Jody's Shared Items

We spent Christmas with everyone on the Gilson side of the family this year. One of many very enjoyable conversations I had with there was with about books, with a particular family member. She has a Ph.D. in management, she holds a senior leadership position at a state university, and she’s a follower of Christ. She told me about the difficulty she has had with getting in touch with excellent Christian thinking—a difficulty that is admittedly all too common in Protestant churches (though that’s improving—see below). I mentioned some books I had found particularly helpful, and she asked me to email her with the information on them.

So now I’m getting double use from that work by posting it here on the blog. From my own recent experience, these are some of the books I would recommend to anyone who wants an introduction to high-quality current Christian thinking.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

... the tradition of gift-giving is rooted in the gift that God offers to the world in his Son who comes in the appearance of a frail babe. Likewise, the Magi, the Wise Men, who came from the East, brought the Christ-child exotic gifts to celebrate his Advent.

There is another, perhaps more practical aspect of the giving of gifts that is worth pondering which was brought to the fore by Arthur Brooks, author of the 2006 book “Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide - Who Gives, Who Doesn’t and Why it Matters.” Brooks investigated the American habit of giving and what he found surprised some, irritated others and confirmed some suspicions that I have had for some time. Among his findings was that the general profile of the gift-giver is one who has a strong family life and who attends church regularly.

Shared by imhavoc
This is important. I wish all Christians would listen to this and own it.

Shared by imhavoc
You've probably seen it before. See it again.

Did you know that "The 12 Days of Christmas" has Christian origins and symbolism?  I guess that means it'll be banned in public schools soon.

1. The "true Love" is God.  The partridge in a pear tree is Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, whose birthday we celebrate on December 25, the first day of Christmas. In the song, Christ is symbolically presented as a mother partridge that feigns injury to decoy predators from her helpless nestlings, recalling the expression of Christ's sadness over the fate of Jerusalem: "Jerusalem! Jerusalem! How often would I have sheltered you under my wings, as a hen does her chicks, but you would not have it so . . . ." (Luke 13:34)
2. Turtle Doves refers to the Old and New Testaments
3. French Hens refers to faith, hope, and love
4. Calling Birds refers to the Four Gospels or the Four Evangelists
5. Golden Rings refers to the first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.
6. Geese A-laying refers to the six days of creation
7. Swans A-swimming refers to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit:  prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and compassion
8. Maids A-milking refers to the eight beatitudes
9. Ladies Dancing refers to the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit
10. Lords A-leaping refers to the ten commandments
11. Pipers Piping refers to the eleven faithful apostles
12. Drummers Drumming refers to the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

Shared by imhavoc
It's not just that I like my '92 F-150, this article also peaks into the extremely competitive light truck market. There's a lot of pressure there, and Toyota is turning the screws on the American Big 3 -- hard.

I don't even want to talk about the bailout, so let's just not go there.

The annual holiday observed by most Christians on December 25 celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. He was likely born somewhere between 7 and 2 BC. Though December 25 is probably not the actual date when Christ was born, it was designated as such in the 4th century in order to substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. The designation “Christmas” comes from a combination of “Christ” with “Mass.” Often the Greek X (Chi) is substituted for “Christ” making “Xmas” (as was the custom in the early church when abbreviating Christ’s name). Although there is no command in Scripture to celebrate Messiah’s birth, Christians believe the Incarnation is the foundation to salvation and, according to many, the greatest miracle in the history of mankind.

Merry Christmas to all from all of us at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Shared by imhavoc
I love this introduction to theology. Most people I know aren't interested in theology. What they don't take into consideration is that you are going to believe something about God even if you never take the time to consider what you believe. Not carefully considering (theology) what you believe about God makes it infinitely more likely you'll believe the wrong things.

Theology means 'the science of God,' and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. You are not children: why should you be treated like children?

Theology and doctrines are like a map. They give us an idea of what God is like, but they are not God and they are not, in truth, "real." Theology, though, gives us a much greater scope of the personality of God that we cannot get on our own.

But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God-experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map.

Shared by imhavoc
Here's a wikipedia portal page to antitrinitarian ideas. While wikipedia has it's problems, it's still a good tool to get started on research.

Shared by imhavoc
This heresy has presented itself once again through one of my friends at Church. This is their understanding of the trinity.

We'll be discussing the Trinity in Sunday School tomorrow, and my biggest concern is to address this in love, understanding and to not come across as authoritarian, elitist, arrogant or condemning. It seems that regardless of my intentions, I always come across as some combination of the above...

