. It is generally dishonest to reject a belief which you have N+1 arguments for, on the basis of only N arguments against (all argument weights being equal)…it is also somewhat foolish.
16. Unanswered questions CAN be a source of emotional pain.
17. This is NOT A GAME we’re in.”

Been a while

It’s a while since my last post. I promise I haven’t given up. Lately I’ve been real busy with school, and well, school. I’ll get back at it soon.

Biblical View of Sin: An Excerpt from “THIS PLACE IS A MESS: DIFFERING CULTURAL VIEWS OF SIN AND THEIR RESPONSES”

Excerpt from a paper I did for Systematic Theology 1. In this paper I explored differing worldview ideas of sin and morality. Then I tried to logically follow their outcome from a biblical perspective. This excerpt briefly defines the biblical view of sin and its effect. It is by no means exhaustive. (Citations were left out of this blog post, but I will send them to you if asked.)

When discussing the definition of sin according to biblical Christianity, it is also important to first establish what is meant by “biblical Christianity.” For the purpose of this work, biblical Christianity lines up with evangelicalism. One that identifies with biblical Christianity will therefore be considered “evangelical” and is “one who believes and proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Further, the gospel of Jesus Christ states that he “died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day.”
According to biblical Christianity, sin refers to the pervasive corruption inherited from Adam and Eve at the Fall as recorded in Genesis three. Rather than believe God, man chose to believe God’s enemy, and thus acted independently from God. Because of this usurpation of God’s authority, mankind experienced spiritual death and opened the floodgates for corruption to infiltrate the entire creation. Nancy Pearcy sheds light on the impact of the Fall when she states, “Just as we insist on the cosmic scope of Creation – that all creation came from God’s hands – so too we must insist on the cosmic scope of the Fall. Because humans were created to be God’s deputies exercising dominion over creation, their sin had a ripple effect that has extended into the natural world.”
Sin is the power that holds mankind in bondage to rebellion from God. It is acting in opposition to God as determined through Scripture. That which is sinful is not determined by the individual, community or circumstances. Mankind does not become sinful through the corruption of others as taught in Islam. Sin is real; not a mere illusion. In Christian Theology, Millard Erickson defines sin as “any evil action or evil motive that is in opposition to God. Simply stated, sin is failure to let God be God and placing something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy.”

09/10 Bible Diagnostic test

Click on the following link to complete the survey:

Click Here to take survey

Brief Defense Against Radical Postmodernism

Radical postmodernism is characterized primarily by its rejection of objective truth and acceptance only of subjective truths. Truth no longer guides and determines the individual’s journey; rather the individual’s journey determines what is true. In Love Your God with All Your Mind, J. P. Moreland described the Christian overwhelmed with postmodernity as “the Christian narcissist” that “brings a Copernican revolution to the Christian faith.” This Copernican revolution of the Christian faith replaces God and His purposes with the individual’s personal fulfillment. (Moreland, 89) Millard Erickson, in his Christian Theology, described the postmodern elements of the following three disciplines as: 1) The postmodern form of literary criticism is deconstruction in which meaning is determined by the reader rather than the author, 2) The postmodern philosopher utilizes neo-pragmatism; that is to say truth is determined by its usefulness to the community, and 3) In history the postmodern new historicism allows practitioners great margins of imagination in the study of history. Following I briefly comment on each:

First, deconstruction is the approach to literary criticism that disregards the author’s meaning and intent and allows the reader to provide the text’s meaning. The problem this poses for biblical criticism is that God’s word is undermined when emphasis is placed on the reader’s interpretation over God’s intent. Biblical truth can be denied without mentioning God or the Bible. However, this form of literary criticism self destructs. Those that first proposed deconstruction wrote their arguments. When others criticized them, they responded with frustration that their critics misunderstood what they were saying. (Erickson, 170) Those that propose deconstruction contradict their on argument when they are criticized.

The next element of postmodernism is the philosophical approach of neo-pragmatism. Neo-pragmatism defines truth by is usefulness to the community. What works takes precedence over what’s right because what’s right is subjective. However, this overlooks the fact that success can be as subjective as ethical truth. According to neo-pragmatism mass murder could be justified by a determined idea of success. Additionally, truth as determined by the community is a form of objective truth.

Finally, the formation of history by the imaginative interaction of the new historicists is a dishonest approach to history. No person can interact with history any more than their personal experience of being present or the evidence allows. New historicism takes great liberties with historical fact, while overlooking or denying what is established.

All in all, postmodernism initially presented an intimidating argument against objective truth, but has proven to be quite weak. Its elements tend to self-destruct as seen in the three presented above.

Theodicy – Snack-bite Evaluation of 3 Views (Christian Theology, Millard Erickson)

The problem of evil presents one of the greatest theological/philosophical and practical challenges to the Christian faith. Erickson notes that even the most intellectually adept Christian colleges find this to be one of the “most vexing intellectual problems facing them in connection with their faith.” (Erickson, 439) Additionally, I can confirm that the problem of evil is one of the greatest challenges to high school students. This frequently brought up during the classes that I teach.

Erickson presents three solutions to the problem of evil that he describes as attempting to ease he tension between the elements of the dilemma. These elements are: God’s greatness (omnipotence), God’s goodness (benevolence), and the presence of evil. (Erickson, 439) The three solutions Erickson presents are:

1- The rejection of God’s omnipotence

2- Modifying the concept of God’s “goodness”

3- The denial of evil

The first solution, rejecting God’s omnipotence, falls under a view called finitism. This view is adopted by open theists, process theologians, and subscribers to dualism (two equal powers: God/good versus evil). Rather than God being the all powerful being that accounts for and will overcome evil; God is limited in knowledge and power against evil. Erickson points out that such a view gives account for evil, but has failed to overcome evil and does not give any assurance for the future. (Erickson, 441)

The second solution modifies the concept of God’s “goodness.” This view states that everything God determines is good; God determines everything (man’s will is not free), therefore what man calls evil is actually good. That which is good is such as determined by God, not man. Humanity’s problem of evil is a matter of perspective. However this use of “good” is equivocal. What is considered “good” for God to do, doesn’t necessarily carry over to man. There is inconsistency between God’s attributes and His will. (Erickson, 444) This seems to be more in line with the Islamic view of Allah.

The third and final solution to the problem of evil is an outright denial of evil. Erickson presents this view as from the teaching of Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), but this is also true of the Cosmic Humanist worldview. This solution states that material existence is an illusion; therefore any experience of evil in the material world is also an illusion. Evil, including death, does not really exist. However, Erickson points out that the persistent denial of reality does not avert that reality. Also, the so-called illusion of evil must be answered.

Senior Exit Survey

Follow the link to complete the survey:

Fill out my form!