CHAPTER 6 --- SCIENCE HAS DISPROVED CHRISTIANITY
1. Many moderns are "armed with ......(a) presupposition" (p. 85) which causes them to leap to the conclusion that science has disproved traditional religion (In particular, that miracles are impossible). What is the presupposition?
The presupposition is that miracles do not happen. " The more intelligent, rational,and scientific minded you are the less you will be able to believe in God."
2. Keller says this conclusion is a "leap of faith" (p. 85), a "philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding" (p. 86). Why, from Keller's reasoning, is science not equipped to deal with the possibility of miracles or the validity of transcendant religion?
Science can only deal with empirical things.
3. Keller says, "If there is a Creator God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles" (p. 86). How so?
If he created the world he can do with it as he chooses.
4. Keller says that some Christians apparently see nothing wrong believing in evolution as a process (presumably one that gradually evolved man from lower life forms), but does question a believer accepting "philosophical naturalism" (p. 87). What is philosophical naturalism and how do you feel about a Christian belief in evolution which stops short of it?
Philosophical naturalism is "the view that everything has a natural cause and that organic life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one".
5. Ian Barbour speaks of four ways science and religion might relate to each other: "conflict, dialogue, integration and independence" (p. 88). Which of these is predominant in the minds of creationists who have the view that "Genesis 1 makes any kind of evolutionary process impossible"? (p. 88).
The conflict between the two does not open up to debate. There is no conversation.
6. "Scientists, like non-scientists, are very effected by the beliefs and atitudes of the people from whom they want respect" (p. 90). What does this reveal about scientists (perhaps like Richard Dawkins) who argue that science has disproved religion?
That our peer group and social contacts shape our beliefs much more than we want to admit.
7. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven (Hebrews 11). It could be argued therefore that the atheism of men like Richard Dawkins which ridicules religious belief is itself a religion. Why?
The disbelief itself is a belief.
CHAPTER 7 -- YOU CAN'T TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY
1. If the Bible can be discredited it need not be taken seriously. Modern Biblical criticism is believed by many to have done just that. Keller clearly believes that Scripture is inspired by God and must be taken seriously indeed. In this chapter he gives some of his reasoning. How do you defend the reliability/authority of the Bible? Or, if you question it, why?
The main defense is that the Bible is God's spoken word.
2. What does the author mean when he says "The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends." (p. 101)?
3. What does he mean in saying, "The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends." (p. 104)? (hint: "The only plausible reason that all of these incidents would be included in these accounts is that they actually happened" - p. 105).
If it was legend there are things that would not have been included in the Bible.
4. What does he mean when he says, "The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend." (p. 106) (hint: "In modern novels, details are added to create the aura of realism, but that was never the case in ancient fiction" -- p. 106).
5. How does Keller answer the argument made by those who reject Christianity because it seems "to support slavery and the subjugation of women." (p. 109)? (hint: "........... the cultural and historical distance between us and the writers and readers of the original text" -- p. 110).
6. "I urge people to consider that their problem with some texts might be based on an unexamined belief in the superiority of their historical moment over all others" (p. 111). What's he saying? (hint: "To reject the Bible as regressive is to ssume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned" -- p. 111).
7. "Many of the beliefs of our grandparents and great-grandparents now seem silly and even embarrassing to us. That process is not going to stop now" (p. 112). What does that say about the things we believe?
8. What is a "Stepford God" (p. 114)?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Week of Sep 18-Oct 4
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Luke 10:25-37
1 John 1:1-10
Psalms 66,67,19,46
Job 40
Monday, September 29, 2008
Luke 10:38-42
1 John 2:1-11
Psalms 89:1-18,89:19-52
Job 41
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Luke 11:1-13
1 John 2:12-17
Psalms 97,99,100,94,95
Job 42
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Luke 11:14-28
1 John 2:18-29
Psalms 101,109,119:121-144
Ezra 1
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Luke 11:29-44
1 John 3:1-9
Psalms 105:1-22, 105:23-45
Ezra 2
Friday, October 03, 2008
Luke 11:45-54
1 John 3:10-24
Psalms 102,107:1-32
Ezra 3
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Luke 12:1-12
Haggai 1:1-15
Psalms 105:33-43,108,33
Ezra 4
Luke 10:25-37
1 John 1:1-10
Psalms 66,67,19,46
Job 40
Monday, September 29, 2008
Luke 10:38-42
1 John 2:1-11
Psalms 89:1-18,89:19-52
Job 41
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Luke 11:1-13
1 John 2:12-17
Psalms 97,99,100,94,95
Job 42
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Luke 11:14-28
1 John 2:18-29
Psalms 101,109,119:121-144
Ezra 1
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Luke 11:29-44
1 John 3:1-9
Psalms 105:1-22, 105:23-45
Ezra 2
Friday, October 03, 2008
Luke 11:45-54
1 John 3:10-24
Psalms 102,107:1-32
Ezra 3
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Luke 12:1-12
Haggai 1:1-15
Psalms 105:33-43,108,33
Ezra 4
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Notes from week 2 of book club
NOTES FROM WEEK 2
Charlie began by reading excerpts from the poem “Rugby Chapel” by Matthew Arnold. The poem can be found here. The point was that we should strive to be people that “strengthen the wavering”, like Matthew Arnold’s father.
