Up to now I have refrained from discussing Stand Your Ground
as a defense for murder in Florida. This law passed by the GOP dominated
legislature and governor with the assistance of the NRA and right wing leaning corporate
money through ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is a travesty to common
legal reasoning as well as a license for racist murder. As I understand SYG if
a person fears a threat from another, this fear becomes a legal justification
for using deadly force against a perceived threat. With SYG there is no
expectation to withdraw (run for your life), but rather draw and shoot. The
reason this “defense” is questionable from the start is that the doctrine
ignores (deliberately?) social reality. How often have I heard about and heard
directly whites express their fear of the other. Just the presence of persons
of another race or ethnicity stimulates anxiety about personal danger. On its
face this appears absurd since history reports that African Americans have been
the victim of violence at the hands of white law enforcement and ordinary
citizens for decades. I suspect that the source for this dread is fear of the
unknown and incipient racism. Since many white Floridians fear those of another
race, they walk around every day in fear of threats real or unreal thereby meeting
the standard of the defense. What party would write a law to justify deadly
force in a nation or state ignoring a majority that displays such social backwardness.
Stand Your Ground, Governor Scott, must be repealed!
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Writing a book does not qualify an author for college instruction!
NOT QUALIFIED TO TEACH Coming out of the theological closet, no. 3
College and universities and their programs that merit the tuition paid are accredited generally in two basic ways, either by fields of study through national organizations or by one of the seven regional associations. We cannot categorize all accrediting bodies as being equal since some of the national organizations have such low standards that accreditation by these would be meaningless for determining the value of programs offered.
College and universities and their programs that merit the tuition paid are accredited generally in two basic ways, either by fields of study through national organizations or by one of the seven regional associations. We cannot categorize all accrediting bodies as being equal since some of the national organizations have such low standards that accreditation by these would be meaningless for determining the value of programs offered.
What is the role of the accrediting agency?
The
goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of
higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies,
which are private educational associations of regional or national scope,
develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or
not those criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an
agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then
"accredited" by that agency. (http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/)
A page that lists organizations that accredit programs is
http://www.chea.org/pdf/CHEA_USDE_AllAccred.pdf
A page to investigate and confirm the accreditation
status of an institution is http://www.chea.org/search/default.asp
After agreeing to the terms of use, in the page that
opens you can enter your search criteria.
If you research the status of Ken Ham’s Sponsor Schools
at his “creation colleges” web site you will be surprised to discover how so few
have regional accreditation and that most cannot even produce results at the
CHEA site.
Those accredited by Transnational Association of
Christian Colleges and Schools.
Pensacola Christian College
Bob Jones University
Not searchable at the CHEA site
Crown College of the Bible
Dayspring Bible College & Seminary
Verity Institute
Northland International University
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School
while Liberty University is regional
The Master’s Seminary
Jackson Hole Bible College
A few have Regional accreditation, Warner University
among them.
Ohio Christian University also Association for Biblical
Higher Education
Appalachian Bible College also Association for Biblical
Higher Education
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission
on Colleges is the regional body that accredits Warner University. The
educational programs at WU must bear up under the scrutiny of SACS-COC and its
peer institutions to remain in good standing.
I have introduced this brief review of accreditation to
raise a crucial question. To be certified to teach a course at any SACS-COC
school a specific faculty member must be qualified, that is credentialed with genuine
transcripts that confirm studies at the Masters Level (18 hours of graduate
study in field) to meet the minimum standards for undergraduate instruction. So
here is my concern. Neither Ken Ham nor Greg Hall possesses the required
credentials to teach the content that they so eagerly discuss in Already Compromised. Since Ken Ham has
no graduate studies in Biology how is he competent to address college biology
instruction? Ham could not even be assigned freshmen BIO. Greg Hall earned
Educational degrees only (M.Ed., Ed. D.). According to the COC he is NOT
qualified to teach Bible or Theology. Once when riding back from the Orlando
airport our SACS consultant raised this point exactly. She said something like,
why is Greg Hall teaching TST 4095? His credentials do not support this. (I now
suspect this is the real reason behind changing the prefix from TST to WU.)
Then credentials become irrelevant. The changes called for by these authors of Already Compromised and being forced on
WU faculty go far beyond COC competence to teach a course. They go to the
foundation of higher education itself, not limited to but including: censoring
class content, cancelling and deleting expected courses, and dismissing
credentialed instructors. How could this ever be judged legitimate?
