Starting Points…
As I mentioned quite a few weeks ago, I’ll be blogging about Christian issues, specifically on the defense of the Christian faith with a focus on the intellectual side of Apologetics.
Hopefully, this blog will not merely be a stump for methodically proclaiming religious dogma from centuries past. In addition to discussing the Christian side of things, I hope to give voice to some of my favorite skeptics as well. I guess it would be correct to say that I try to be open minded, although I do think “tolerance” is overvalued in the our culture. But that is for a different discussion.
I thought it might be good lay out a couple of my positions on things related to what I’ll be blogging about for a while; some basic hypothesis that will be examined and critiqued as the blogging goes on.
- The Bible: The Bible is the authoritative Word of God. It was written by over 40 authors over a span of approximately 1500 years. It appears there is good evidence that the Bible is a reliable collection of documents that is attested by historical, archaeological, and scientific data and appears to bear markings of divine inspiration. Many Christians believe the Bible for the wrong reasons that depend on illogical circular reasoning. Voddie Baucham said it best: ”
“Is that your final answer? I hope its not.
Let me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you: I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”
- The Resurrection: For reasons to be elaborated on a later date, I find the evidence for the bodily Resurrection of Christ to be compelling.
- The Problem of Evil: The problem of evil is indeed one of the strongest arguments against rational theism. Yet, after considering the matter for over a year, and continuing to do so, I do not find the existence of evil and suffering to be a rational reason to reject theism. My reasons for this will be explained later.
- Theism: The existence of God cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. But the same is true for a variety of other things we intellectually take for granted. However, I do believe it is reasonable to believe in God because there is good evidence and good arguments for His existence.
- Origin: After some consideration of the evidence, my position is that God created the Universe a finite time ago ex-nihilo (out of nothing). As far as evolution is concerned, I find a lot of holes in the theory, and am disturbed that it is taught as fact in our schools. This has consequences far beyond mere scientific knowledge.
These and many other thesis I hope to examine in the coming months on Fundamental Astuteness. Your thoughts, insights, criticisms, and questions are welcome.
How to blog better…
Some folks have asked how to blog well. What goes into blogging a good blogging that generates readership? While I am certainly no expert at this, and past record due to time constraints has limited my potential, here are a few things that might be helpful:
- Choose a simple format. Don’t use complicated ones that are hard on the eyes. For simple starters, use a template that has a flag image across the top, links on the right hand side, and then a column of text for the blog.
- Keep your text looking professional. Don’t vary the text randomly. Avoid it. Use bold and ALL CAPS if you want to emphasize a point. Do not use lots of different colors in your text. Stick with black. It matches everything and looks professional. Don’t use colors that don’t match or are hard to see.
- Comment on other blogs. When you comment on other blogs, that provides a link for other commentators to follow back to you. This generates traffic. So, preferably, comment on other blogs/websites that already have a lot of traffic, and hopefully you’ll pick up some fringe benefits in the process.
- Come back to this blog in a few days. Hopefully by then, I’ll have found the news paper article I have in my desk somewhere on good blogging techniques. It will have much more substantive points.
I’ve got it…
My small readership may recall that some time ago, I wrote an article outlining some needed changed to the astuteness domain. One of those changes needed to be a shift from blogging about whatever crossed my mind to something more specific. A central theme. A main topic or area of discussion.
A couple of things have come to mind since then, and I narrowed it down to three main choices:
1) Blog about being a good blogger. It sounds ridiculous, but I think it could be done. Blog about what is needed to have a famous, visited blog, and that itself will generate traffic. Reminds me of my friend Shaun who makes money online by maintaining a website about…making money online. Cool.
2) Blog about politics. Be a political critic. Like John Stossel. If you haven’t read his books, do it. Get them at your local library today. “GIve me a Break” and “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Why everything you know is wrong”. But I decided this just wasn’t for me…yet. Maybe another time.
3) Blog about Theology, Christian Apologetics, and Skepticism. Find answers for the Christian Faith. Find the strengths and weaknesses. Why do I believe the Bible? What about the Trinity? The Problem of Evil? Does God exist? Is it reasonable to believe in God? Are skeptics any more rational than believers? Why is Michael Shermer my favorite skeptic?