Chapter 2 -- HOW COULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING?
1. "Rob" is quoted (p. 18) as saying, "I won't believe in a God who allows suffering ......." Another person, a reporter, said after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 250,000+ people, "If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he's not God. You can't have it both ways ......." (See the Epicurus quote under #1 on page 202). How would you respond to those assertions?
The discussion centered around how in trying to respond, we are trying to explain the incomprehensible. We are looking for a God that will do what we want. There are some things that parents do to their children based on love but the children do not or cannot see the love. Perhaps that is so in these situations as well. God loves us but we cannot or will not see it. Charlie talked about the story in John 6 where Peter asks “Where else would we go?” in response to Jesus’s asking if the disciples would leave too.
2. What is the "major flaw" (p. 19) in the reasoning which says that the very existence in a violent, evil world of a good and omnipotent God is a logical inconsistency? ("Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God." -- p. 19) The flaw in this reasoning can be expressed in the "hidden premise" mentioned on p. 19.
The “hidden premise” is that if appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless.
3. Although it is decidedly a mixed message, what does experience (and logic)-- illustrated by the life of Joseph -- tell us about the good that exists in evil?
God can redeem situations for good. We will not be able to fully discuss the good that comes out of evil until we get to the “other side” and can see the full picture.
4. What is Keller's point on p. 20 -- "Indeed, you can have it both ways."?
That if God is great enough to actually stop evil, then He is great enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue.
5. It can be argued that if evil and suffering are evidence of anything at all, they are evidence for -- not against -- the existence of God. "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple" (C.S. Lewis). "It (the problem of evil and suffering in the world) is at least as big a problem for nonbelief as for belief"). How so? (Hint -- "A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort" -- p. 22).
If there is no God, what makes evil, evil? If there is no God, why even be good? Those that demand explanations about the reasons for evil should also demand explanations about the reasons for good or pleasure.
6. "Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than his own followers?" (p. 23. In what sense was Jesus's death "qualitatively different" (p. 24) from any other death?
Jesus’s death was different because of the “cosmic abandonment”; he was forsaken by God in a way that we cannot fully understand.
7. Chapter 2 closes with this statement: "This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater." What does that mean?
That somehow, the suffering we endure in this life will make the “not-suffering” of Heaven even better.
Chapter 3 -- CHRISTIANITY IS A STRAITJACKET
1. In what sense does Christianity seem to many to be "an enemy of social cohesion"? (p. 29)
Its exclusivity
2. ".......many say that all truth-claims are power plays" (p. 30). What does that mean?
This means that those claiming to have or know truth are just trying to exert power over others.
3. Our author argues that "the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned" (p. 30). What is that problem? (Hint: "To see through everything is not to see." p. 30).
The problem is that if you keep trying to see through things, then you can blind yourself to truth. In making a claim that there is no “truth”, you are making a truth-claim.
4. An oft-stated objection to Christianity is that it is too exclusive, causing it to be "socially divisive" (p. 31). Keller counters that "a totally inclusive community is ........ an illusion" (p. 31). What is the basis of his argument? (Hint: "Neither community is being 'narrow' -- they are just being communities" -- p. 32).
Communities by definition are based on a shared set of beliefs. If one does not share those beliefs, then he is not truly part of that individual community. It is impossible to have a totally inclusive community.
5. How does the author establish his position that, contrary to the popular belief that Christianity "forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold" (p. 32), it in truth has been "more adaptive" to (and less destructive of) diverse cultures than many other ........ worldviews (p. 32)? (The text asks the same question: "Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures?" -- p. 35).
Keller establishes his position by noting the we have a set of core teachings to which all forms of Christianity are committed (the Apostle’s Creed, Ten Commandments, etc.). He also quotes historian Andrew Walls who notes that in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians were not required to conform to Jewish culture but had to “work out” a Gentile way of being a Christian. Following this pattern, Christianity has taken more culturally diverse forms than other faiths. As Christians, we are to be what we are.
6. "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices" (p. 36). Keller argues that "In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation" (p. 36). On what does he base his argument? What is his conclusion regarding what constraints on freedom are necessary for us to be truly free to grow (intellectually, vocationally, physically -- and spiritually and morally)?
Keller uses the example of a pianist to make his argument. The pianist must practice, practice, practice (i.e. restrict her freedom) in order to realize her talent. Also, he notes that a fish is only free if it is restricted and limited to water.
7. Note the seeming contradiction in the following statement: "To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy" (p. 38).
8. How do you find freedom by giving up freedom (p. 40)?
Charlie began by reading excerpts from the poem “Rugby Chapel” by Matthew Arnold. The poem can be found here. The point was that we should strive to be people that “strengthen the wavering”, like Matthew Arnold’s father.
Chapter 2 -- HOW COULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING?
1. "Rob" is quoted (p. 18) as saying, "I won't believe in a God who allows suffering ......." Another person, a reporter, said after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 250,000+ people, "If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he's not God. You can't have it both ways ......." (See the Epicurus quote under #1 on page 202). How would you respond to those assertions?
The discussion centered around how in trying to respond, we are trying to explain the incomprehensible. We are looking for a God that will do what we want. There are some things that parents do to their children based on love but the children do not or cannot see the love. Perhaps that is so in these situations as well. God loves us but we cannot or will not see it. Charlie talked about the story in John 6 where Peter asks “Where else would we go?” in response to Jesus’s asking if the disciples would leave too.
2. What is the "major flaw" (p. 19) in the reasoning which says that the very existence in a violent, evil world of a good and omnipotent God is a logical inconsistency? ("Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God." -- p. 19) The flaw in this reasoning can be expressed in the "hidden premise" mentioned on p. 19.
The “hidden premise” is that if appears pointless to me, then it must be pointless.
3. Although it is decidedly a mixed message, what does experience (and logic)-- illustrated by the life of Joseph -- tell us about the good that exists in evil?
God can redeem situations for good. We will not be able to fully discuss the good that comes out of evil until we get to the “other side” and can see the full picture.
4. What is Keller's point on p. 20 -- "Indeed, you can have it both ways."?
That if God is great enough to actually stop evil, then He is great enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue.
5. It can be argued that if evil and suffering are evidence of anything at all, they are evidence for -- not against -- the existence of God. "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple" (C.S. Lewis). "It (the problem of evil and suffering in the world) is at least as big a problem for nonbelief as for belief"). How so? (Hint -- "A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort" -- p. 22).
If there is no God, what makes evil, evil? If there is no God, why even be good? Those that demand explanations about the reasons for evil should also demand explanations about the reasons for good or pleasure.
6. "Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than his own followers?" (p. 23. In what sense was Jesus's death "qualitatively different" (p. 24) from any other death?
Jesus’s death was different because of the “cosmic abandonment”; he was forsaken by God in a way that we cannot fully understand.
7. Chapter 2 closes with this statement: "This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater." What does that mean?
That somehow, the suffering we endure in this life will make the “not-suffering” of Heaven even better.
Chapter 3 -- CHRISTIANITY IS A STRAITJACKET
1. In what sense does Christianity seem to many to be "an enemy of social cohesion"? (p. 29)
Its exclusivity
2. ".......many say that all truth-claims are power plays" (p. 30). What does that mean?
This means that those claiming to have or know truth are just trying to exert power over others.
3. Our author argues that "the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned" (p. 30). What is that problem? (Hint: "To see through everything is not to see." p. 30).
The problem is that if you keep trying to see through things, then you can blind yourself to truth. In making a claim that there is no “truth”, you are making a truth-claim.
4. An oft-stated objection to Christianity is that it is too exclusive, causing it to be "socially divisive" (p. 31). Keller counters that "a totally inclusive community is ........ an illusion" (p. 31). What is the basis of his argument? (Hint: "Neither community is being 'narrow' -- they are just being communities" -- p. 32).
Communities by definition are based on a shared set of beliefs. If one does not share those beliefs, then he is not truly part of that individual community. It is impossible to have a totally inclusive community.
5. How does the author establish his position that, contrary to the popular belief that Christianity "forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold" (p. 32), it in truth has been "more adaptive" to (and less destructive of) diverse cultures than many other ........ worldviews (p. 32)? (The text asks the same question: "Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures?" -- p. 35).
