In the
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.
Atheist is one who asserts the existence of such a creator. Anydiscussionof atheism, then, is necessarily a discussion of theism.
Rachel Fulton Brown writes:
...I don’t think that Jordan has a Messiah complex. But I do think that he thinks that he is capable on the strength of his own will of saving the world. It is why he spends so much time speaking. Because he believes that through his speech he can save himself—and that by speaking in the way that he does, he can save everyone. Sure, Jordan uses Christian vocabulary, but he does not think like a Christian, nor does he claim to.* Rather, Jordan thinks like Nietzsche, as he shows clearly in his book.
If you like synth wave and/or Mad Max, this music video might improve your workouts or make you feel pumped.
Warning: Don't try any of these stunts without a seatbelt.
Aaron Clarey is a consultant and independent economist who writes books that are meant to help young men and women make wiser financial choices. His approach is no nonsense, gruff, and often cynical. But despite seeming like a complete jerk, his advice which is free on his blog or youtube channel clearly comes from a big heart (for sensitive users or those who may listen w/children around, he does curse a lot). This is evident when he, for instance, criticizes parents who don't spend a great deal of time with their children (this is a common thread in his books and podcasts and I only listen to them a couple of times a year).
One of the most famous reasons to reject the existence of God is the existence of evil. Either evil or God can exist, not both. The dilemma relies on the supposition that these three propositions cannot all be true at once
In modern atheist rhetoric, the whole thing is stated as though not a single Christian, Jewish, Muslim, otherwise religious person has ever noticed the potential logical hang up with believing these three things. Thus a non-Christian or atheist of some sort will point out that a good God would stop evil, a powerful God can, but evil happens therefore either proposition 1 or 2 isn't true...therefore in a non-sequitur of immense proportions, "if God is not all powerful or all good by my definition, then God does not exist."
Mark Rippetoe has a way with words, he's particularly good at expressing well known, but unstated truths in the most devastating way possible:
In fact, since there exist so few examples of correctly-instructed cleans and snatches in any high school, college, university, or professional strength program, and since it seems to be impossible to convince you that 1.) doing them wrong is a bad idea and that 2.) you're doing them wrong, I really think you guys should just stop using them in your programs altogether and just focus your attention on getting everybody's squat below parallel, and getting everybody's deadlift up over 500 with a flat back. Maybe stop them from bouncing their bench presses off their chests like trampolines, too, and give their spotters a different way to work their traps. Given several months, perhaps this can actually be accomplished.
Introduction In my mind, the ability to engage in philosophical reasoning in order to tease out the implications of particular interpretations of the Bible and other truths is indispensable for reading the Bible and teaching it to others.
Example
Edward Feser, in a post titled, "Repressed Knowledge of God?" comments that the common interpretation of Romans 1:18-23 is mistaken. Here is the passage in question from the ESV, I would translate it differently, but it reflects the most common interpretation:
The Bible seems to say two things about money. That it's all good or it's all bad. Of course, what it really says is that money, like all good things, can be worshiped as an idol. Samson worships a woman as an idol (he tells her how to released him from his vow to God), Israel worships the Torah as an idol (see the New Testament), and Adam and Eve treat food as an idol, trusting it for wisdom rather than God. Yet none of these is bad. I suspect that Christians are more suspicious of money because theologians, who are notoriously bad at being creative, industrious, and good with people (all skills that help one make money), then to teach that money (which they cannot make easily) is almost entirely bad, rather than hitting the balance appropriately.
In, Transformation in Christ, Dietrich von Hildebrand explains the power of an orderly life to help us transform ourselves:
To ordain our daily lives according to some definite rule constitutes a further method in the service of our inner transformation. Apart from the specific importance which the single provisions of that rule may possess for our progress in virtue, a certain wholesome effect proceeds from order as such. It pervades life with a certain rhythm of composure and continuity, which makes it easier for us to collect ourselves; it protects us from being absorbed by the succession of varying events and impressions, so apt to interfere with our concentration upon essentials. An orderly regulation of our lives relieves us from the temptation to let our attention to prayer, contemplation, and work, our avoidance of peripheral concerns, depend on chance and circumstance; it enables us to provide systematically for the meaningfulness and depth of our existence. It makes it possible for us to acquire constancy without which all good endeavors are condemned to sterility. Finally, an established outward order also raises us above our dependence on our own arbitrary whims and momentary dispositions; it commits us from the outset, and enduringly, to our direction towards God. The last-named advantage is more perfectly attained, of course, in the case of a rule followed—as in monastic life—from holy obedience, as contrasted to merely self-devised and self-imposed regulations. In any event, however, we must keep aware of the fact that all technical regulation of life is but a means, not an end in itself; its observance must not be allowed to become a matter of rigid mechanical routine. We should not erect the rule into an absolute, nor abandon ourselves to its automatism as to a supreme law. Otherwise it may easily blunt, rather than sharpen, our perception of the call of God, and harden our hearts rather than open them to Christ.
Levels of Christian Discipleship
There are multiple ways to conceptualize Christian discipleship. Many are complementary and if explained properly, even synonymous. Here are three:
Any thoughts?
- Christian discipleship is to live in accordance with and in obedience to the teachings of Jesus. In this sense Jesus is king and ruler.
- Christian discipleship is to live in line with nature, discerned rationally. In this sense, the logos the source of order in the world and reason in the mind, is perpetually speaking to humanity through nature. This can be seen in Psalm 19, Romans 1:18-23, and John 1:1-18. In this sense, Jesus is a teacher, philosopher, and provocateur.
- Christian discipleship is living in submission to your personal concept of what is better for me. Now this is fraught with difficulty, but it carries with it several assumptions that help me make sense that I do not intend to go into here. In this sense, Jesus is the ultimate expression of the highest possibility of the individual self.