After much thought, I’ve decided to go for the last option. I’m young yet, and I can do politics another time. If Christianity is real, now is the time to find out.
So for now, its category three. That will be the current and near term future for Astuteness. If I find something irresistable going on in politics, I’ll mention it. But for the most part, Apologetics is on!
Missing links in the Associated Press report…
I know I promised my small readership that I would develop more central themes and issues for my blog to cover, but tonight I must dissent from myself just this once…
Those who know me may be aware, to varying degrees, of my intense skepticism of evolution. Indeed, my previous article on evolution issues, one of the most visited posts on this website, I think leaves no doubt as to my position of this matter. There seems to be no end to the stream of evidence and logic that consistently works against Darwinism, and no end in sight for the consistency with which the dissent from Darwinism is suppressed and ignored by major media and scientific outlets.
Although I mostly limit my research to topics like Christian Apologetics, Politics, and Public Policy, it is not unheard of for me to find myself intruiged by some scientific discovery or anecdote. Such was my situation this evening that brought back several reflections on Darwinism and media reporting in general as relates to that theory (note “theory” not “fact”)
My attention was immediatlely drawn to this article written by the Associated Press and linked to the front page of yahoo.com. The yahoo headline read “New Flatfish fossils solve missing link in evolutionary theory”.
The article explained that “Some odd-looking fish fossils discovered in the bowels of several European museums may help solve a lingering question about evolutionary theory, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday. The 50 million-year-old fossils — which have one eye near the top of their heads — help explain how flatfish such as flounder, sole and halibut developed the strange but useful trait of having both eyes on one side.”
The article then went on to describe various facts of interest that made for a decently written article in many respects, but even as I was reading it, two things immediately came to mind:
First: Will “missing links” really provide that panacea that evolutionists are so quietly desperate for?
I think not. While the absence is missing links is hailed by the oft-supressed skeptics of evolution, I think there is little chance that finding a even a substantial number of “missing links” will prove anything or convince anybody. As a point of debate, it is too easy for the creationist/intelligent design advocate to argue three things, to start with. First, say something like “The presence of ‘missing’ links does not prove anything for the evolutionist because it is just as reasonable to say that God created many similar things on day one (or two, etc) without evolution”. Second, a legitimate point could be made by saying that “the similarity between two things does not prove the ancestry of the objects in question”. I find two similar fossils. What does that prove? One thing, and one thing only: That two fossils look the same (further investigation might show that there are those who believe it proves more). That’s it. To say as much as Darwinists want to would be to commit the logical fallacy of non-sequitar–‘it does not follow’. Just because a Honda hubcap is compatible with a Chevy rim doesn’t prove that Chevy evolved from Honda 60 million years ago. Thirdly, the people concerned with propelling this message as a support of Darwinism do so while making an important mistake by failing to differentiate between macro and micro evolution. There’s an important difference; micro evolution is something that everyone, whether Darwinist or not, are perfectly aware of and at peace with. Micro evolution refers to small changes that can occur over time within a specified species. Breeding dogs will create diversity in kind–retrievers, labs, pointers, setters, shuitzou, etc. Nobody disuputes this. The point is, whatever you started with, you still have. We started out with dogs, and we still have dogs…just different variations of the same creature.
The debate comes in over macro-evolution. This refers to the idea that, given enough time (or chance) huge changes within species by combining many many small changes together will result in an entirely different entity altogether (like from microbes, to monkeys, to humans). No substantial missing link establishing this branch of evolution has been established; and when they have been in the past, no great length of time has passed before they are discredited. Do we have fossils showing how a whale graduated from whale-ness into lizard-ness? There is no such thing. And even if one were established, we would simply refer to the first argument presented in this post.
So two branches of evolution: Micro-evolution, which states that small changes within a species will occur while still maintaining fundamental characteristics, and Macro-evolution, which states that large changes will occur over time that result in an entirely different species. Creationists agree with the small changes, and evolutionists are hard pressed to substantiate the historicity of the large ones.