Keller establishes his position by noting the we have a set of core teachings to which all forms of Christianity are committed (the Apostle’s Creed, Ten Commandments, etc.). He also quotes historian Andrew Walls who notes that in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians were not required to conform to Jewish culture but had to “work out” a Gentile way of being a Christian. Following this pattern, Christianity has taken more culturally diverse forms than other faiths. As Christians, we are to be what we are.
6. "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices" (p. 36). Keller argues that "In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation" (p. 36). On what does he base his argument? What is his conclusion regarding what constraints on freedom are necessary for us to be truly free to grow (intellectually, vocationally, physically -- and spiritually and morally)?
Keller uses the example of a pianist to make his argument. The pianist must practice, practice, practice (i.e. restrict her freedom) in order to realize her talent. Also, he notes that a fish is only free if it is restricted and limited to water.
7. Note the seeming contradiction in the following statement: "To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy" (p. 38).
8. How do you find freedom by giving up freedom (p. 40)?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Impact University Fall Book Club Week 3
CHAPTER 4 -- THE CHURCH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SO MUCH INJUSTICE
1. What "mistaken belief" (p. 42) about what Christianity actually teaches about itself leads its critics to assume that if our religion were true Christians on the whole would be much better (more moral, self-disciplined, etc.) than everyone else, when simple observation confirms we are not? The mistaken belief is " common grace". If common grace is available then we as Christians should be better people. There is also the mistaken belief that you must "clean up" before being able to merit being in the presence of God. The question was posed "is the world a better place because of Christianity?" The answer was yes. The comment was made that Christianity makes better people and also better communities. There was also conversation that was brought up regarding the the Islam and Muslim religions. The same question was posed about Islam. Is the world a better place because of the Islam and Muslim religions?
2. The church may actually have more immature and broken people in it than are outside it because people whose lives have been hard and who are "lower on the character scale" (p. 43) are more likely to recognize something than others. What is it? The need for God.
3. Human history and worldwide societal life today are filled with violence. This is true of societies where there is faith and in those where there is none. So, without denying the unpleasant truth that religion often leads to violence, Keller concludes that violence is a part of the human experience because of "some impulse deeply ... rooted in the human heart" (p. 45). Please think that through and respond to it.
Answer: Sin. The accusation is if Christianity is true is true it ought to bring about a world of peace and not violence. Keller is willing to argue that the church has not made the world a more peaceful place.
4. Jesus and the Old Testament prophets strongly criticized self-righteous religious people, always for their "insensitivity to issues of social justice" (p. 48). John Calvin says this is so evident in Scripture that the cries of the suffering express "divine pain" (p. 48). What did he mean?
The poor and the suffering are those who are the closest to God. Their moans are actually his moans and our response to them is a response to Him.
5. Historian John C. Sommerville says the ability to properly critique the church for its insensitivity to issues of injustice, whether the criticism comes from Christians or non Christians comes ultimately from a common soure (p. 48). What is it?
From within.
6. If the church has a long record of sin and injustice (and it certainly does) the answer is not to "abandon the Christian faith" (p. 49). What is the answer? Embrace it even more.
7. What is Christianity's "self-correcting apparatus" (p. 51)? Conscience
CHAPTER 5 -- HOW CAN A LOVING GOD SEND PEOPLE TO HELL?
1. To what is the following statement referring? -- "That belief, they contend, leads to exclusion, abuse, division, and even violence" (p. 56). That some people are going to Hell.
2. What does C.S. Lewis mean in saying that "For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men." ( p. 57)? How does this differ from the wisdom of earlier ages? The wisdom of earlier ages came from the unknown. Science has revealed much of that unknown and now the task becomes changing the standards to what we want. There is no control in changing the standards on what Hell is and who is going there.
3. "Modernity reversed this." (p. 57). Reversed what? Conformity
4. What is it about the fact that the the "spirit of modernity" has spilled over into the metaphysical realm that has caused the "very idea of a divine Judgment Day" to seem "impossible" (p. 58)? There is no firm standard to measure against. Hell is and unknown realm. We therefore change it to be what we want it to be.
5. To the objection that "a God of Judgment can't be a God of love" our author quotes Becky Rippert (Hope Has Its Reasons): "Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference" (p. 59). What's the point? That God does not judge us out of hate he judges us out of love.
6. He also quotes Miroslav Volf (a Croation who has personally witnessed violence) who speaks of "pleasant captivities of the liberal mind" -- one being that human non-violence results from belief in God's refusal to judge. Volf says instead that "the practice of non-violence REQUIRES (emphasis by CM) a belief in divine vengeance. (p. 60). What does he mean? (Hint: "Only if I am sure that there's a God who will right all wrongs and settle all accounts perfectly do I have the power to refrain -- p. 60).
7. "Hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a TRAJECTORY (emphasis by CM) into infinity" (p. 63). How does that sentence answer the objection that a loving God would not allow Hell? (Hint: "All God does in the end .... is give people what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?" -- p. 64).
If I chose to live a life apart from God it is not God who has chosen, it is me.
1. What "mistaken belief" (p. 42) about what Christianity actually teaches about itself leads its critics to assume that if our religion were true Christians on the whole would be much better (more moral, self-disciplined, etc.) than everyone else, when simple observation confirms we are not? The mistaken belief is " common grace". If common grace is available then we as Christians should be better people. There is also the mistaken belief that you must "clean up" before being able to merit being in the presence of God. The question was posed "is the world a better place because of Christianity?" The answer was yes. The comment was made that Christianity makes better people and also better communities. There was also conversation that was brought up regarding the the Islam and Muslim religions. The same question was posed about Islam. Is the world a better place because of the Islam and Muslim religions?
2. The church may actually have more immature and broken people in it than are outside it because people whose lives have been hard and who are "lower on the character scale" (p. 43) are more likely to recognize something than others. What is it? The need for God.
3. Human history and worldwide societal life today are filled with violence. This is true of societies where there is faith and in those where there is none. So, without denying the unpleasant truth that religion often leads to violence, Keller concludes that violence is a part of the human experience because of "some impulse deeply ... rooted in the human heart" (p. 45). Please think that through and respond to it.
Answer: Sin. The accusation is if Christianity is true is true it ought to bring about a world of peace and not violence. Keller is willing to argue that the church has not made the world a more peaceful place.
4. Jesus and the Old Testament prophets strongly criticized self-righteous religious people, always for their "insensitivity to issues of social justice" (p. 48). John Calvin says this is so evident in Scripture that the cries of the suffering express "divine pain" (p. 48). What did he mean?
The poor and the suffering are those who are the closest to God. Their moans are actually his moans and our response to them is a response to Him.
5. Historian John C. Sommerville says the ability to properly critique the church for its insensitivity to issues of injustice, whether the criticism comes from Christians or non Christians comes ultimately from a common soure (p. 48). What is it?
From within.
6. If the church has a long record of sin and injustice (and it certainly does) the answer is not to "abandon the Christian faith" (p. 49). What is the answer? Embrace it even more.
7. What is Christianity's "self-correcting apparatus" (p. 51)? Conscience
CHAPTER 5 -- HOW CAN A LOVING GOD SEND PEOPLE TO HELL?
1. To what is the following statement referring? -- "That belief, they contend, leads to exclusion, abuse, division, and even violence" (p. 56). That some people are going to Hell.
2. What does C.S. Lewis mean in saying that "For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men." ( p. 57)? How does this differ from the wisdom of earlier ages? The wisdom of earlier ages came from the unknown. Science has revealed much of that unknown and now the task becomes changing the standards to what we want. There is no control in changing the standards on what Hell is and who is going there.
3. "Modernity reversed this." (p. 57). Reversed what? Conformity
4. What is it about the fact that the the "spirit of modernity" has spilled over into the metaphysical realm that has caused the "very idea of a divine Judgment Day" to seem "impossible" (p. 58)? There is no firm standard to measure against. Hell is and unknown realm. We therefore change it to be what we want it to be.
5. To the objection that "a God of Judgment can't be a God of love" our author quotes Becky Rippert (Hope Has Its Reasons): "Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference" (p. 59). What's the point? That God does not judge us out of hate he judges us out of love.
6. He also quotes Miroslav Volf (a Croation who has personally witnessed violence) who speaks of "pleasant captivities of the liberal mind" -- one being that human non-violence results from belief in God's refusal to judge. Volf says instead that "the practice of non-violence REQUIRES (emphasis by CM) a belief in divine vengeance. (p. 60). What does he mean? (Hint: "Only if I am sure that there's a God who will right all wrongs and settle all accounts perfectly do I have the power to refrain -- p. 60).
7. "Hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a TRAJECTORY (emphasis by CM) into infinity" (p. 63). How does that sentence answer the objection that a loving God would not allow Hell? (Hint: "All God does in the end .... is give people what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?" -- p. 64).
