Below is an exercise, not in critiquing the author’s post, per se, but rather critiquing a set of assumptions he makes that lead, inexorably, to the material in his post. His assumptions about what constitutes gospel, what it means to preach Christ, and what “the law” is in the New Testament are disputable on the grounds of reading a few more paragraphs of the very book of the New Testament he quotes the most (Romans).
Lately I’ve come across several citations of an ancient work, “The Four Centuries on Love.” It means four series of one hundred meditations upon love. The work is by a St. Maximus the Confessor. He is a favorite theologian among the Greek Orthodox. He lived from 580-662 ad. who wrote on various topics: Christology, a devotional guide to the life of Mary, love, Biblical interpretation, and answers to difficult questions.
In his new book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, David Bentley Hart notes that during the medieval era almost nobody thought that "the relation of soul and body was anything like a relation between two wholly independent kinds of substance: the ghost and its machine (which for what it is worth, was not really Descartes understanding of the relation either). (p. 168)" This is interesting to me because one of the chief critiques I had heard of Descartes is that he posited that humans are primarily "thinking things" and the mind interacts with the body almost incidentally. But I had always been intrigued when I read Descartes third meditation he notes this, "For since I am nothing but a thinking thing, or at least, since I am now dealing simply and precisely with the part of me that is a thinking thing, if such a power were in me [the power to create oneself from nothing], then I would surely be aware of it. (Third Meditation paragraph 49)"
Several months ago I wrote a review of the book Superstition. Thinking back to numerous of its claims one in particular came back to mind. Park stated often that when Christians believe in God in prevents them from doing science because they already know that God made it, therefore nobody has to ask any questions. I rarely make claims to know what people believe without asking them, I also rarely make attempts to clarify physics for physicists (though I've discovered that with a bit of reading I can do a lot of physics). But I am trained to study ancient texts and history, something Park couldn't do.
Christians today may really think that science is dangerous to Christianity. But in the medieval era (an era you'll recall was not really the Dark Ages) science was considered a gold mine of important data about the world. Etienne Gilson note in The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy:
Based on a link posted in the comments at Jim's blog I found a supposed source for Barth-less pride.
The apparent source of people not wanting to read Karl Barth a post by Janice Reese at this blog. People who used her post to excuse intentional ignorance misunderstood her point. She notes, with all the sincerity I can tell from the internet, that she suffers from hypocrisy. I do too. So we have something in common, so I hope that my counter-point can be taken humbly.
Doug Wilson wrote a post entitled "Believing One Half of the Wrong End of It."
In it he notes:
A careful opposition to Calvinism, say on the contentment question above, would say something like Calvinism ought to be Stoicism, given the critic’s understanding of the premises, and it is therefore a matter of great curiosity that it is nothing of the kind. That would allow interaction between the views that are actually held by actual people. It is a pity that this kind of thing is so rare — but it must be admitted that it has always been easier to debate with cartoons, especially with the ones you draw yourself.
A favorite verse of Scripture for many (and rightly so) is Acts 2:42. After a whole bunch of people get baptized Luke writes, "They were devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Act 2:42 NET)." But what did this look like? Was it disorganized hanging out? Or was there more to it?
Well, one of the earliest Christian writers, Justin Martyr, noted this in his defense of the Christian faith
Warning: post uses Zombie imagery. If that grosses you out then too bad or don’t read it. Note: I do not write this post to secretly reveal any personal problems, but only to reflect upon the nature of marriage, a favorite song, and the Biblical text.
One of my favorite bands since 2004 has been Showbread. One of my favorite songs by them is titled George Romero Will Be At Our Wedding. They have a tendency (or Josh Porter, their lead singer does) to use the macabre and the bizarre to tell stories with deeper meanings.
For the Christian, there is a right and wrong way to love yourself or your own life. One can disqualify you from being a disciple of Christ:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
Q. 22 .What then must a Christian believe?
A. All that is promised us in the gospel, a summary of which is taught us in the articles of the Apostles' Creed, our universally acknowledged confession of faith.
The catechism goes on to list the promises of the movements of the Creed. It is very helpful. I would not formulate many things the same way the catechism does, but it is deeply edifying. I highly recommend a read through: