RSS

Category Archives: Reasonable Faith

Pow! There Goes A Pluralist Down

interfaith-harmony“Religious Pluralism (popular form, not academic) rejects the premise that God has revealed himself in any unique or definitive sense in Jesus Christ. On the contrary, God is said to be actively revealing himself in all religious traditions… Christian faith is merely one of many equally legitimate human responses to the same divine reality. John Hick is the most well-known figure from this position.
Followers of this pluralism (pluralists) believe in two or more religious worldviews as being equally valid or acceptable. More than mere tolerance, religious pluralism accepts multiple paths to God or gods as a possibility and is usually contrasted with an “exclusivism,” the idea that there is only one true religion or way to know God.

Pluralist: Yesterday I was reading the Bible and I must say, I think it makes some arrogant and intolerant claims.

Christian: I am glad you did. What claims do you have in mind?

Pluralist: Well, for example, this guy, John, writes that Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” and then a bit later in a book called Acts I’ve read, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Do you take this seriously?

Christian: Yes, what is the problem?

Pluralist: Don’t you see? It’s so exclusive. You are saying that only the Christian faith is right and all those people who believe otherwise are wrong.

Christian: Oh, I see.

Pluralist: We should tolerate our differences and be more humble in presenting our absolute truths. After all, all religions lead to the same God. It is not right to try to convert people to your own beliefs and disrupt their tradition.

Christian: This is a little bit confusing.

Pluralist: What is? Read the rest of this entry »

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 10, 2015 in Ethics, Reasonable Faith

 

Tags: , , , ,

Arrogance, Intolerance and Violence AKA Evangelism

evangelismIs it ever ethical to attempt to persuade others to change their religion, worldview or other fundamental belief? This endeavor has received in the recent years increasing line of criticism. In January 2001 in South Asia, Dalai Lama has condemned Christian and Muslim practice of seeking converts, “Whether Hindu or Muslim or Christian, whoever tries to convert, it’s wrong, not good.” (Thiessen, 2011, p. 6).Richards, Svendsen and Bless aptly describe the sorts of pressures restricting the ability to engage in religious persuasion as “an increasing apathy of secular states towards the importance of religious freedom and the exclusion of religion from the public square; the preclusive dominance of established ideologies in other states; consolidations of power by authoritarian regimes; worries about the destabilizing influence of new or unfamiliar religious movements, religious extremism, or terrorism; a downgrading of religious freedom rights vis-á-vis these other human rights; the marginalization of minority religions; reactions against globalization or perceived neo-colonialism; burgeoning state and transnational regimes; expanding notions of privacy; and transforming modes of communication” (2011, p. 154). Martin E. Marty suggests that “[t]he proselytizer violates boundaries and disrupts traditions” (Ibid.). Novak explaining why Jews are resenting those who proselytize says that they come across as people who “feel no moral compunction in denigrating other faiths and their cultures for the sake of cajoling their adherents to cease being what they have been and change their identity to becoming what the missionaries are” (1999, p. 43). At last, many people perceive a connection between religious proselytizing and violence. Sociologists Grim and Finke found that “violent religious persecution is pervasive. Of 143 countries…, 86 percent (123 countries) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced from their homes because of …religious persecution” (Richards, Svendsen, Bless, 2011, p. 156). Read the rest of this entry »

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 29, 2015 in Ethics, Mission, Reasonable Faith

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Why all people believe in God?

Human MindAn ancient Near Eastern psalmist wrote, “One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple” (Psalm 27:4, King James Version). There is an innate desire of supernaturalism. This is why most societies on earth held to kinds of beliefs in deities. In 16th century, John Calvin grounds his religious epistemology in what he calls sensus divinitatis. According to Calvin, all people have a sense, not only of the existence of a Creator-God (Helm, 1998, p. 93), but also of a “positive affective and conative condition towards” Him (Helm, 1998, p. 88).

Calvin does not, by means of modern apologetics; attempt to prove his claims, as he suggests that this sense is simply based on innate, properly functioning capacities (Helm, 1998, p. 93). To clarify what Calvin means, Helm (1998) writes, “Calvin does not say that all men believe in God; he says that all men have the seed of religion, the disposition to believe in God” (p. 105). In 20th century, C. S. Lewis (2001) equally argued that creatures possess innate desires that correspond to their satisfaction. If an innate desire finds no satisfaction in this world, it is probable that there is another world beyond it.

Alvin Plantinga (1981) proposes that the belief in God, in absence of a defeater, needs not to be based on other beliefs or propositions; but one is perfectly rational in accepting it, just as he accepts the reality of past events, actuality of the world around us or existence of other minds.