If I chose to live a life apart from God it is not God who has chosen, it is me.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Week of Sep 21-Sep 27
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Luke 9:10-17
2 Corinthians 11:1-15
Psalms 93,96,34
Job 33
Monday, September 22, 2008
Luke 9:18-27
2 Corinthians 11:16-33
Psalms 80,77,79
Job 34
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Luke 9:28-36
2 Corinthians 12:1-21
Psalms 78:1-39,78:40-72
Job 35
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Luke 9:37-50
2 Corinthians 13:1-14
Psalms 119:97-120,81,82
Job 36
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Luke 9"51-62
Titus 1:1-16
Psalms 83,85,86
Job 37
Friday, September 26, 2008
Luke 10_1-16
Titus 2:1-15
Psalms 88,91,92
Job 38
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Luke 10:17-24
Titus 3:1-15
Psalms 87,90,136
Thursday, September 11, 2008
WEEK SEP. 14-20
Sunday, 9/14:
Luke 23:33-49
Numbers 21:4-9
Psalms 66 & 118
Job 26
Monday, 9/15:
Luke 7:36-50
2 Corinthians 6:11-18
Psalms 56,57,58,64, 65
Job 27
Tuesday, 9/16: Luke 8:1-15
2 Corinthians 7:1-12
Psalms 61,62,68
Job 28
Wednesday, 9/17:
Luke 8:16-25
2 Corinthians 7:13-8:7
Psalms 72,119:73-96
Job 29
Thursday, 9/18: Luke 8:26-40
2 Corinthians 8:8-24
Psalms 70,71,74
Job 30
Friday, 9/19: Luke 8:41-56
2 Corinthians 9:1-15
Psalms 69,73
Job 31
Saturday, 9/20: Luke 9:1-9
2 Corinthians 10:1-18
Psalms 69, 73,23,27
Job 32
Luke 23:33-49
Numbers 21:4-9
Psalms 66 & 118
Job 26
Monday, 9/15:
Luke 7:36-50
2 Corinthians 6:11-18
Psalms 56,57,58,64, 65
Job 27
Tuesday, 9/16: Luke 8:1-15
2 Corinthians 7:1-12
Psalms 61,62,68
Job 28
Wednesday, 9/17:
Luke 8:16-25
2 Corinthians 7:13-8:7
Psalms 72,119:73-96
Job 29
Thursday, 9/18: Luke 8:26-40
2 Corinthians 8:8-24
Psalms 70,71,74
Job 30
Friday, 9/19: Luke 8:41-56
2 Corinthians 9:1-15
Psalms 69,73
Job 31
Saturday, 9/20: Luke 9:1-9
2 Corinthians 10:1-18
Psalms 69, 73,23,27
Job 32
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Book Club Notes from Day one
Disclaimer: These notes are representative of a group of about 8 people who gathered on Monday night to discuss the introduction and first chapter of the book.
Introduction:
The future belongs to the younger generation. Questions are being posed on how the gap can be bridged. What has led to the decline of the church in general? Do we need to preserve the church of 50 years ago? Charlie says no. We need to preserve the church of 2,000 years ago. Communication between all groups is essential. Is it possible?
#1 Skeptics and faithful
Non Christians and Christians
Liberals and conservatives
Progressives and sticks in the mud.
Who is right? They are all right. The world is becoming more secular and yet, it is becoming more religious.
#2 The religious people are getting more conservative. As Christians our fight should not be against each other. Our fight should be against those who do not believe. There is great passion by people to promote religion. There is also great passion with the people who have great opposition to religion. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins and others are popular atheist authors. Both groups think that the other is growing. The question that was posed: Can a secularists who doesn't believe in God be evangelistic? The answer is yes. Passion and growth = polarization.
#3 The third group is people who practice what they preach.
#4 Commonality is a must in order for there to be a discussion. Unless there is some common ground there will only be denunciation of the opposing camp.
#5 Your doubts end up strengthening your faith. It was suggested in the discussion that fundamentalism kicks out those who question.
#7 It is only safe to engage in an argument when you have listened and worn the other persons shoes.
#8 The answer is yes. With that said there are popular people out there like Bono and Rick Warren who are trying to unite the camps.
#9 Because I am right and you are wrong. No peace.
#10 The slippery slope occurs when "the truth" that we are raised with makes us(in our minds) superior to others. We all think that we are superior.
#11 The tragic irony is that whenever government has tried to control religion the result has been violence. Examples given were Russia, China, and Germany.
#12 The secularization thesis thinks that we once needed God. However, now that we are technologically and scientifically advanced we no longer need religion.
#13 The inconsistency is that you have to take a leap of faith. Belief in God and Jesus is a religion. If you don't believe in God you will believe in something else.
Surroundings condition people to believe things. Most religions are based on the idea that the better I am the closer I am to God. We believe in a gentle Christianity. Grace.