Shared by imhavoc
JP Moreland has referenced this book in a couple of discussions I've listened to with him. I haven't added it to my wishlist, yet, but it is one take on education.

Shared by imhavoc
bookmarking this

Good article:

Professor Nicolas Christakis, a professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School, told the BMJ there was "a gross over-reaction to the magnitude of the threat" posed by food allergies, and particularly nut allergies.

In the US, serious allergic reactions to foods cause just 2,000 of more than 30 million hospitalisations a year and comparatively few deaths -- 150 a year from all food allergies combined.

In the UK there are around 10 deaths each year from food allergies.

Professor Christakis said the issue was not whether nut allergies existed or whether they could occasionally be serious. Nor was the issue whether reasonable preventative steps should be made for the few children who had documented serious allergies, he argued.

"The issue is what accounts for the extreme responses to nut allergies."

He said the number of US schools declaring themselves to be entirely "nut free" -- banning staples like peanut butter, homemade baked goods and any foods without detailed ingredient labels -- was rising, despite clear evidence that such restrictions were unnecessary.

"School entrances have signs admonishing visitors to wash their hands before entry to avoid [nut] contamination."

He said these responses were extreme and had many of the hallmarks of mass psychogenic illness (MPI), previously known as epidemic hysteria.

Sound familiar?

[Doug Powell is a guest author and apologist.  His website can be found at www.dougpowell.com]

Just in time for the 2008 Christmas season, the American Humanist Association launched a new ad campaign with the message “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” The ads feature a Christmas motif with their snowflakes and green and red lettering, and some even picture a guy in a Santa suit. But the campaign slogan reveals a confusion about the nature of morality.

According to Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, “Humanists have always understood that you don’t need a god to be good. Morality doesn’t come from religion. It’s a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience.” The interesting thing about this statement is that Speckhardt characterizes empathy and fairness as good, but he doesn’t say why these things are good. And that is the real question: What makes good things good? What grounds morality?

There are only two possible sources for morality: God or human beings. If, as the American Humanist Association claims, morality is grounded in human beings and their experience, then some very serious problems arise. The first problem is that it justifies societies that are clearly morally wrong, such as Nazi Germany. If morality is “a set of values embraced by society based on empathy, fairness, and experience,” then Nazi Germany did nothing wrong. Being empathetic does not mean doing good to someone, only understanding their feelings. And the Nazis were fair – all Jews were sent to concentration camps. The morality of their society cannot be condemned by our society since their society simply embraced values that differ from ours.

This leads to the second problem, that morality can change or be something different than what it is. Thus, the grounds for morality become arbitrary and therefore loose their force. What is morally acceptable now may not be later. Or what is okay here may not be okay somewhere else. This system of morality is based on the will of the majority - might makes right.

And that leads to the third problem, that there can be no moral reform if morality is based on human beings. If morality is made of values embraced by society, as the American Humanist Association says, then to stand against those values is, by definition, immoral. This leaves no room for people like William Wilberforce, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King, Jr. to better society. In fact, they would be the most immoral people in the society. And this, of course, is wildly counter-intuitive.

So the relativistic approach to morality held by the American Humanist Association fails to account for morality. To be good for goodness’ sake is completely arbitrary on their view. To be clear, I am not saying that atheists cannot do good things. I have been blessed through the good works of many atheist friends. But they cannot answer the question asked earlier: What makes good things good? What must exist in order for morality to exist?

The first thing that has to be taken into account is that morality does not describe actions, it prescribes them. Moral laws say what ought to be, not necessarily what is. The Humanist position says morality is based on empathy and fairness, but it does not and cannot say why we ought to act on those things. The ought-ness we see in moral laws are commands that oblige us, they are commandments. And commandments have authority over our actions. Morality is also universal; it applies to all people in all places at all times. This means morality is objective, not relative. The existence of morality does not depend on our existence.

Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies, and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God. Morality is a reflection an outworking of God’s character. It is not arbitrary and does not have an existence independent of God.

The slogan of the American Humanist Association ads means to convey that believing in God is nonsense, while being good for goodness’ sake makes perfect sense. Interestingly, they got it backwards. It is belief in God that is sensible, and being good for goodness sake that is arbitrary and meaningless.

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

Shared by imhavoc
I was thinking about this the other day, and when I read it in the NLT, it translates (Luke 2:13) "Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying..." (my bold).

I'm thinking something more along the lines of a shout than a sing.

I feel like Scrooge for even bringing it up.

