Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bible tweets?
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
- If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It's certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not... - Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster's going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God's prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don't know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, bible study, Christianity, David Schuster, homosexuality, MSNBC
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Atheistic gambits
Saw most of the NOVA documentary on the Intelligent Design (ID) movement on PBS tonight, and I thought it was poorly conceived. In essence, it amounted to a one-sided, ad hominem attack whose chief argument was that ID proponents are dunces and perjurers.
The response to irreducible complexity was particularly bad. Sure, there may be other molecular designs in nature that share many common components with a full-fledged flagellum (like that alliteration there?), but do they serve the same purpose? Are they attempting to perform the same function in a "less evolved" way? (Such questions highlight why the "mousetrap" stunt the anti-ID folks employed fails to refute irreducible complexity.) And even if there is commonality of design, it doesn't prove that less complex forms are necessarily transitory in an evolutionary sense. The only way one would come to such a conclusion by default is if he or she presupposes a naturalistic framework.
And that's really the key issue, I think. Why should presuppositional naturalism and its proffered theory of origins receive unqualified state sanction and preference? The inference to design is reasonably performed by every human being every day vis-a-vis objects and systems that are less complex by orders of magnitude than the molecular machinery present inside a single cell. ID makes the same logical inference with respect to origins theory; the real problem people have with it is not that it is a bastardization of science that would unhinge our entire education system, but rather the fact that it deigns to compete with some of atheism's underlying sacred cows, as well as its choke hold on our public schools.
I have an idea. If we can't see our way clear to allow ID to be taught at the very least as a possible inference from scientific data that's available to us, let's get ideology out of the picture entirely and not teach naturalism either. And for all of you who are squealing that ID is not falsifiable and therefore nonscientific, the same could be said of the atheist's pet assertion that philosophical naturalism is a necessary corollary of the scientific method.
William Lane Craig, one of my favorite apologists, has an audio blog full of commentary on current events. In a recent post, he discusses "the new atheism" and its designs on our children and parental rights, as well as the faulty premise that polytheism is innately more "tolerant" than monotheism.
Some of this is disturbing stuff, some of it gets downright funny (listen to Craig's voice crack when he's describing the absurdity of a professor's assertions about polytheism). All of it is important listening. Check it out...
Saw most of the NOVA documentary on the Intelligent Design (ID) movement on PBS tonight, and I thought it was poorly conceived. In essence, it amounted to a one-sided, ad hominem attack whose chief argument was that ID proponents are dunces and perjurers.
The response to irreducible complexity was particularly bad. Sure, there may be other molecular designs in nature that share many common components with a full-fledged flagellum (like that alliteration there?), but do they serve the same purpose? Are they attempting to perform the same function in a "less evolved" way? (Such questions highlight why the "mousetrap" stunt the anti-ID folks employed fails to refute irreducible complexity.) And even if there is commonality of design, it doesn't prove that less complex forms are necessarily transitory in an evolutionary sense. The only way one would come to such a conclusion by default is if he or she presupposes a naturalistic framework.
And that's really the key issue, I think. Why should presuppositional naturalism and its proffered theory of origins receive unqualified state sanction and preference? The inference to design is reasonably performed by every human being every day vis-a-vis objects and systems that are less complex by orders of magnitude than the molecular machinery present inside a single cell. ID makes the same logical inference with respect to origins theory; the real problem people have with it is not that it is a bastardization of science that would unhinge our entire education system, but rather the fact that it deigns to compete with some of atheism's underlying sacred cows, as well as its choke hold on our public schools.
I have an idea. If we can't see our way clear to allow ID to be taught at the very least as a possible inference from scientific data that's available to us, let's get ideology out of the picture entirely and not teach naturalism either. And for all of you who are squealing that ID is not falsifiable and therefore nonscientific, the same could be said of the atheist's pet assertion that philosophical naturalism is a necessary corollary of the scientific method.
William Lane Craig, one of my favorite apologists, has an audio blog full of commentary on current events. In a recent post, he discusses "the new atheism" and its designs on our children and parental rights, as well as the faulty premise that polytheism is innately more "tolerant" than monotheism.
Some of this is disturbing stuff, some of it gets downright funny (listen to Craig's voice crack when he's describing the absurdity of a professor's assertions about polytheism). All of it is important listening. Check it out...
Labels: apologetics, atheism, evolution, intelligent design, neo-paganism, William Lane Craig
Monday, June 04, 2007
Go MonT-SteR, it's your birthday...
