As Chopin said, “There is only one thing more beautiful than one guitar: two guitars”.
John Williams and John Etheridge: Sangara by Francis Bebey
Reply
Good, clean, wholesome Christian music
h/t: IM
Richard Dawkins, raving incoherently
Dawkins has a new book:
Richard Dawkins, the author of controversial bestseller The God Delusion, says that people who reject the theory of evolution are as misguided as those who deny the Holocaust.
In his new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist states that evolution is “beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt… [and] no reputable scientist disputes it.”
He compares creationists, or ‘intelligent design’ proponents to the Holocaust deniers.
“Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators,” writes Dr Dawkins.
Richard seems to be bent on trumping prior inanities with yet new Dawkinisms – as evidence of committed glaikery one presumes.
First of all, the fatuous creationist-Holocaust denial comparison: creationists, be they right or wrong, are not about to use their belief as justification for wiping out a race of people. In contrast, for Hitler’s Nazis, Darwinism was an inspiration for their eugenics program, racism and Fascism; even through Dawkins rejects this variety of social Darwinism, it follows easily and logically from Darwin’s theories and Dawkins has little reason to reject it other than English fastidiousness.
Secondly, there are many reputable scientists that are Christians and would dispute the Godless variety of evolution that is the subject of Dawkins’ proselytising.
Thirdly, even though Dawkins works hard to obscure it, the battle that he is engaged in has never been between science and Christianity but between a view of reality that includes God and one that doesn’t. Science itself has nothing to say about the validity of either view and neither – as a scientist – does Dawkins even though he does like to play the theologian-manqué much of the time.
More on the Lockerbie bomber
Here are two very different views of Scotland’s release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. The first is from Anglican bishop and theologian N. T. Wright who believes, among other things, that the British see things differently from the U.S. – N. T. Wright certainly does. Even though the U.K. mood is illogical, one gets the impression that Wright approves of it as he tut-tuts about Abu Graib and U.S. anti-Arab sentiment. And all this is from a bishop whose country is home to the BNP.
Many people in the UK see the reaction in the U.S. as being typical U.S. anti-Arab and particularly anti-Libya reaction. Because we are conditioned to be a bit worried about U.S. knee-jerk pro-Israel attitudes we tend to distance ourselves from that kind of position. Please note, I am NOT saying any of this is particularly significant in terms of the actual decision, just that it is the context within which the debate is going on. Many in the UK have been horrified, too, by the ongoing sagas about Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay and so on, and in consequence do not like being told by America how to treat prisoners. This may be illogical but it’s the mood at the moment. I know that most Americans do not like being told by Brits how to do things either; that comes with the territory ever since George Washington vs King George III. So be it.
A different perspective from Chuck Colson:
Scotland has made a mockery of justice. Ask the families of the 270 people al-Megrahi murdered.
By any measure, serving only eight years in prison for blowing up an airplane full of people is nothing short of scandalous. Surely there are appropriate ways to show mercy — even to a terminally ill mass murderer: Scotland could have given him palliative medical care, could have allowed family visits, or even arranged for family to stay with al-Megrahi during his last days.
In his essay, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” Christian writer C. S. Lewis argued that we ought to punish people for no other purpose than just deserts, and in so doing, we recognize that humans are free moral agents, responsible for our actions. That’s why Lewis wrote, “To be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”
Forgiving other people’s enemies is easy
As Stephen Hough notes in the Telegraph:
The whole world is buzzing again about Lockerbie, and in particular about the early release from prison of convicted terrorist, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
I watched the BBC programme Newsnight on Thursday last week and heard the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s statement and subsequent interview with Gavin Esler. Something struck me instantly which I’ve not yet read in any of the other reports flooding the media at this difficult time: the profound Christian overtones of MacAskill’s words – “compassion … compunction … mercy”. I think what he did was a mistake, but perhaps for different reasons than some other commentators. The problem here is that, theologically speaking, we can only forgive someone who offends (sins against) us. “Forgive your enemies” … not your neighbour’s enemies: “If someone asks for your coat give them your tunic as well” … but not Mr Jones’s tunic.
The same tendency is seen – ironically enough – in churches, many of whom are preoccupied with giving grovelling apologies on behalf of their forebears. Anglican Church of Canada Primate, Fred Hiltz loves to apologise for sins he did not commit hoping, one assumes, that it will divert attention from those he did. The compassion he shows for Indigenous Canadians is apparently boundless. In contrast, the rapacious greed he exhibits in the various lawsuits in which the ACoC is engaged in its attempt to grab property, is also boundless.
Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had interesting things to say
According to Sebastian Faulks:
Sebastian Faulks, the best-selling author, has risked angering Muslims after claiming the Koran has “no ethical dimension” and dismissing the words of Muhammad as the “rantings of a schizophrenic”.
Faulks claims that the Koran offers no interesting stories compared with the Bible, and simply tells its readers to believe in God or “burn forever”.
“There is also the barrenness of the message. I mean, there are some bits about diet, you know, the equivalent of the Old Testament, which is also crazy.
“But the great thing about the Old Testament is that it does have these incredible stories. Of the 100 greatest stories ever told, about 99 are probably in the Old Testament and the other is in Homer,” he said.
“With the Koran there are no stories. And it has no ethical dimension like the New Testament, no new plan for life.”
And in a move that is likely to anger many Muslims, he calls into question the worth of Muhammad.
“Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had interesting things to say. He proposed a revolutionary way of looking at the world: love you neighbour, love your enemy, be kind to people, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Muhammad had nothing to say to the world other than, ‘If you don’t believe in God you will burn forever.'”
Predictably, Faulks has been accused of stirring up religious hatred against Muslims. By blowing up innocent people and rejoicing in their deaths, Muslims do a far better job of fomenting hatred against themselves than Faulks’ paltry efforts; that fact probably isn’t something that will keep him safe, though.
Science and Christianity
The incomparable John Lennox on science and Christianity:
[youtube= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN10IFPX2OE]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Wtpkf9cTQ]
A superb series; listen to it all starting Here.
Blaspheming in Ireland
Is to be no more: Ireland introduces a new blasphemy law:
The Irish government plans to bring into force a new law in October that critics say is a return to medieval justice.
The legislation, aimed at providing judges with clear direction on the 1937 Constitution’s blasphemy prohibition, imposes a fine of up to 25,000 euros — about $39,000 — for anyone who “publishes or utters matter that is [intentionally meant to be] grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”
Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use “reasonable force” to obtain incriminating evidence.
The truth is, there are already blasphemy laws actively operating in every Western nation: they only prohibit an offence against Islam, though and the penalty is often death at the hands of a demented Muslim. So effective are the existing laws that a new book from Yale Press – the fearless bastion of controversy and free speech – is self-censoring itself by not publishing the notorious Mohammed cartoons in a book about the cartoons.
At least the new Irish blasphemy law evens things up by prohibiting Christian blasphemy too – although the penalty is a measly maximum of $39,000, not death.
Richard Dawkins has an opinion, of course:
“It is a wretched, backward, uncivilized regression to the Middle Ages,” said prominent atheist author Richard Dawkins in a statement last month, arguing that the law risks shattering Ireland’s new image as a “modern, civilized . . . green and pleasant silicon valley.”
Now, Richard, since when did you care about civilisation? As long as we are evolving, surely that’s all that matters; why are you not happy with the remorseless evolution that produced this new blasphemy law?
A New Creed
The United Church of Canada has a new Moderator, Mardi Tindal. According to recent reports, “She tweets. She’s green. She’s media savvy. She’s animated.” – all laudable accomplishments which St. Peter and St. Paul sadly lacked. In addition to a new moderator, the United Church has also invented a new language where “belief is a noun and faith is a verb.”
New Moderator, new language and, new Creed – some would say, new religion. In keeping with modern family life, the Father is absent:
We are not alone,
we live in God’s world.
We believe in God:
who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus,
the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others
by the Spirit.We trust in God.
We are called to be the Church:
to celebrate God’s presence,
to live with respect in Creation,
to love and serve others,
to seek justice and resist evil,
to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope.
In life, in death, in life beyond death,
God is with us.We are not alone.
Thanks be to God.
Indeed, we are not alone; The Truth Is Out There; I Want To Believe.
Alpha
I’ve just returned from the Alpha Greater Toronto Area Equip & Refresh Conference.
Although I have been a part of many of the Alpha courses that my parish has run over the years, this is the first time we have considered trying a home Alpha course; my wife tells me that I have to be pleasant, welcoming and hospitable, which proves that both she and God have a sense of humour.
I do like the Alpha approach because Nicky Gumbel appeals to reason to make his case for Christianity; I also like the new Alpha promotional video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz9oTbBUtR8]