As a follow up to our chapter's cross-examination of the doctrines and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons), I wanted to delve a little deeper into the philosophical problems with their conception of God. For proper context, please note that Latter-Day Saints believe in continued special revelation, and their leadership, whether it be their president or their apostles, speak authoritatively.
I’d like to answer the argument against biblical Christianity that goes something like this:
If faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to God, then what about those who have not heard about Jesus? Aren’t all religions the same, and aren’t there many ways to God? Christians should not be so dogmatic and arrogant about their faith.
Gospel Night: Christmas Edition [video] was an event that was put on by a few of Geneseo's campus ministry groups (InterVarsity, BASIC and Ratio Christi). It was held this past year, December 2013, and consisted of music by our campus's very own Gospel Choir, 2 student testimonies, and 3 short talks given by students regarding Biblical Prophecy. Overall it compasses a beautiful message about the true reason for the season of CHRISTmas.
I remember when I was in high school discussing the books of Acts with a skeptic. We couldn't agree on how long the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem or when Paul started his persecution of the church. Now, I have those answers for your benefit.
If Christians really were pro-person and pro-life, Christians would not want to condemn people to a painful, lingering death, right?. Besides, assuming a patient gives consent, what is the philosophical difference between allowing someone to die (which we do everyday when we remove ventilators, etc.) and giving assistance in committing suicide?
These are good questions. Are there answers? Can, or should, improved pain relief technology be part of the conversation? If there is a legal difference between assisted suicide and allowing someone to die without intervention, is that also a philosophical difference?
These and similar questions will be addressed during our Ratio Christi discussion meeting at 4 pm. in the Rands House (5229 Cass Avenue on Main Campus) conference room 103 on the first floor. For more information see the Events tab at RatioChristi.org/WSU/Events. Light refreshments will be provided.
Relativism: “That may be true for you, but not for me”
How many times have we heard this phrase? More often than we should. This philosophy is held by those that might claim to be “relativists” or “spiritual, not religious” fanatics. While the claims may sound tolerant and embracive, they are self-contradictory and self-defeating. When someone says, “That is true for you, but my truth is different,” ask them if that very claim is absolutely true. What the relativist fails to realize is that he is asserting an objective claim about truth. Even when he says, “That’s true for you, but not for me,” he believes his view applies to more than just one person! That contradicts relativism. The relative truth claim believes relative truth is objectively true. This is self-defeating. And if something can be “objectively true for you, but not for me,” it would also be true that “there is no truth.”
This is the third and final blog post about my experience studying some ancient manuscripts that are part of the Oxyrhynchus collection residing at Oxford University’s Sackler Library. You can catch the first two blog posts here.
Grenfell and Hunt discovered the first New Testament papyrus on the second day of their excavation in the winter of 1896-7. A New Testament papyrus is a copy of a portion of the New Testament made on papyrus. To date, over one hundred and twenty such papyri are known. They are generally considered the earliest witnesses to the original text of the New Testament. The papyrus that Grenfell and Hunt discovered that first time in at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt turned out to be a manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew dated palaeographically to the early 3rd century. It became known as P1. This, with other discoveries was published in 1898, in the first volume of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Eventually over 500,000 papyri were found at the site dating from 4th century BC to 7th century AD. There have been now 77-volumes published in the The Oxyrhynchus Papyri work. Even today, researchers still have boxes of papyri in boxes that await examination. Let’s look at a couple of the recent treasures found that have been in our libraries already for many decades awaiting to be discovered by researchers and shared with the world.
In this full length interview David Berlinksi, author of The Devil's Delusion and The Deniable Darwin, takes us for a sweeping and sometimes evasive look at his worldview. Comparing the greatness of the traditional western culture to the new anemic scientism, Berlinski covers the goal directedness of history, Darwinism, the scientific establishment, paleontology, St. Augustine, global warming, intelligent design in biology, and the great crimes of the twentieth century. If you are looking for an erudite and broad analysis of the problems with the modern experiment you will not want to miss this interview--every minute of it.