But Will Rogers used to say, “All I know is what I read in the papers,” and when it comes to angels, lacking any direct encounters with them, all I know is what I read in the Bible. So it’s pretty important that what I think and say about angels stays well within the limits of what Scripture teaches.

So, do angels sing?

Tonight is the first of the seven "Golden Nights" of Advent (Dec. 17-23) in which the O Antiphons are traditionally prayed.  Known in English primarily by their versification in O Come, O Come, Emmanuel, the O Antiphons (so-called because each begins with "O") each address Jesus with a unique Messianic title from Old Testament prophecy.  Each antiphon is prayed--chanted or spoken--on its corresponding night this week:

* December 17: O Sapientia (O Wisdom)
* December 18: O Adonai (O Adonai)
* December 19: O Radix Jesse (O Root of Jesse)
* December 20: O Clavis David (O Key of David)
* December 21: O Oriens (O Dayspring)
* December 22: O Rex Gentium (O King of Nations)
* December 23: O Emmanuel (O Emmanuel)

Note that the first letters of each title form the Latin acrostic ERO CRAS ("I shall be [here] tomorrow") when read backwards from the 23rd.

I encourage you to make use of these prayers as part of your Advent devotionals.  I'll be posting each antiphon on its prescribed day, along with relevant Scripture passages.  Tonight's is included below, first in its original Latin, and then in English translation.  An MP3 recording of the chanted Latin should be visible below the verse, should you be so inclined.

Media Note: To avoid bogging down the blog with excessive embedded audio, MP3 recordings will be removed from each antiphon after its respective day has passed.

O Sapientia (O Wisdom)
Isaiah 11:2-3 / Proverbs 8 / I Corinthians 1:18-31

O Sapientia,
quæ ex ore Altissimi prodiisti,
attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter,
suaviterque disponens omnia:
veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiæ.

O Wisdom,
proceeding from the mouth of the Most High,
pervading and permeating all creation,
mightily ordering all things:
Come and teach us the way of prudence.

Update: Issues, Etc. has posted some fantastic audio commentary on the O Antiphons from Rev. Wil Weedon of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Hamel, IL.  Click below to listen:

O Wisdom / O Adonai / O Root of Jesse / O Key of David
O Dayspring / O King of Nations / O Emmanuel

by Jeff Zweerink

Reasons To Believe has cataloged a large number of fine-tuned aspects of the universe, all of which make it fit for life. A recent article in New Scientist highlights one particular parameter, namely the ratio of dark matter to normal matter (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Changes to this ratio affect the habitability of the universe by changing the amount of large-scale structures like clusters of galaxies.

A habitable galaxy must reside in a small cluster with an abundance of smaller dwarf galaxies. These small galaxies provide the fuel for star formation that leads to stars with a large enough metal concentration to support life. However, galaxies in large clusters experience collisions with other such structures. They also exhaust their star-forming fuel too rapidly. A greater fraction of dark matter compared to normal matter would inhibit the formation of any large-scale structures. A smaller fraction would tend to produce only large galaxy clusters. The Milky Way Galaxy lives in a just-right cluster.

Although the exact nature of dark matter remains elusive, scientists are confident that the processes that produced dark matter differ from those that produce normal matter. Consequently, there is no reason to expect that these different processes would generate a ratio of dark matter to normal matter conducive to life. Yet they did.

As research reveals the extent of fine-tuning that makes this universe habitable, the options for explaining that fine-tuning decrease. Traditionally, many philosophers and scientists have argued that any real cosmic fine-tuning derives from a Designer. However, some scientists argue that the design we see is only apparent. Such a claim requires an adequate explanation for the data.

The most popular rationalization relies on the existence of a vast multitude of universes known as the multiverse. In fact, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg maintains,

If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning…I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.

Another well-known cosmologist, Bernard Carr echoes that sentiment:

If there is only one universe you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.

I would argue that the “God or multiverse” choice is a false dichotomy. First, in past TNRTBs I have shown that the multiverse does not help the naturalist eliminate God. In fact, in a strictly naturalist worldview, the multiverse adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Second, I see no inherent problems with God using a multiverse to create a place where Earth life, especially humanity, could grow and thrive.

It is uncertain whether the multiverse will ultimately prove true. However, the fact that so many prominent scientists see it as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning observed in this universe highlights the strength of evidence backing the inference that a Designer fashioned this universe.

If you would like to see a question about the multiverse addressed in this forum, send it to multiverse@reasons.org.