Friday, July 26, 2013
If what you claim is foolish silence is your best option
I have not been a fan of Augustine. His influence over theology is much greater than it should be. But even this old saint long ago offered some pertinent wisdom that our current strident anti-science creationists may need to hear.
Usually,
even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the
other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even
their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun
and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals,
shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain
from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an
infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such
an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant
individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think
our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for
whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected
as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture
bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in
one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are
not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their
utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they
think support their position, although they understand neither what they say
nor the things about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43)
St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. In Ancient Christian Writers 41-42 (New York: Newman Press, 1982). The page references above refer to pages in volume 1.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
A current creationist (like you Ken Ham) could learn from John Calvin
John Calvin acknowledged divine accommodation in scientific matters.
It is easy to see that this revered Reformation theologian did not ascribe to a view that the Bible is verbally accurate even in matters of astronomy and therefore can be used as a scientific textbook. Instead he candidly recognized that Moses did not offer scientific description. Possibly even more crucial he did NOT assert that astronomers had to make their own discoveries conform to the level of understanding found in the Bible. Calvin wrote in his Genesis commentary concerning chaper one, verse sixteen:
16. The greater
light I
have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher,
on the secrets of nature, as may
be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of
heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a
distinction of spheres, and, at the same
time, teach that the fixed stars
have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great
luminaries; but astronomers prove, by
conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account
of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the
moon.
Here lies the difference;
Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all
ordinary persons, endued with
common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with
great labor whatever the
sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless,
this study is not to be reprobated, nor
this science to be condemned,
because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is
unknown to them. For astronomy is
not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot
be denied that this art unfolds
the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to
be honored who have expended
useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity
ought not to neglect this kind of
exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit
in omitting such things as are
peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of
the unlearned and rude as of the
learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending
to this grosser method of
instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated
might have pleaded in excuse that
such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit
of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he
should chiefly choose those
subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires
respecting the actual dimensions
of the stars,
he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse,
for to the
sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common
usage. For
since the Lord stretches forth,
as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the
sun and moon, how great would be
our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own
experience? There is therefore no
reason why janglers should deride the unskillfulness of Moses in
making the moon the second
luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes
things which lie open before our
eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge;
but, in the meantime, they who perceive
by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its
use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge
the beneficence of God.
71 “Great lights;” that is, in our eyes, “to which the sun and moon are nearer than the fixed stars and the greater planets.” —
Johannes Clericus in Genesin, p.10. — Ed.
72 The reader will be in no danger of being misled by the defective natural philosophy of the age in which this was written.
Which side actually has a complete lack of evidence?
The "missing link" problem
I continually hear the claims from anti-science people about "missing links" or gaps of evidence in the fossil record. Of course gaps exist in the evidence so far discovered. Who would honestly deny this fact? When considering the available fossil record the first observation that every side must acknowledge is the near miraculous character of such physical remains. Deposition is random and so is survival of remains. That so much has been recovered over the past two centuries should be a source of astonishment, joy, as well as thanksgiving. Instead of gloating about gaps we should be grateful that finds of physical remains have allowed theoretical construction to be as fruitful as it now is. Now let's go back to the alleged problem. Such gaps they suppose offer sufficient reason to reject any kind of evolutionary theory.Those who argue this way however suffer a blindness concerning evidence themselves because this so-called weakness is not the sole problem of evolutionists. For in fact this gap of evidence must also be recognized and finally faced by those who argue a young earth creationist position. Nowhere on earth have physical remains for homo sapiens or earlier hominid skeletal forms been recovered alongside prehistoric remains representing the many forms of dinosaurs. Since creationists like Ken Ham (see Creationist Museum) actually preach that humans and dinosaurs lived together at the very same time, logic requires that one ask, where is the physical evidence to support this novel contention? Documenting the evidence in the geological strata to confirm such claims is required first before anyone can identify a system with such ideas as "scientific creationism." So far not one example exists. Of this I am certain for if such evidence existed, those like Ken Ham would have published this finding in all the newspapers of the world.
The war between science and faith is a fiction promoted by the extremists on both sides
BioLogos Theology Statement
At last a serious attempt to consider creation and science together with mutual respect.
On November 9-11, 2010, a group of pastors,
church leaders, scholars, scientists, and informed laypersons met in New York
City for the second Theology of Celebration BioLogos Workshop.
After much dialogue, the following statement
emerged, which represents a summary of the discussion, as no attempt was made
to develop a binding consensus statement.