Introduction:
The future belongs to the younger generation. Questions are being posed on how the gap can be bridged. What has led to the decline of the church in general? Do we need to preserve the church of 50 years ago? Charlie says no. We need to preserve the church of 2,000 years ago. Communication between all groups is essential. Is it possible?
#1 Skeptics and faithful
Non Christians and Christians
Liberals and conservatives
Progressives and sticks in the mud.
Who is right? They are all right. The world is becoming more secular and yet, it is becoming more religious.
#2 The religious people are getting more conservative. As Christians our fight should not be against each other. Our fight should be against those who do not believe. There is great passion by people to promote religion. There is also great passion with the people who have great opposition to religion. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins and others are popular atheist authors. Both groups think that the other is growing. The question that was posed: Can a secularists who doesn't believe in God be evangelistic? The answer is yes. Passion and growth = polarization.
#3 The third group is people who practice what they preach.
#4 Commonality is a must in order for there to be a discussion. Unless there is some common ground there will only be denunciation of the opposing camp.
#5 Your doubts end up strengthening your faith. It was suggested in the discussion that fundamentalism kicks out those who question.
#7 It is only safe to engage in an argument when you have listened and worn the other persons shoes.
#8 The answer is yes. With that said there are popular people out there like Bono and Rick Warren who are trying to unite the camps.
#9 Because I am right and you are wrong. No peace.
#10 The slippery slope occurs when "the truth" that we are raised with makes us(in our minds) superior to others. We all think that we are superior.
#11 The tragic irony is that whenever government has tried to control religion the result has been violence. Examples given were Russia, China, and Germany.
#12 The secularization thesis thinks that we once needed God. However, now that we are technologically and scientifically advanced we no longer need religion.
#13 The inconsistency is that you have to take a leap of faith. Belief in God and Jesus is a religion. If you don't believe in God you will believe in something else.
Surroundings condition people to believe things. Most religions are based on the idea that the better I am the closer I am to God. We believe in a gentle Christianity. Grace.
Week Two BookClub Notes -- Pages 18 - 40
Chapter 2 -- HOW COULD A GOOD GOD ALLOW SUFFERING?
1. "Rob" is quoted (p. 18) as saying, "I won't believe in a God who allows suffering ......." Another person, a reporter, said after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 250,000+ people, "If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he's not God. You can't have it both ways ......." (See the Epicurus quote under #1 on page 202). How would you respond to those assertions?
2. What is the "major flaw" (p. 19) in the reasoning which says that the very existence in a violent, evil world of a good and omnipotent God is a logical inconsistency? ("Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God." -- p. 19) The flaw in this reasoning can be expressed in the "hidden premise" mentioned on p. 19.
3. Although it is decidedly a mixed message, what does experience (and logic)-- illustrated by the life of Joseph -- tell us about the good that exists in evil?
4. What is Keller's point on p. 20 -- "Indeed, you can have it both ways."?
5. It can be argued that if evil and suffering are evidence of anything at all, they are evidence for -- not against -- the existence of God. "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple" (C.S. Lewis). "It (the problem of evil and suffering in the world) is at least as big a problem for nonbelief as for belief"). How so? (Hint -- "A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort" -- p. 22).
6. "Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than his own followers?" (p. 23. In what sense was Jesus's death "qualitatively different" (p. 24) from any other death?
7. Chapter 2 closes with this statement: "This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater." What does that mean?
Chapter 3 -- CHRISTIANITY IS A STRAITJACKET
1. In what sense does Christianity seem to many to be "an enemy of social cohesion"? (p. 29)
2. ".......many say that all truth-claims are power plays" (p. 30). What does that mean?
3. Our author argues that "the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned" (p. 30). What is that problem? (Hint: "To see through everything is not to see." p. 30).
4. An oft-stated objection to Christianity is that it is too exclusive, causing it to be "socially divisive" (p. 31). Keller counters that "a totally inclusive community is ........ an illusion" (p. 31). What is the basis of his argument? (Hint: "Neither community is being 'narrow' -- they are just being communities" -- p. 32).
5. How does the author establish his position that, contrary to the popular belief that Christianity "forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold" (p. 32), it in truth has been "more adaptive" to (and less destructive of) diverse cultures than many other ........ worldviews (p. 32)? (The text asks the same question: "Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures?" -- p. 35).
6. "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices" (p. 36). Keller argues that "In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation" (p. 36). On what does he base his argument? What is his conclusion regarding what constraints on freedom are necessary for us to be truly free to grow (intellectually, vocationally, physically -- and spiritually and morally)?
7. Note the seeming contradiction in the following statement: "To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy" (p. 38).
8. How do you find freedom by giving up freedom (p. 40)?
5.