Not only theology and philosophy has focused on this question; preponderance of scientific evidence emerging from cognitive science suggests that beliefs about the existence of God(s), dualism, afterlife or moral realism are not explicitly cultural indoctrinated ideas. They are intuitive innate implicit[1] beliefs. (Bering, 2006). On the contrary, disbelief in supernatural “requires some hard cognitive work to reject or override the intuitions that nourish religious beliefs” (Norenzayan & Gervais, 2013, p. 20). Bering (2010) goes as far as to say about atheists that, “this self-classification has little – if any – bearing on what actually happens inside their head” (p.167). This does not show that these biases lead to a specific understanding of God(s), it merely points towards a conclusion that humans are wired to be intuitive theists, believing in transcendent beings. Therefore, also children not exposed to socio-cultural influence would naturally come to hold such beliefs. Banerjee and Bloom (2013), dissent from the consensus view, nevertheless they suggest we are prone to hold similar conceptions, as our “cognitive biases make humans ‘receptive’ to religious ideas, but do not themselves generate them” (p. 7).  Read the rest of this entry »

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Reasonable Faith

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Heaven Is For Real vs. Bible 2/2

Heaven Timeheaven time

Still, how could Colton see all this? His father Todd mentioned a possibility of “heaven time”, suggesting that concepts of – past, present and future are perhaps valid only for earth, while time in heaven might not be linear. The nature of time and Gods relation to it is closely related both to our individual but also collective future “times” and I will assess it at least briefly. Grudem agrees with God being a timeless being, which does not experience a succession of moments, as his experience of time is qualitatively different. He does not attempt to specify how this could be but only writes, “To God himself, all of his existence is always somehow “present,” (Grudem 1994: 169). Divine timelessness has been the dominant view of Christian orthodoxy throughout the history of the church. However, Grudem suggests that it is not true that heaven itself will be timeless. Based on several descriptions of heaven from the book of revelation[1] he argues that “there will be a succession of moments one after another” and that we will not experience “an exact duplication of God’s attribute of eternity” (Grudem 1994: 173). Others like Professor William Lane Craig, who worked extensively with the Christian philosophy of time deny divine omnitemporality[2] altogether. Craig argues for temporal becoming or a dynamic theory of time (also called an A-Theory of time) in which past is no longer here, future has yet to come and the only thing that is really in existence is present. In his essay “God, Time, and Eternity”, he concludes: “God is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.” (Craig 2002).

In both cases, Todd’s proposition of heaven time seems inadequate. Cessation or interfusion of time after our physical death is certainly not a doctrine held by most mainstream evangelicals; neither has it been well established in the belief systems of other major Christian denominations. Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Heaven Is For Real vs. Bible 1/2

Heaven is for realA New York Times article from March 11, 2011 describes the Thomas Nelson broken sales records after publishing the book “Heaven is for Real.[1]  While there were initially in print only 40,000 copies, this book has gone back to press 22 times, now reaching 8 million printed copies. In a similar article[2] almost 3 years later, we follow its still continuing success on popular bestseller lists. With the TriStar Pictures movie version of this book, released on April 16, 2014 this story became a great deal of the western popular discussion about heaven and the life after life. In the following lines I will analyze some of the main ideas one can extract from reading this book and compare them to what some of the Biblical scholars have over centuries orderly summarized in doctrines of eschatology. After all the reasoning I will try to show how can we correctly understand what truly happened but also what meaning can Colton’s story have for you.

Heaven is for Real

Over 6000 Amazon customer reviews speak of the impact this publication had on peoples lives. To mention a few, B. Prickett wrote “This is a wonderful book. If you have any doubts about what happens after death, read this book. It will become clear to you.” or Sophia Maria Hall said, “We all need hope that there is better after the life we have here on this crazy earth…this is proof we are getting that!” Also, Cynthia Trueblood shared that “This book was written in an easy style and yet impacted my view of heaven profoundly!”[3] While one can find also more disapproving comments, those above do represent the majority. Words like “clear”, “proof” or “profound impact” are frequently used to describe the effect this material had on its readers and their view of heaven. Now, what does this book actually say about heaven? Read the rest of this entry »

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 22, 2014 in Reasonable Faith, Reviews, Theology

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Apologetic evening with Dr. Frank Turek

Apologetic evening

Frank Turek is from USA and is one of the well known debaters, writers and teachers. He has masters in public administration and a doctorate in apologetics. He also wrote a book “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”. Among others he debated such several times figures as Christopher Hitchens. Frank Turek is both entertaining and sharp.

After the seminar there will be an opportunity to ask questions and talk with him. All this at Skywalk, 12th of March at 19:00 (Kongens Ege, Gammel Hadsundvej 2, 8900 Randers, Denmark)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2014 in News, Reasonable Faith

 

Tags: , , ,

The week deal


“This equation of the impersonal plus time plus chance producing the total configuration of the universe and all that is in it, modern people hold by faith.”

Francis Schaeffer


 

Psalm 19:1; Hebrews 11:3

 
 

Tags: , , ,