I hope everyone had a holy and blessed Lenten season, and that both it and Easter were taken as opportunities for the growth of faith and a closer confrontation with Christ in a spirit of prayerfulness and gratitude at the scope of His most awesome gift to humanity, secured by means of His sacrifice.

For myself, Lent was good, and at times even captured the above. It ended oddly, granted, though not badly. And if at some later point I feel like it, I'll explain what I mean by that.

Anyhow, I did some thinking about how I want to be involved with GS going forward, and I think I'm principally going to focus on the CU and my role as an officer thereof. For blogging, I'm cutting back to three subjects: the Church and its truth (d'uh, obvious), evolutionary creationism (d'uh, obvious), and Ultima (which I should really cover more often, given that this is a gaming website on which I maintain a profile with an Ultima-themed name.

Most importantly, I'm going to stop looking at, acknowledging the existence of, and mentioning the CWU or its various offshoots. Of course, members of those enclaves are still welcome to comment here to the full contentment of their hearts, and I can assure the good reader that I'll still be publishing plenty of content to give said people fits of apoplexy. But I'm not going to mention them directly from here going forward.

Now, let's get that apoplexy off on a good start, eh?

"People should be properly skeptical about scientists' biases and other human failings. They should not, however, use these as excuses to deny the reality of verifiable facts." -- commentor Post-Secular at Vox Popoli

Young Earth Creationism is a soothing fantasy, but it is ultimately against the fullness of Scripture, and (moreover) is entirely anti-Christian at its philosophical core. In the grand balance, one can either choose a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and (especially) 2-3, or one can choose the Incarnation. My own priority runs to the latter tenet, which I hold to be more important.

Lent began yesterday; a season of fasting is now underway.

And I've decided that a part of my Lenten fast will be Gamespot. Apart from this one blog entry, and one comment I've made in the previous posting, I won't be posting to GS at all until after Easter.

So to everyone: may this holy season of penitence and fasting be for you a means of spiritual enrichment and of drawing closer to Christ as you remember and enact in your life the understanding that man does not live by bread alone, but by all that proceeds from the mouth of God.

And have a happy Easter, when that time comes.

Haven't done one of these in a while. So here y'all go -- something else to chew on:

If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23, 23:2, 1 Cor 10:4, 1 Pet 3:19, Jude 9,14-15)?

Until next week!

I see they're talking about me on the CWU again. Since I am denied the normal method of responding, I guess I'll just make use of the ol' blog here to say my bit.

In response to a question about why some people on the CWU are ostensibly praying for me, one CWU user had this to say:

I've had numerous debates with him in the past, trying my absolute best to show him the Whole Truth of God's Word.

Which is odd, since the user in question -- being a "sola scriptura" Christian -- does not himself subscribe to "the Whole Truth of God's Word." If he did, he wouldn't be a "sola scriptura" Christian.

But it is futile, he's set in his ways.

Aren't we all, though? The user in question, the one who said this, is himself set in his ways, caught up in erroneous thinking of his own. He believes in the fixity of kinds (which is not a Biblically viable concept), believes in a Young Earth (which is an anti-Incarnational belief), and believes in Luther's five solas (which are unbiblical, man-made traditions).

For example: even when presented with evidence -- solid evidence -- for the errancy of sola scriptura, he remains trapped in his trusting that false doctrine. Likewise, after I've time and again demolished his arguments for a young Earth, he remains trapped in thinking that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Who, then, is actually set in his ways?

Basically, he believes that the Genesis account is purely a man-made myth that was adopted, and made use of by the Holy Spirit.

Guilty as charged -- I believe that Genesis 1-11 is basically a series of recorded oral traditions, early attempts at theodicy, and ancient retrojective "science" that attempts to explain, absent the ability to understand many phenomena of the world and cosmos, the origin of life and the world through agrarian metaphor and other poetic devices.

But equally, I believe that the Spirit moved through those early authors and recorders of oral tradition to inspire a coherent, logical, truthful, and inerrant theological message of faith in the text, which intends to teach us about the creatorship of God, His punishment of sin and promise of salvation, and His personal and present participation in the lives of His faithful.

And of course, it all points toward Christ. And Moses also. But principally Christ.

He believes that Sin and Death have always existed (in affect making Jesus' victory over them void)...

I believe that death has always existed, not Sin. I'd appreciate it if the user would kindly augment or retract this statement, as it is currently a libel against me.

Sin arose when man first disobeyed God, which I suspect occurred shortly after the first homo sapiens emerged onto the scene. As such, Jesus' victory over sin is secured. We can know now that Jesus' victory is not over physical death, but over eternal death; were Jesus' victory merely over physical death, would not those who profess to be "saved" in Christ be able to avoid physically dying?

...that the Flood was greatly exagerated...

Actually, I'm even guiltier than this, but do see above for an explanation as to why.

...that Jonah never existed...

Natch. But Jonah doesn't need to have been a literal figure for the story of his ministry to be both humourous (let's face it: Jonah is a funny character, especially when God elects not to destroy the city) and meaningful. Jonah's story is probably a parable...but we know that parables still play a role in revelation.

...and that the majority of "unscientific" Acts of God in the Old Testament (even the ones Jesus referred to) never really happened, but were used purely as an illustration

Of this, I'm partially guilty, in that I think Jesus spoke to the knowledge of the people as it was, in their day, as they knew it. That's not to say that Jesus lacked the capacity to overturn that knowledge...but I don't think that was the point. Being Lord, He doubtless knew that we'd discover things on our own in due season, and I suspect that it was more important to impart the theological truths, the truths of faith, rather than give dissertations on just exactly where the mustard seed fits into the ordered list of seeds according to size.

One is used to being mocked and insulted on the Christian Witness Union, and this sly remark here is merely the latest example in an ongoing trend. (reflection: Luke 6:22,28 )

That's funny, and if you are really lucky, might earn you a blog entry on a certain blogger's blog that has "pronounced" that Christians should never, ever, never mention death, sin, and thoughts of judgement or condemnation to the lost. He has proclaimed that Christians should limit their discussions to the "physics" of salvation, "atomic and salvitic" grace. Sounds a bit Aristotelian and too scientific to me.

This is in response to a rather off-colour joke:

"There was a barber that thought that he should share his faith with his customers more than he had been doing lately. So the next morning when the sun came up and the barber got up out of bed he said, "Today I am going to witness to the first man that walks through my door."

Soon after he opened his shop the first man came in and said, "I want a shave!" The barber said, "Sure, just sit in the seat and I'll be with you in a moment." The barber went in the back and prayed a quick desperate prayer saying, "God, the first customer came in and I'm going to witness to him. So give me the wisdom to know just the right thing to say to him. Amen."

Then quickly the barber came out with his razor knife in one hand and a Bible in the other while saying "Good morning sir. I have a question for you... Are you ready to die?"

So, how do I fit into the response to this sort of joke? Well, it has to do with an article I wrote a week or two ago, written by a former atheist who is now a faithful and active Catholic apologist and evangelist herself. It was an earnest discussion of her own experience of conversion, and notes on what did and didn't work to move her heart. But more generally, it's also good advice to would-be witnesses for Christ who do want to engage atheists and attempt to do evangelist works among them, because it points out several glaring flaws that less competent witnesses often make.

Some of these are pretty simple -- one notes that there's more than enough examples, on OT and in the Atheism Union's forum, of people having to explain to less-than-fully-competent Christian evangelists that no, they aren't in fact angry at a God they don't believe exists. That's point #2 in my initial article, by the way. And it's not the only example, but it will serve as a segue (points #4 and #6, however, more or less accurately describe the folly of anti-evolutionism as displayed by many of these same self-**** evangelists).

Let's address some specifics, and apply them to the act of being a witness for Christ, shall we?

What is the purpose of witnessing?

That was addressed in the previous article as well: "your only goal is to plant a seed. In these discussions we can sometimes get so focused on the details that we lose sight of the big picture. It's extremely unlikely that the person you're talking to is going to be completely convinced of the truth of Christianity in one conversation. Just defend Christianity the best you can, and remember that conversion is ultimately God's job, not yours."

Planting a seed...what does that mean? Here's a hint: there's more to it than simply coming out and quoting a bit of Scripture, and then telling a person that their eternal outlook is, currently, quite grim. That's not planting a seed, it's a clanging gong.

...Christians should never, ever, never mention death, sin, and thoughts of judgement or condemnation to the lost...

It is true that I hold the position that at least in initial encounters, conversations about sin, death, and judgement are not good witnessing, and I stick to that. I never said "never, ever, never," and I would appreciate the retraction of such an openly slanderous statement.

But yes, initially, I don't think discussing sin, death, and judgement is the way to go, especially when witnessing to atheists who, variously, may not believe in one or more of sin, death (in the eternal/spiritual sense), and judgement. Therefore, speaking to such people about sin, death, and judgement makes about as much sense -- and will be about as effective -- as quoting from a high school biology textbook to prove that evolution is true to someone who believes in fixity of kinds and a young Earth. This isn't even an apples-to-oranges thing; it's apples-to-Chevrolet pickups.

(Since I note that the person who is making the slander against me (as noted above) is a Young Earth Creationist, it serves to make an example out of that framework.)

Talking past a person is not witnessing, nor is it planting a seed. Planting a seed is more than simply tossing out verses and pronouncements about eternal fates; it involves not only having the seed ready for use, but taking care to make sure that the seed ends up in good and fertile soil. Planting a seed doesn't simply mean speaking to someone, then...it means being heard and listened to, which is quite a different concept entirely.

...Christians should limit their discussions to the "physics" of salvation, "atomic and salvitic" grace...

Again, this is not something I've said, at least not in the sense of proclaiming it to be "the only way." Indeed, the one slandering me is here borrowing from earlier discussions he and I have had, about a different subject entirely, and conflating these things together.

That said, there's a mote of truth in the above mis-representation of my views. As previously noted, the good witness is one who can be logical, who can put him/herself in the position of the one being witnessed to, and who can speak to higher level concepts in such a way that the other person will not only hear, but understand. This kind of wisdom includes knowing when to use Scripture directly, and when not to do so.

Scripture is a powerful tool, but it's also a limited tool. If I quote from Scripture and expect an atheist to recognize the authority of the given teaching(s), I'm a twit and a fool for it: he's doesn't regard the Bible as having any more authority over his life than does the Harry Potter book he just finished reading. I've wasted my breath and, worse still, I have damaged my credibility with him.

That's not witnessing, and it's not planting a seed. That's driving yet another wedge between him and the Christ I wish him to come to know. Jesus had something to say about such incompetent apologists as I am being, in this example -- it involved millstones.

That's not to say that we shouldn't use Scripture but, pace Ecclesiastes 3, "for everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven." There's a time to quote from Scripture, and there's a time NOT to quote from Scripture. And the time NOT to quote from Scripture is in those initial encounters.

As witnesses for Christ, we should be ever-mindful, and knowledgeable, about Scripture and its many teachings. But how we argue, and how we present our case at first, should be in a way that will OPEN UP the other person to hearing Scripture later on; our first weapons are logic, reason, love, and understanding.

And sometimes, the discusion can get quite technical, and quite philosophical; sometimes it will be about the "physics" of salvation. And if so, then that's where it starts, and that's what we should stick to, with appeals to natural law and other philosophical and rational principles as needed. Then, when we've made our case in the realm of what the other person understands, we can bolster our case further from the Scriptures we hold so dear.

And THAT will plant a real seed.

The barber in the joke is, frankly, to be commended for his enthusiasm. But he is to be chastised for his execution of that enthusiasm and zeal. Christians should desire to share the joy of eternal salvation with others more than their bodies desire even water! Just as we can't afford to miss drinking water for too long, and just as we can't afford to drink bad water, we can't afford NOT to witness (so the barber in the joke gets that one right), and we can't afford to witness BADLY (which is what the barber gets monumentally wrong).

Much as I enjoy yet another opportunity to point out a certain latent hypocrisy in the reasoning of some members of the CWU, I'm going to try and keep this observation a) short and b) on-topic. To the specific point about hypocrisy, I think it's important to take just a moment to remember that several CWU members have been openly critical of the Church specifically on the basis of the fact that she draws upon Aristotelean philosophy for the formation of some of her doctrines.

This is, of course, presented as evidence of pagan corruption infecting the Church. Keep it in mind, good reader; it'll be relevant shortly.

Okay, so...this notion of created kinds. It's a pretty common argument put forth by anti-evolutioinists, and basically argues that while species can vary, even to the point of becoming reproductively isolated from one another (e.g. unable to interbreed, which is a clear indicator of one species having become two), this variance only happens within the species overall "kind."

Of course, exactly what a "kind" is, and what the boundaries for considering something to be within the same kind as something else, are concepts which are not well-defined. Taking fish as our example -- are there multiple "kinds" of fish, or are fish (e.g. the Chordata phylum) a kind to themselves.

Here's three fish: the black seadevil, the salmon, and the leafy sea dragon. Genotypically and phenotypically, these fish are very clearly of different species. Are they of the same kind, or are they of different kinds?

To read the latest article pertaining to this topic on the CWU, it would appear that the boundary of "kind" is at the Phylum level on the taxonomic scale.

But consider, for example, anti-evolutionst protestations that land-based ancient mammals did not evolve into whales. To them, this is a violation of kinds; a pre-historic cow-ancestor and a whale are not of the same kind, are they?

Well, actually, they are, at least if "a fish is still a fish" is the guiding principle to use in determining where the boundary of a "kind" really is. "Fish" is actually a very broad term, referring to a whole subset of living creatures with a wide variety of phenotypical differences. As such, as was previously noted, to present a taxonomic category that includes all fish species, we must use the Phylum category -- to be more precise, we must enumerate specific cIasses of the Chordata phylum.

And, as was also previously noted, the argument that "a fish remains a fish" means that the boundary condition for a "kind" is the Phylum of the animal. For the sake of charity in debate, though, let us suppose that the boundary is actually at the taxonomic level called CIass.

Either choice -- Phylum or CIass -- means, incidentally, that whales and land-dwelling ungulates are actually of the same kind, since they are of the same Phylum AND CIass. In fact, the taxonomic similarity between whales and land-dwelling ungulates extends as far as Order.

* * *

Excursis:

If one recalls one's taxonomic scale, the basic progression is this:

Life -> Kingdom -> Phylum -> CIass (boundary condition for "kinds") -> InfracIass -> Superorder -> Order

* * *

So now there's a real problem. The taxonomic scale is a very good measure of how closely related different animal species are, as it takes into account both genotypic and phenotypic qualities of the animals it cIassifies. Even the most ardent anti-evolutionists don't typically dispute it.

And yet, it would appear that anti-evolutionsts are double-dipping, and contradicting themselves, with their use of the notion of "kinds." Because while the notion of "kinds" is used to say that a fish evolving into a different species of fish is still variation within "kinds" -- which thus fixes the boundary condition for "kinds" at the CIass taxon -- it is also used to say that an ungulate evolving into a whale is NOT variation within kinds, despite the fact that at that point, we're talking about the Order taxon, which is orders of magnitude more precise than the CIass taxon.

In other words: whale evolution is a better example of variation within "kinds," assuming that "kinds" can be concretely defined, than is the notion that "a fish remains a fish."

But let's come back to what I noted about hypocrisy, and about the condemnation of the Church as being corrupted by paganism because it draws on Aristotelean (e.g. pagan Greek) philsophy in the formation of its doctrines. Surely, Biblical Christians do not do this?