Summary Statement
Science and Faith
We affirm historic Christianity as
articulated in the classic ecumenical creeds. Beyond the original
creation, God continues to act in the natural world by sustaining it and by
providentially guiding it toward the goal of a restored and consummated
creation. In contrast to Deism, Biologos affirms God’s direct involvement
in human history, including singular acts such as the incarnation and
resurrection of Christ, as well as ongoing acts such as answers to prayer and
acts of salvation and personal transformation.
We also affirm the value of science, which
eloquently describes the glory of God’s creation. We stand with a long
tradition of Christians for whom faith and science are mutually hospitable, and
we see no necessary conflict between the Bible and the findings of
science. We reject, however, the unspoken philosophical presuppositions
of scientism, the belief that science is the sole source of all knowledge.
In recent years voices have emerged who
seek to undermine religious faith as intellectually disreputable, in part
because of its alleged dissonance with science. Some go further, characterizing
religion as a “mind virus” or a cultural evil. While many of their ideas
are not new, these voices are often identified as the New Atheists, and
scientism undergirds their thinking.
In contrast to scientism, we deny that the
material world constitutes the whole of reality and that science is our only
path to truth. For all its fruitfulness, science is not an all-inclusive
source of knowledge; scientism fails to recognize its limitations in fully
understanding reality, including such matters as beauty, history, love,
justice, friendship, and indeed science itself.
We agree that the methods of the natural
sciences provide the most reliable guide to understanding the material world,
and the current evidence from science indicates that the diversity of life is
best explained as a result of an evolutionary process. Thus BioLogos
affirms that evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves God’s
purposes.
Accounts of Origins
We affirm without reservation both the
authority of the Bible and the integrity of science, accepting each of the “Two
Books” (the Word and Works of God) as God’s revelations to humankind.
Specifically, we affirm the central truth of the biblical accounts of Adam and
Eve in revealing the character of God, the character of human beings, and the
inherent goodness of the material creation.
We acknowledge the challenge of providing
an account of origins that does full justice both to science and to the biblical
record. Based on our discussions, we affirm that there are several
options that can achieve this synthesis, including some which involve a
historical couple, Adam and Eve, and that embrace the compelling conclusions
that the earth is more than four billion years old and that all species on this
planet are historically related through the process of evolution. We
commit ourselves to spreading the word about such harmonious accounts of truth
that God has revealed in the Bible and through science.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Denying infallibility is a logical option if biblical evidence matters
“rejecting infallibility” Coming out of the theological closet, no. 2
Evangelicals (allied with fundamentalists) now prefer to
use the term “inerrant” to describe their idea of biblical accuracy. The
informed holding this view assert that whatever the non-extant autographs of scripture
said is absolutely accurate on whatever subject is addressed, history and
science included. The logic of the word inerrant therefore requires absolute
100% compliance with facts to maintain a position of overall biblical effectiveness.
An earlier and more common descriptor that a much broader spectrum of
Christianity has historically employed was “infallible.” This term attributed
complete reliability to what the Bible teaches regarding faith and practice.
Already Compromised,
p.42, asserted: “I have heard other scholars say that “the Bible is true in all
that it affirms” (whatever that means), but they go on to say that it was never
intended to be an academic text and should be trusted only in matters of faith,
not matters of science. This equivocation is heresy to me considering that all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge are hidden in Christ (Col. 2:3, and “all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim.
3:16; NKJV emphasis added).”” The writer conjectures that Col. 2:3 and 2 Tim.
3:16 somehow refute holding a narrower view of accuracy. I cannot deduce how
anyone who carefully reads these two verses (in context might help even more)
can decide that they truly carry the weight of this conjecture. Do you see any
declaration that the Bible was and is accurate in "matters of
science" in either of these selected texts? I challenge anyone to find any
such declaration anywhere in the biblical text. First the concept presented in
Col. 2:3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, unless one is proposing
that some equivalence between Christ and the canon. That leaves the four functions
included in 2 Tim. 3:16 which unfortunately omit any explicit reference to historical
and scientific matters.
A wide spectrum of Christianity decades ago had agreed
upon how to understand the nature of scripture and published this decision. The International Congress on World Evangelization
was held at Lausanne, Switzerland, July 16-25, 1974. It brought together 2,473 participants from
150 countries and 135 Protestant denominations. One outgrowth of that
International Congress was the Lausanne Covenant. Section 2 of the Lausanne Covenant is
entitled: "The Authority and Power
of the Bible." It reads:
We affirm the divine
inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament
Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in
all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We also affirm the power of God's Word to
accomplish his purpose of salvation.