1. "Rob" is quoted (p. 18) as saying, "I won't believe in a God who allows suffering ......." Another person, a reporter, said after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 250,000+ people, "If God is God, he is not good. If God is good, he's not God. You can't have it both ways ......." (See the Epicurus quote under #1 on page 202). How would you respond to those assertions?
2. What is the "major flaw" (p. 19) in the reasoning which says that the very existence in a violent, evil world of a good and omnipotent God is a logical inconsistency? ("Some other god or no god may exist, but not the traditional God." -- p. 19) The flaw in this reasoning can be expressed in the "hidden premise" mentioned on p. 19.
3. Although it is decidedly a mixed message, what does experience (and logic)-- illustrated by the life of Joseph -- tell us about the good that exists in evil?
4. What is Keller's point on p. 20 -- "Indeed, you can have it both ways."?
5. It can be argued that if evil and suffering are evidence of anything at all, they are evidence for -- not against -- the existence of God. "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple" (C.S. Lewis). "It (the problem of evil and suffering in the world) is at least as big a problem for nonbelief as for belief"). How so? (Hint -- "A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort" -- p. 22).
6. "Why was Jesus so much more overwhelmed by his death than others have been, even more than his own followers?" (p. 23. In what sense was Jesus's death "qualitatively different" (p. 24) from any other death?
7. Chapter 2 closes with this statement: "This is the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater." What does that mean?
Chapter 3 -- CHRISTIANITY IS A STRAITJACKET
1. In what sense does Christianity seem to many to be "an enemy of social cohesion"? (p. 29)
2. ".......many say that all truth-claims are power plays" (p. 30). What does that mean?
3. Our author argues that "the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned" (p. 30). What is that problem? (Hint: "To see through everything is not to see." p. 30).
4. An oft-stated objection to Christianity is that it is too exclusive, causing it to be "socially divisive" (p. 31). Keller counters that "a totally inclusive community is ........ an illusion" (p. 31). What is the basis of his argument? (Hint: "Neither community is being 'narrow' -- they are just being communities" -- p. 32).
5. How does the author establish his position that, contrary to the popular belief that Christianity "forces people from diverse cultures into a single iron mold" (p. 32), it in truth has been "more adaptive" to (and less destructive of) diverse cultures than many other ........ worldviews (p. 32)? (The text asks the same question: "Why has Christianity, more than any other major religion of the world, been able to infiltrate so many radically different cultures?" -- p. 35).
6. "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices" (p. 36). Keller argues that "In fact, in many cases, confinement and constraint is actually a means to liberation" (p. 36). On what does he base his argument? What is his conclusion regarding what constraints on freedom are necessary for us to be truly free to grow (intellectually, vocationally, physically -- and spiritually and morally)?
7. Note the seeming contradiction in the following statement: "To experience the joy and freedom of love, you must give up your personal autonomy" (p. 38).
8. How do you find freedom by giving up freedom (p. 40)?
5.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Week Sep 7-Sep 13
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Luke 6, 1-11
2 Corinthians 1:15-24
Psalms 63,98,103
Job 19
Monday, September 08, 2008
Luke 6:12-19
2 Corinthians 2:1-17
Psalms 41,52,44
Job 20
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Luke 6:20-36
2 Corinthians 3:1-11
psalms 45,47,48
Job 21
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Luke 6:37-49
2 Corinthians 3:12-4:6
Psalms 119:49-72, 49,53
Job 22
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Luke 7:1-10
2 Corinthians 4:7-18
Psalms 50,66,59,60
Job 23
Friday, September 12, 2008
Luke 7:11-17
2 Corinthians 5:1-21
Psalms 40,54,51
Job 24
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Luke 7:18-35
2 Corinthians 6:1-10
Psalms 55,138,139
Job 25
Luke 6, 1-11
2 Corinthians 1:15-24
Psalms 63,98,103
Job 19
Monday, September 08, 2008
Luke 6:12-19
2 Corinthians 2:1-17
Psalms 41,52,44
Job 20
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Luke 6:20-36
2 Corinthians 3:1-11
psalms 45,47,48
Job 21
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Luke 6:37-49
2 Corinthians 3:12-4:6
Psalms 119:49-72, 49,53
Job 22
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Luke 7:1-10
2 Corinthians 4:7-18
Psalms 50,66,59,60
Job 23
Friday, September 12, 2008
Luke 7:11-17
2 Corinthians 5:1-21
Psalms 40,54,51
Job 24
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Luke 7:18-35
2 Corinthians 6:1-10
Psalms 55,138,139
Job 25
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