That's right, friends. As of today, The MonT-SteR is yet another year into the thirty-somethings. Here is a l-o-n-g installment of From the MonT-SteR's Mouth, where I pontificate on being midway through this decade of my life and rant on some apologetical issues that have been front and center in the public recently.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
That's right, friends. As of today, The MonT-SteR is yet another year into the thirty-somethings. Here is a l-o-n-g installment of From the MonT-SteR's Mouth, where I pontificate on being midway through this decade of my life and rant on some apologetical issues that have been front and center in the public recently.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, birthday, Kirk Cameron, Rational Response, Ray Comfort, The MonT-SteR
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
From the apologetics dept.
Since I first took an interest in apologetics, I've had the opportunity to hear some Islamic scholars debate the veracity of Christianity. I was particularly impressed with a gentleman by the name of Shabir Ally, who debated Mike Licona (a protege of Dr. Gary Habermas) on the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection at Regent University a few of years ago. Mr. Ally was highly conversant with a lot of Christian scholarship, and used terminology that only Christian seminarians and their professors would typically be familiar with. It was obvious that he studied Christianity carefully; for that, he earned my respect. I was also pleased by the demeanor of both Licona and Ally. They were respectful of one another, and they didn't make any low blows or try to score points with mere rhetoric. The debate was very substantive and enjoyable.
In all candor, however, I have to state frankly that Ally's arguments were not convincing. The core of his case was that the Christian Scriptures contain an accretion of unsubstantiated tradition vis-a-vis Jesus' death and resurrection from Mark (the earliest of the Gospels) to John (the latest). But I never heard him advance any kind of critical model (textual or source/redaction) that would explain such a phenomenon. In the end, he spent two hours basically assuming what he was trying to prove: that the Gospels had been tainted, and that Islam's account of the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection (which, according to Islam, never happened) is to be preferred.
From a forensic point of view, Ally lost the debate hands down. Licona relied primarily on the timeline of Paul's life, his writings, and extra-biblical sources to establish his case; for the sake of argument, he didn't even deal with the Gospel accounts. As well read in Christian scholarship as Ally was, I don't think he was fully prepared to deal with Licona's line of argumentation; he ended up beating a straw man the entire debate. Near the end, Licona finally managed to get Ally to deal more directly with the substance of his rationale. Ally's only response was to assert that Paul fell prey to the same corrupted tradition that is contained in the Gospel accounts -- again, without constructing any sort of literary or historical model that would support such an assertion.
I relate this story because Shabir Ally's name came up again recently while I was bouncing around on the Internet. I stumbled upon the Alpha and Omega Ministries Web site, which is an outreach of apologist Dr. James White. He's a sharp guy and an effective debater; I was previously unaware of his ministry, but now that I've had a chance to get better acquainted with it, I'm glad he's out there. Incidentally, he travels in Reformed circles --- which means he's theologically Calvinist and apologetically presuppositionalist. As an aside, The MonT-SteR is still chewing on Calvinism (I have a REAL problem with total depravity and limited atonement), and although the presuppositional apologetical method is particularly effective against atheistic materialism, I typically find evidentialism a la Mike Licona and Gary Habermas to be a more comfortable and effective strategy in most conversations I've had.
Anyway, Dr. White has a weekly radio show/podcast called "The Dividing Line," and a couple of months ago he devoted two whole shows to commenting on a debate between Shabir Ally and William Lane Craig. I should mention that Dr. Craig is partially responsible for sparking my own interest in apologetics in the early 90's, so I've always had high regard for his keen intellect, his facility as a debater, and the character he exhibits when he goes toe to toe with ardent proponents of atheism and other anti-Christian worldviews. He really does know how to contend for the faith without being contentious.
But in his debate with Ally, he made some terrible blunders. Nobody is ever going to bat 1.000 in such circumstances, but Dr. White actually took the time to point out how Craig's missteps were the result of his theological perspective on God's love and original sin. It was the latter issue that struck me. Shabir was arguing that Allah creates people in a saved state; he then quizzically stated that Craig was asserting something outrageous: that humanity was innately depraved and in need of forgiveness from God on that basis.