Does the article presented by the Associated Press on the front page of Yahoo! do anything to resolve this struggle and give a victory point to the Darwinists? By no means. Notice that the article refers primarily to the fact that some flatfish had one eye, and some had two. Does this represent huge change such that we end up with entirely different species? No. It simply substantiates something both sides of the creation/evolution debate agree on…that changes within a species overtime can occur. But notice that we still have the same fundamental being: fish. This does nothing to resolve the chief point of dispute between creationists and evolutionists, although the media made the article headline seem to hope we’d be led to believe otherwise.
Speaking of the media leads me to my second major reflection of this post. While the first one had to do with the actual evidence and logic of the evolution debate, this second thought concerns the media only. Look through the article carefully, and see if you don’t notice something:
There is no dissent presented in the article at all.
No alternative viewpoint. Usually the media inserts phrases like “but critics say” or “…but according to…”. This is especially true for political coverage, but it is the mark of every semi-balanced media report. Yet no such regular and essential feature appears here. I would think it should, since many qualified authorities would differ with the point of view presented in this article. According to this report from WorldNetDaily, (in response to an assertion by PBS that “virtually every scientist in the world believes the [Darwinian] theory to be true”) over 600 PhD scientists signed a document expressing a “skeptic[ism] of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
“Examination…should be encouraged”? I think so, but I guess the fair and balanced media didn’t get the message. Why? I’m not aware. Ask Bernard Goldberg
No posting lately…
Life in the summer has been so busy, and I haven’t posted a lot lately, although the hits counter still counts away the visitors despite my prolonged absence. The rush of life has still given me enough time to remember this blog and think about the nature and purpose of its existence.
I’m thinking of starting a new blog, or just reforming one I have. The truth is, I like the template over at blogspot that wordpress doesn’t have.
The new blog would be different in several ways from this one:
1. It will narrower in focus. Just a few things. Probably philosphy, ethics, and apologetics. A little bit of political commentary, but not much. Philosophy, logic, ethics, theology, etc. is too much to cover at once. Bring it down to a central theme. A few core issues. Like Philosphy/Ethics (abortion, euthenasia) and Apologetics/Christianity (Problem of evil, etc)
2. It will be better planned. Think ahead and decide what the central focus will be
3. It will dwell on a few issues more often rather than on many issues quickly. Develop an idea over time, not just skim over it and rush onto the next sensation or topic.
4. I will post on it more consistently.
So right now, I’ll be taking a lot of stuff down and wiping the slate clean, so to speak. I will fool around with this blog a little more and see if I like it. If I get a new one, the link will most surely be placed on this site for my loyal fan base to follow 🙂
Clarification regarding commentary on liberty…
Insightful questioning and commentary by my good friend Will at WillsPerspective has been well placed and has persuaded me that a clarification is order.
At some point during our exchange in commentary over my previous post, I proposed that “I don’t know exactly what parts of the bible to enforce. But I think that discussion [should] take place. My inclination right now is to say that the Government today cannot take any more power than the civil government of the Old Testament. Church issues should then be left to the church, and family issues to the family.”
And in response, Will made an appropriate observation and suggestion: “The Old Testament government was extremely powerful (stoning girls for fornication, etc) and I don’t think we would want to take our New Testament model of liberty that far, so I would encourage you to re-think that standard.”
Let me say here and now that I hate death and glory in its absence. Capital punishment is a serious matter, and by no means do I propose we expand it to crimes other than murder. Nor do I propose that we follow every single statue of Levitical law to the letter. Especially when it comes to matters of capital crime. It seems to me (and I welcome any alternative view on this for consideration) that there is room for grace and mercy in light of New Testament principles. The story of Jesus forgiving the adulteress woman and saving her from stoning comes to mind.
What then did I mean by my statement reproduced above?
Aside from the fact that I never actually said or intended to imply that we should expand capital crimes to Old Testament levels but rather simply stated that the modern civil government should not expand its jurisdiction beyond Old Testament jurisdiction, my point was primarily not that we should necessarily re-install every single mandate from the Old Testament, but rather, we should view the seperation of powers and jurisdiction in the Bible as a foundation for government today.
Here are two examples of what this would look like:
Capital Punishment: Capital punishment should remain in the hands of civil government if it is to be practiced at all. Churches and families should not hold this power (the Catholic church tried to do this in the Dark Ages). Since the pattern from the Bible seems to hold that the civil magistrates should administer the death penalty, it should stay that way. What is a capital crime in today’s world is very much very much debatable. Personally, The farthest I would go in allowing capital punishment is only in cases of willful murder. Even so, serious discussion should be given to whether capital cases are tried correctly and in a consistent mannerl, in light of the recent spate of DNA exonerations. But this particular matter is for another discussion.
Welfare/Providing for the needy: Those who are in need in the absence of laziness should be cared for, as demonstrated by the Levitical law and by the pattern of the early church in the Book of Acts. There is no Biblically sanctioned pattern where civil magistrates are involved in the wholesale redistribution of wealth. Rather, this task was given to the individuals, churches, and, in the modern times, charitable/voluntary organizations. There are other reasons to oppose welfare as well, but for the purpose of biblical pattern, we see no precedent that endorses the civil government being involved in this matter.
Again, the goal here is to observe patterns and principles of the separation of powers and duties in the Old Testament, not necessarily adopt every statute to the “letter of the law”. There are separate and distinct roles that are best carried out by various entities in society, and I propose, that as Christians, we take our pattern of separated powers and jurisdiction from the Word of God.
Liberty is not unlimited…
Liberty was a word I heard often as I researched the candidacy of Ron Paul this past year. I heard it not only from him, but also from his supporters–on the streets, at rallies, on blogs, and on youtube. “We must defend liberty”; “Liberty…its the most important thing”. Or “The liberty to do whatever we want as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others”.
It sounded great. And to a substantial extent, I think the cause of liberty is a legitimate one. People should be able to act freely. We should have a free society. But a nagging question kept coming to mind: Is Liberty really the transcendental value that subsumes all else? Should liberty theoretically be defended at all costs? I’m still trying to decide where the proper balance is. As I think on these things, I find one passage written by Rousas D. Rushdooney very captivating. He writes in 1984, in his book titled “Law and Liberty” that:
“When we are told that there can be no laws against _____________[insert any perceived social ill, like pornography, drugs, adultery] without endangering liberty, we must challenge their claim to be interested in liberty. There is no area where freedom is unlimited. Take freedom of speech, for example: no man has the right to slander others, nor do our laws allow him the liberty to do so at will. Neither do we allow any man the liberty to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Freedom of speech does not give any man the right to walk into the floor of Congress and speak his mind. His liberty is limited no only as to where he can say it but also as to what he says. This does not mean that I lack freedom to speak my mind, if it be done decently and in order.
Freedom of press means the liberty to publish, but it does not mean liberty to publish libelous statements, nor does it mean that any man can demand that his freedom of press be subsidized to enable him to publish. A man has the liberty to publish if he provides the cost of publication or interests a publisher in doing so. Moreover, the contents of what is published are also subject to limitations. Libel has already been cited. No man has the right or liberty to publish materials violating the privacy of others. There are all kinds of legitimate and necessary restrictions on every kind of liberty a man has, and these are necessary for the maintenance of liberty.”
As mentioned above, I think the cause for more liberty and less government is for the most part a legitimate one. I am an ardent supporter of almost everyone of Ron Paul’s ideals. The question at issue is: “How far should that liberty be extended and how do we decide at what point it starts and where it ends?”
The usual libertarian response is well placed from a strategic and rhetorical standpoint. Their reply usually goes something like this: “A person should enjoy every liberty he can attain, provided he does not infringe on the liberty of others to act freely in their own right” or something along those lines. Basically, exercise your rights, as long as you don’t violate the rights of others.
I like this explanation, but (aside from the fact that I’m not sure its a biblical perspective, something I’ll articulate another time) I’m not sure it really solves the debate or saves any time. For as soon as these words fall on the dialogue, the debate is not ended with satisfaction to both sides. The argument immediately shifts to issue of what constitutes a violation of another person’s rights?
At this point, someone will try to differentiate the difference between positive and negative rights, saying that people have the right exercise their negative rights, while they are not necessarily entitled to their positive rights. But again, this only starts the process over again: What exactly constitutes “negative” rights? Who says that am entitled to this set of rights but not to another? A traffic light violates my freedom to move through the intersection when I see fit. Yet, to not have a traffic light would endanger the public safety, thus, as many people as will go through the intersection in the absence of a traffic light, the same number of individual rights will be violated…the right to life and safety of other individual besides myself is negated by the absence of a traffic signal.
But (playing the part of devil’s advocate for a moment) I should have the right to go through the intersection when I want to. So, who’s rights and interests should win the debate? Now the debate simply shifts again: Whether or not, when in conflict, individualism should be valued over collectivism. I have an individual right to traverse the intersection, something that the traffic light delays, and a collection of other members of society who will be traveling through that intersection have a right to public safety and life.
Thus, libertarian rationalism, which adores rationalistic, logical thought process’ to come to its conclusions, seems to falter; for it cannot come up with an enduring, transcendental standard by which to govern society. For any libertarian who asserts that “these are the rights you are entitled to, while these are not” will always be hopelessly challenged to explain how he came to his conclusion about what rights are more important than others (My right to move when I want vs. society’s right to a traffic signal in the interest of public safety), and why when in conflict, this should be valued over that–the traffic light and individualism vs. collectivism being prime examples of this never ending cycle of argumentation.
At this point, having convinced myself that rationally engineered rights can never be rationally clarified (the never ending circle of argumentation referred to in preceding paragraphs), it seems to me that the best way to conclusively address the issue is to adopt an unconventional strategy: Espouse the cause of liberty in theory, and use the Bible and the biblical worldview it provides to clarify what rights should be enjoyed and what rights should be limited. On this basis, issues seem to fall into place: Free speech, yes–but since the 9th commandment says “though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” we justify laws against slander. How did property rights vs. eminent domain come to be such an issue from the 1600’s on in the western world? Because religious reformers influenced policy makers who applied the principle “thou shalt not steal” as a limitation on government action. Thus was born the notion that government should be limited in taking land for whatever purpose, and that if it must use the land, it should be paid for.
Adopting the biblical worldview as a standard political mindset and policy guideline will no doubt precipitate a storm of criticism and scandal. It would “forcing our will” on others. How bigoted. But in reality, doing so is no worse than what the Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Republican, or Humanist does every time they vote in the legislature. All law and policy necessarily springs forth from some foundational mindset (call it religion, political philosophy, mindset, etc.) held by each person, and thus, every politician–foundational presuppositions about the world and the humanity it contains; about the origin, purpose, and destiny of mankind as a whole. Christian worldview is one of those mindsets…it just happens to be called religion, while every other philosophy enjoys a more agreeable title–Marx called his Marxism “science” and my libertarian friends call their mindset a “Philosophy of Liberty”.
Now some will cringe from this challenge because they assume that because biblical worldview is found to be dismissed in politics as irrelevant because its religious it’s therefore not relevant to politics because most people in politics don’t think it belongs in the political debate.
Yet the majority’s lack of belief in something does not equate to making it irrelevant. Just because people don’t believe you when you cite the biblical worldview as a justification for action doesn’t mean you must leave it behind when you work in politics. Republicans don’t believe in the Democratic Party, yet the democrats are very successful in implementing their agenda step by step. Perhaps an analogy will help bring this into perspective:
You are walking through a city in the Great State of Texas. You, being the great citizen you are, have your concealed carry permit and a Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol in your back pocket. A thug steps in front of you, waves his knife with meaning, and demands your money or your life. But being the sturdy Texan you are, you snatch out your Springfield and say “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 kinetic foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk! A bullet does carry farther than a knife!” But instead of being deterred like you thought he would be, he instead says “Well, I don’t believe in your gun…” And with this astounding revelation, you think “I can’t believe it. He doesn’t believe me” so you throw down your Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol take off running.
So you go home and do some research. You discover, (using, of course, wikipedia) that guns are indeed very effective. You find a study that documents these facts and effects, print it off, place it in your other back pocket, and start back across the city again, carrying your Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol. Lo and behold, the same crook appears in front of you, waving his knife and demanding your money or your life! So you pull out your Springfield .40 caliber subcompact X3 and exclaim: “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk! and look–I have a study right here proving that my gun is more effective than your knife…statistically, my gun will be much more effective and destructive than your knife. I can prove it!
Full of expectation, you eagerly anticipate his response. But your hopes are dashed as he simply straightens up and says: “It doesn’t matter…I don’t believe in your study. It was probably done by biased researchers who had unreasonable faith in guns anyway”.
Your heart sinks with discouragement as you realize that your efforts are rebuffed by your opponent. So, acting under the realization that he really doesn’t believe in your gun, you throw it down and take off running in the opposite direction.
How absurd. But you have one last chance. You’re walking through the city, and hallo there! Before you appears the same thug, waving his knife, demanding your money or your life! Again, you whip out your Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol and inform him, saying: “Sir, I have a Spingfield .40 caliber X3 subcompact pistol that delivers 30,000 foot pounds of force on impact! Do reconsider your present course of action or proceed at your own risk!” Again, he starts giving his usual mantra: “I don’t believe in your gun…” But this time is different. You’ve decided that pulling the trigger will do more to make him a believer in guns than anything else.
Now, certainly this story is not meant to imply that we should violence to implement our agenda. Nor does it mean that we will force people to become Christians. But what the above story does do is illustrate the folly and absurdity of waiting for your enemies to agree with you as a precondition for action.
But this same fallacy is, I fear, committed by politicians who “personally” claim to be Christians, yet keep that out of the scope of their political philosophy.
Yet what an opportunity we are missing! Christians grow ashamed of the name of Christ and neglect to bring his name into the debate–be it over abortion, gay “rights”, property rights, religious liberty, Ten Commandment displays, etc, and they lose the battle! Wow! I would never has guessed to that once we forgot about God in public debate that we would just happen to lose some ground as well. Unbelievable!
When we bring Biblical foundations to our positions in the public square, we will of course be criticized. But doing so gives us an excellent opportunity to bring the debate into another field that is far more relevant than any social ill–once the our Christian foundation for our political decisions is attacked, simply turn the debate into one issue: Is the Bible true? Is Christianity true? If they can disprove God or the Bible, go for it. But until they do so, you are perfectly justified in subscribing to a something that you think has good evidence and arguments backing it up. The more research and study I do, the more I am persuaded that with a continuing focus on research, knowledge, and dialogue on Christian theology and apologetics, the Christian message and world view is one that we can defend vigorously, reasonably, and logically.
Here’s the summery creed we need to present to our opponents, and then challenge them to attack it–as Christian Apologist, author, and family man Voddie Baucham once stated:
“Is that your final answer? I hope its not. Let me give you an answer to that question that I believe is better than ‘I was raised that way’ or its better than “Well I’m Southern Baptist and that’s the way we believe’ or its better than “I tried it, and it worked for me” Let me tell you why I choose to believe the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible because I was raised that way—because I wasn’t. I don’t choose to believe the Bible because I tried it and it worked for me. My mother’s Buddhism worked for her—that’s why she was a Buddhist! I need something more than just ‘because it works’. Here’s the answer—I’ll give it to you and unpack it for you:
I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report [of] supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writing are divine rather than human in origin.”
Rational Libertarianism doesn’t solve. It uses logic to arrive at its conclusions, but logical and philosophical conundrums seem to make it a never ending rabbit trail of argumentation against what seem to be, at root, arbitrary standards of what constitutes “rights” and how those rights should be arbitrated when they conflict.
To the contrary, invoking a biblical standard in deciding what liberties should be enjoyed and what ones should not promises, I think, to open up a whole new strategy of debate on social issues and open up discussion much more relevant issues than endless cycles of dispute over “natural rights” and other notions precipitated wholly by human thought. Its time to invoke a standard outside of ourselves, and standard, that, I think, is true. Why not.
