Est. May 2008

20 April, 2014

Not In Vain

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
(1 Corinthians 15:12-14, ESV)


16 April, 2014

Powder-puff Christianity

This picture happened to pop up on my Facebook feed today, and I immediately flinched:

14 April, 2014

Jesus’ Twin Brother

Ready for this one, folks?

In a nearly-four-hundred-page doctoral dissertation, Dr. Robert Greg Cavin tries to convince people that it wasn’t Jesus whom the disciples and apostles saw after the crucifixion; it was his unknown twin brother.

Yep.  Forget about that mass hallucination stuff; forget about the wrong-tomb, theft of the body, swoon, spiritual-resurrection-only, and the legendary/mythical resurrection hypotheses – this one is the hypothesis which answers the question of whether Jesus really rose from the dead.

Yeah, after I read it I was banging my head against the desk, too.

Look, if you profess to believe in God, and yet you dismiss or deny any sort of miraculous happenings driven by God Himself (as His Son’s resurrection was), I’m thinking you ought to re-assess your professed belief.  Or, as the author of the article points out:
What Cavin and skeptics/atheists miss about the incredible nature of Christ’s resurrection is this: That’s the whole point of the event! (emphasis in the original)
Exactly.

Man, I tell ya.  Easter and Christmas sure do bring the oddballs out of their hidey-holes, don’t they?

13 April, 2014

An Interesting Premise

David Murray, writing over at Christian Post, has a very interesting take on Christian forgiveness; he recommends we forgive as God forgives.

Here’s the kicker:
‘God does not forgive those who do not want forgiveness.’
This is completely, 180o opposite of what most Christians believe – that we’re to forgive everyone who slights us, who ‘trespasses against us’, and everything’ll be just great.  But Mr. Murray makes an interesting point:  God offers forgiveness unconditionally, but He ‘does not forgive everyone regardless of their responses to His offer’, and His ‘forgiveness is conditional upon repentance (emphasis mine)’.

For the longest time, I’ve struggled with this very issue: why forgive someone if they don’t want it, or if they’re unwilling to repent of their transgression against me?  And I, like (I’m betting) a whole lotta Christians out there, have conflated the offering of forgiveness with the actual act of forgiveness.  We’re to offer to forgive but, as God does, we only forgive on the conditions that 1) the person wants it, and 2) that they repent of their transgression against us.

Pop on over and read the whole article.  It makes a lot of sense, and (at least for me) makes the process of forgiveness much, much easier.

Stevens’ Folly

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens bloviated in the Washington Post the other day about what he thinks is the ‘Framers’ original intent’ for the Second Amendment.  You know the one; it reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This is what Ex-Justice Stevens thinks (emphasis in the original):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
Well, it's obvious, isn't it?  That's exactly what the Framers meant, since, you know, not including that language definitely means they meant to include that language.

Or something.

But when you think about Ex-Justice Stevens’ rewrite, it just doesn’t seem, well, complete, does it?  I mean, I think what Ex-Justice Stevens really wanted to say was this:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia, WHICH SHALL PROVIDE SUCH ARMS AS IS DEEMED NECESSARY, WHICH THEREFORE REMOVES ALL NECESSITY OF PERSONAL ARMS OWNERSHIP shall not be infringed.
There ya go, Ex-Justice Stevens … I rewrote it the way I think you meant to re-write it.