This, of course, is one of the core messages of Christianity. Ally was nonplussed by it because it flies in the face of Muslim theology, anthropology, and soteriology. I was fully expecting Craig to leverage the fact that Ally more or less stumbled into Christian doctrine and argue clearly for it, but he didn't. He said the following:
I still have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Craig and his ministry, but I've never heard him step in it like that. Dr. White blames it squarely on Craig's Arminianism. Perhaps. Like I said, nobody's going to bat 1.000.... I know that all too well from personal experience.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Since I first took an interest in apologetics, I've had the opportunity to hear some Islamic scholars debate the veracity of Christianity. I was particularly impressed with a gentleman by the name of Shabir Ally, who debated Mike Licona (a protege of Dr. Gary Habermas) on the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection at Regent University a few of years ago. Mr. Ally was highly conversant with a lot of Christian scholarship, and used terminology that only Christian seminarians and their professors would typically be familiar with. It was obvious that he studied Christianity carefully; for that, he earned my respect. I was also pleased by the demeanor of both Licona and Ally. They were respectful of one another, and they didn't make any low blows or try to score points with mere rhetoric. The debate was very substantive and enjoyable.
In all candor, however, I have to state frankly that Ally's arguments were not convincing. The core of his case was that the Christian Scriptures contain an accretion of unsubstantiated tradition vis-a-vis Jesus' death and resurrection from Mark (the earliest of the Gospels) to John (the latest). But I never heard him advance any kind of critical model (textual or source/redaction) that would explain such a phenomenon. In the end, he spent two hours basically assuming what he was trying to prove: that the Gospels had been tainted, and that Islam's account of the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection (which, according to Islam, never happened) is to be preferred.
From a forensic point of view, Ally lost the debate hands down. Licona relied primarily on the timeline of Paul's life, his writings, and extra-biblical sources to establish his case; for the sake of argument, he didn't even deal with the Gospel accounts. As well read in Christian scholarship as Ally was, I don't think he was fully prepared to deal with Licona's line of argumentation; he ended up beating a straw man the entire debate. Near the end, Licona finally managed to get Ally to deal more directly with the substance of his rationale. Ally's only response was to assert that Paul fell prey to the same corrupted tradition that is contained in the Gospel accounts -- again, without constructing any sort of literary or historical model that would support such an assertion.
I relate this story because Shabir Ally's name came up again recently while I was bouncing around on the Internet. I stumbled upon the Alpha and Omega Ministries Web site, which is an outreach of apologist Dr. James White. He's a sharp guy and an effective debater; I was previously unaware of his ministry, but now that I've had a chance to get better acquainted with it, I'm glad he's out there. Incidentally, he travels in Reformed circles --- which means he's theologically Calvinist and apologetically presuppositionalist. As an aside, The MonT-SteR is still chewing on Calvinism (I have a REAL problem with total depravity and limited atonement), and although the presuppositional apologetical method is particularly effective against atheistic materialism, I typically find evidentialism a la Mike Licona and Gary Habermas to be a more comfortable and effective strategy in most conversations I've had.
Anyway, Dr. White has a weekly radio show/podcast called "The Dividing Line," and a couple of months ago he devoted two whole shows to commenting on a debate between Shabir Ally and William Lane Craig. I should mention that Dr. Craig is partially responsible for sparking my own interest in apologetics in the early 90's, so I've always had high regard for his keen intellect, his facility as a debater, and the character he exhibits when he goes toe to toe with ardent proponents of atheism and other anti-Christian worldviews. He really does know how to contend for the faith without being contentious.
But in his debate with Ally, he made some terrible blunders. Nobody is ever going to bat 1.000 in such circumstances, but Dr. White actually took the time to point out how Craig's missteps were the result of his theological perspective on God's love and original sin. It was the latter issue that struck me. Shabir was arguing that Allah creates people in a saved state; he then quizzically stated that Craig was asserting something outrageous: that humanity was innately depraved and in need of forgiveness from God on that basis.
This, of course, is one of the core messages of Christianity. Ally was nonplussed by it because it flies in the face of Muslim theology, anthropology, and soteriology. I was fully expecting Craig to leverage the fact that Ally more or less stumbled into Christian doctrine and argue clearly for it, but he didn't. He said the following:
Shabir thinks that I'm presupposing that people are born depraved. Not at all. I'm willing to set aside the doctrine of original sin...OOH, Dr. Craig -- say it ain't so! And Ally called him on it, as you can hear in Dr. White's podcast. Now, I am not (yet) persuaded of the veracity of Calvinism, so I'm not prepared to embrace its conception of the doctrine of the total depravity of man (sorry Dr. White -- please don't beat me up!). But I do accept the premise of original sin and the noetic effect it has on our ability to respond to God. However one may define the depravity of man and its outworking, "setting aside" original sin -- even as a debate tactic -- is ceding sacred ground to your opponent. Why give away one of the central tenets of our faith? What point is there in arguing for the Christian conception of God's forgiveness when you're willing to ignore the very reason we need it?