Maybe I’m idealist; overly optimistic. After all, maybe this new strategy won’t be as simple as I think. After all, even if we did adopt the Bible as our standard for public policy and liberty, would it indeed clarify anything? Are there not many and diverse ways of interpreting the scriptures?
Undoubtedly yes. Place any two churches side by side and you’ll get a taste of what that’s like. But surely there are some basic principles that could be agreed up and forcefully argued and articulated from God’s word that would provide a lens by which to judge public policy and proper restraint of liberty.
So challenge me. Correct me where I may be wrong; where I might be overlooking a key aspect of an issue or oversimplyfying the problem or the solution. In the meantime though, at least, I think the Biblical world view is more relevant and tenable than most Americans, politicians, and pastors think.
Astuteness in Filmaking: John Moore and David Heustis
Part of astuteness is realizing that media communication is poweful. Americans are spending more and more time plugged into ipods and glued to the tube. Thus, part of any plan to influence the culture in a christian fashion will include using the medium of film to spread the Christian message and present the astute, biblical worldview in a cogent fashion.
With that in mind, I’m pleased to present the latest from John Moore and David Heustis–two young Chrisitian young men who understand the necessity of spreading the Chrisitian worldview through the medium of film and have been a rising item of notice in the Christian Filmakers movement, as begun by Doug Phillips of the Vision Forum.
I first met John Moore at the 2006 San Antonio Independent Christian Filmakers Academy in San Antonio, Texas, and later caught up again with both he and his associated, David Heustis, at a local film showing. Both of them have a passion for glorifying God in all they say and do, as is quite evident by their blog.
And now, the latest from HeuMoore Productions:
Our last film, ‘Heartstrings’, was a tremendous hit… We marvel at God’s richness in provision for us in that film, and the way it is touching lives. In just a few short months, Heartstrings won the prestigious Audience Choice award at the largest Christian Film Festival in the world, and has become the second highest rated film on all of ChristianBook.com; competing against 6,200 other films.
Now, HeuMoore is gearing up for it’s biggest, most powerful film yet; The Widow’s Might. Another adventure in the lives of the Siblings cast, The Widow’s Might tells an important and touching story about an elderly Widow, and several families defending her most cherished earthly treasure. WidowsMightTheMovie.com has a short promotional teaser with some facts about the film.
The Widow’s Might is too big for us to do alone;
Stay informed! – Go to WidowsMightTheMovie.com, and sign up for email updates. We need a solid email base of supporters, and we want you to be a part of the movement!
Recruit! – Get 10 of your friends or family to sign up on the email list, and tell them about our success with Heartstrings. Forward this email to everyone in your inbox, and post this information on your blog!
Support! – The cost of feature film productions is high, but you can support The Widow’s Might by purchasing the Heartstrings DVD. Father’s Day is coming soon, and Heartstrings is not only a great film for your family, but is the perfect gift choice, with meaning and power. Order it Here. HeartstringsTheMovie.com
Be a Leader,
Be a part of this movement toward God honoring films. The industry can only thrive with your support!
~ In Christ, John.
These two young men have produced three, and soon, four, feature length movies that are of ever increasing quality. I could try to give a biography detailing their journey, but it would be in vain compared to the writing style John Moore untilizes on his blog Life, By John, which I heartily recommend to your reading from start to finish.
Their features, films, and shorts can be seen here
Fundamental Astuteness 
Some commentary on using Bible Study Commentaries…
leave a comment »
It is not uncommon these days to run into people who don’t believe in using scholarly bible commentaries for their bible study. These people seem to think that using a commentary by some noted pastor or teacher will somehow impair their ability to experience God’s word in the fullest, personal way, and so they instead focus on what they can draw from the text by themselves.
I could go on and on about various arguments for either side of the issue and come to a conclusion using brilliant english and vocabulary skills. But such expounding would, I think, divert attention to where it is best placed regarding the issue: A quote by one of the most recognized Christian preachers of the 1800’s–Charles Spurgeon, Prince of Preachers. He once stated, referring to those who don’t use commentaries in their study of the Word, that:
Written by Astuteness
June 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Posted in Charles Spurgeon, Christianity, Commentaries, Religion