Well...actually, they do. Or, at least, the CWU members who profess to a) be Biblical Christians, and b) believe in the fixity of "kinds" (e.g. the impossibility of a species evolving into something outside its "kind," whatever that might be), do. Because what the Answers in Genesis article I cited previously was getting at is that the notion of the fixity of kinds is actually not a Biblical notion at all -- it comes from Plato. The Bible speaks of animal kinds, and of reproduction according to kinds...but it nowhere specifically articulates that the kinds are fixed.

In other words, Biblical Christians who cling to the notion that kinds are fixed are actually drawing upon pagan Greek philosophy, though they may not know it. And if those same Biblical Christians just happen to have, in the past, criticized Catholicism for drawing upon Greek philosophy in the formation of its doctrines, guess what?

Yup -- they're hypocrites too.

Turns out that species do change, and that creatures are not actually limited to their "kinds" after all.

Nice to see someone at Answers in Genesis argue that Darwin was essentially correct.

1. Don't be afraid to admit that you have faith. Christians frequently report that they've been in situations where the topic of why they believe comes up, and all they can say is that they have faith even though they've never done any major investigation. They often seem embarrassed by this defense. If you get caught in a conversation about why you believe and that's all you've got, don't be afraid to go with that. Articulate it as best you can. For example, you might explain that your faith is not just a story you tell yourself to feel good, or talk about what leads you to believe that you have a real relationship with Something outside of the material world.

2. Don't assume that your atheist friends are secretly angry at God or feel like something is missing in their lives. Work from the assumption that this person is an atheist because he or she simply has not seen any evidence that God exists.

3. Don't quote the Bible, but do know the Bible. The Bible is a source of great wisdom, but if you quote it to an atheist as an authority, it will be like your doctor explaining his diagnosis by reading a passage from a Harry Potter book. Don't just cough up Bible verses and expect that to convince anybody. There are reasons why the Bible says the things it says. Know the reasons behind them and be prepared to explain them.

4. Don't feel like you have to have all the answers right then and there. It is far better to simply say, "Great question! I don't know the answer to that, but I'd love to research it and get back to you," than to wade into territory that you're not familiar with.

5. Explain the big picture. Familiarize yourself with the historical case for Christianity, and offer a high-level explanation of what makes this religion's claims compelling -- that Jesus' life and death fulfilled ancient scriptures that all historians agree existed before His time; that almost all the apostles were martyred for their faith; that Christianity spread like wildfire despite horrendous persecution. Study the writings of the earliest Christians, who were defending Christianity in a pagan world that was largely hostile to their beliefs (sound familiar?).

6. Be logical. Don't deny the validity of logical, scientific thought out of hand. It's true that science doesn't have all the answers, but it does have some of them, and if you try to deny that, you risk pushing yourself into crackpot territory. As Pope Benedict XVI is always reminding us, the God in whom we believe is a God of reason. There is a long, learned history of rational arguments for Christianity, and if you can use them, you'll be speaking in terms that your atheist friend can understand. Get to know some of the great Christian philosophers and apologists. If you haven't read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, what are you waiting for?

7. Realize that your only goal is to plant a seed. In these discussions we can sometimes get so focused on the details that we lose sight of the big picture. It's extremely unlikely that the person you're talking to is going to be completely convinced of the truth of Christianity in one conversation. Just defend Christianity the best you can, and remember that conversion is ultimately God's job, not yours.

8. Put yourself in your atheist friends' position. What if, for example, Christianity were false and Greek mythology were actually true? What would it take to convince you of that?

9. Don't use a lot of Christian catchphrases. Christians "give their hearts to Jesus" and "the Holy Spirit indwells us" and we take a "daily walk with Christ" so that we're "in the world but not of the world." All these phrases are meaningful and profound and instantly understandable for almost any Christian, but they don't mean anything to people who are outside the faith. It's hard to avoid them, because we're used to using them as shorthand for some very complex concepts. But you should be able to explain those concepts in plain terms anyway.

10. Pray. Don't make the mistake of relying solely on your own smarts when you have the Holy Spirit at your disposal. Pray for guidance for yourself and for a receptive heart within your atheist friend. You might be surprised at the effectiveness of this technique. It'll be good for you, too.

(source)