I still have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Craig and his ministry, but I've never heard him step in it like that. Dr. White blames it squarely on Craig's Arminianism. Perhaps. Like I said, nobody's going to bat 1.000.... I know that all too well from personal experience.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, Shabir Ally, William Lane Craig
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
From the apologetics dept.
This morning I listened with interest as Tony Macrini, who hosts the morning news program on the local talk radio station (WNIS), discussed the intelligent design movement with a caller to his show.
I am a fairly regular listener to Macrini's show, and I have come to respect him as an intelligent and well versed man -- especially in matters of history. He is also a self-avowed atheist and candid declaimer of Christianity and all things theistic. I, on the other hand, am no friend to atheistic thought, so Macrini and Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ certainly part ways in matters of faith (or the lack thereof).
Given Tony's aversion to theism, his response to the aforementioned caller was not surprising. In essence, he debunked the notion of inferring a Designer from the complexity of the universe, but not by directly attacking the intelligent design movement. Instead, he took issue with the cosmological argument Christians typically use to posit a creator:
This very objection is why I don't find the standard cosmological argument to be very effective. It opens the door to an infinite regress of causes, which plays right into the atheist's hands. The way I see it, an infinite regress of causes is only possible in an infinite universe. Evolutionists are more comfy with the idea of an infinite space-time continuum, because the process of evolution itself practically requires an infinite timeline to be plausible. Happily, there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that the universe is a closed system that had its origin around 16 billion years ago. In such a system, an infinite regress of causes is not possible because it would result in circular causality (each effect becomes its own cause, which requires it to exist before it exists).
It seems to me that Macrini objected to the cosmological argument because he finds the kind of "self-existence" implicit in circular causality to be self-stultifying -- or, at the very least, a defeater of the notion of an uncaused First Cause. But I submit that Darwinian evolution depends on circular causality in order to be true. What we call "life" is merely the product of an endless stream of physical and chemical processes at work, which are themselves the product of physical and chemical processes at work, ad infinitum.
In light of this problem of infinite regress, the kalam cosmological argument offers a stronger foundation for building a case for intelligent design:
Food for thought.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
This morning I listened with interest as Tony Macrini, who hosts the morning news program on the local talk radio station (WNIS), discussed the intelligent design movement with a caller to his show.
I am a fairly regular listener to Macrini's show, and I have come to respect him as an intelligent and well versed man -- especially in matters of history. He is also a self-avowed atheist and candid declaimer of Christianity and all things theistic. I, on the other hand, am no friend to atheistic thought, so Macrini and Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ certainly part ways in matters of faith (or the lack thereof).
Given Tony's aversion to theism, his response to the aforementioned caller was not surprising. In essence, he debunked the notion of inferring a Designer from the complexity of the universe, but not by directly attacking the intelligent design movement. Instead, he took issue with the cosmological argument Christians typically use to posit a creator:
- The notion of existence implies agency, i.e., all things that exist are brought into being by some causal factor.
- The universe exists.
- Therefore, it owes its existence to a Beginner, a First Cause.
- By definition, this First Cause must be both greater than the universe and outside of it.
- Theists are wont to identify this Beginner or First Cause as God.
This very objection is why I don't find the standard cosmological argument to be very effective. It opens the door to an infinite regress of causes, which plays right into the atheist's hands. The way I see it, an infinite regress of causes is only possible in an infinite universe. Evolutionists are more comfy with the idea of an infinite space-time continuum, because the process of evolution itself practically requires an infinite timeline to be plausible. Happily, there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that the universe is a closed system that had its origin around 16 billion years ago. In such a system, an infinite regress of causes is not possible because it would result in circular causality (each effect becomes its own cause, which requires it to exist before it exists).
It seems to me that Macrini objected to the cosmological argument because he finds the kind of "self-existence" implicit in circular causality to be self-stultifying -- or, at the very least, a defeater of the notion of an uncaused First Cause. But I submit that Darwinian evolution depends on circular causality in order to be true. What we call "life" is merely the product of an endless stream of physical and chemical processes at work, which are themselves the product of physical and chemical processes at work, ad infinitum.
In light of this problem of infinite regress, the kalam cosmological argument offers a stronger foundation for building a case for intelligent design:
- All things which begin to exist have a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.
Food for thought.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, atheism, creationism, theology