The message of the Bible is addressed to all mankind. For God's revelation in Christ and in
Scripture is unchangeable. Through it
the Holy Spirit still speaks today. He
illumines the minds of God's people in every culture to perceive its truth
freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole church ever
more of the many-colored wisdom of God. (II Tim. 3:15; II Pet.1:21; John 10:35;
Isa. 55:11; I Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16; Matt. 5:17,18; Jude 3; Eph. 1:17,18; 3:10,18)
The Lausanne declaration influenced the position taken by
the Church of God in 1981 where the General Assembly,
“RESOLVED that
this Assembly declare its convictions that the Bible truly is the divinely
inspired and infallible Word of God. The
Bible is without error in all that it affirms, in accordance with its own
purpose, namely that it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NAS), and it therefore is
fully trustworthy and authoritative as the infallible guide for understanding
the Christian faith and living the Christian life; …” (The Assembly Speaks (36-38), compiled and edited by Barry L. Callen).
Here again this decision
follows a faith and practice approach, not one promoting scientific accuracy.
Disputing a claim
of complete scientific accuracy for the Bible is easy since it represents the
common view of 21st century faith. My question this week examines the more
commonly held stand as referenced above by the Lausanne Covenant statement and
the General Assembly resolution.
The rule of faith
and practice position maintains that the Bible is entirely reliable in matters concerning
belief and conduct. I shall only consider the practice/conduct side of this
long held view.
For us to honestly maintain this declaration the Bible
must be completely reliable in all matters
of practice. Finding even one clear example where the teaching it enjoins is
contrary to established norms would demand rejecting any such affirmation. Does
the Bible offer any such examples? Yes, it does. The Bible presents a positive
review of slavery by offering Old Testament regulations about the exercise of
this institution and even in the New Testament presents instruction on how
slaves and masters are expected to conduct themselves. It clearly does not
prohibit the exercise of slavery. Since from the 19th century followers of
Christ have condemned slavery can we continue to hold scripture as infallible? Obviously
such slavery mandates show that Scripture does not always offer absolute truth,
that is, truth for all times, and for all people everywhere. If on select
matters of conduct we must reject that Scripture offers absolute instruction on
specific conduct can the Bible can be honestly received as infallible regarding
faith and practice as traditionally confessed? The Bible is our infallible rule
of faith and practice (except for slavery and ….). I can no longer affirm the
view that scripture is our infallible rule of faith and practice. Rejecting
this confession raise another threat. Since the Bible's slavery discussion
falls short of absolute reliability, what other absolute conduct teaching may
be found deficient now and in the future?
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Imaging the divine is always a risky practice
Deity is portrayed in human form, but depictions of the ineffable also are represented through a more biblical/spiritual non-corporeal form as well in German churches.
Friday, July 19, 2013
After one recognizes "pro-life" is merely doublespeak
“pro innocent life” Coming out of the theological closet no.
1
Have you noticed that more and more you are seeing the
appearance of a new phrasing, “pro-innocent-life”? The recent appearance of
this expression of the “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” crowd is revealing.
Evidently the Christian right has finally and logically recognized by their own
words that they are in fact NOT pro-life. It is difficult to defend a claim to
be “pro-life” while supporting war or even pre-emptive war, and capital
punishment. This new slogan of the Christian right once again demonstrates a
lack of theological sophistication of its adherents. Apparently they do not
understand their own belief system. The developed Augustinian doctrine of
inherited sin, original sin, or inbred sin represents the traditional view of
Catholic theology and as well as Reformed and Wesleyan interpreters. Holding
this dogma there can be NO innocent life. A key text undergirding this belief
is Psalms 51:5.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me. (KJV)
Denying the commonly held view by Catholics that the sex act
in of itself is sinful, this sentence denies any functional innocence of the
unborn from conception on. The entry, do unbaptized babies go to heaven, is a
hot topic for in Google it produces 12,200 results. For example the web site
entitled, “Where Do Unbaptized Babies Go When They
Die?” reports this dilemma:
“If we say that the unborn and unbaptized infants
automatically go to Heaven, there's a serious risk of presumption (or worse,
thinking of abortion as assisting these poor souls). It also seems
to undermine the Church's teaching on the necessity of infant baptism.”
In case you miss the theological quandary here it results
directly from the church teaching of the necessity of infant baptism. The rite
of baptism is the ordinary means to cleanse anyone from original sin. Without
baptism original sin remains. If original sin remains there can be no original
innocence. Thus the use of the phrase “pro-innocent-life” is illogical and just
propaganda.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/where-do-unbaptized-babies-go-when-they.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)