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
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A question of questionable focus
Our senior pastor preached a very stimulating message today about bearing one another's burdens (see Galatians 6:2).
In a nutshell, he talked about how Christians often pride themselves on how they don't "drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with those who do." There's an indignation we sometimes feel at the more flagrant sorts of sin that are, shall we say, more colloquial in nature.
Our pastor then posed the following questions:
As I read the Gospels, Jesus reserved the most stinging rebuke not for the likes of prostitutes or even swindlers like Zaccheus, but the self-righteous prigs of the religious establishment who were high on their own asceticism.
Pharasaism is no substitute for Christlikeness.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Our senior pastor preached a very stimulating message today about bearing one another's burdens (see Galatians 6:2).
In a nutshell, he talked about how Christians often pride themselves on how they don't "drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with those who do." There's an indignation we sometimes feel at the more flagrant sorts of sin that are, shall we say, more colloquial in nature.
Our pastor then posed the following questions:
- How often do those of us who are so very proud of our abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, movies, etc. "fulfill the law of Christ" by bearing the burdens of others?
- If the answer is infrequently, then why is that sin of omission somehow less execrable or more tolerable than more banal forms of carnality?
As I read the Gospels, Jesus reserved the most stinging rebuke not for the likes of prostitutes or even swindlers like Zaccheus, but the self-righteous prigs of the religious establishment who were high on their own asceticism.
Pharasaism is no substitute for Christlikeness.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, discipleship, faithfulness, fellowship, sermon, theology
Saturday, January 20, 2007
String theory, of all things
And now for something completely different...
I came across a draft of an e-mail that I wrote a long time ago in response to an acquaintance of mine (henceforth referred to as Dee) who is enamored with the possibility of intersections between string theory and numinous Christian experience, particularly of the divine. Dee suggested that string theory might provide an explanation for some of the more mystical elements of Christian faith, including communion with the Almighty and the communion of the saints. I was troubled by some of the theological implications of such thinking, and did a bit of reading on the subject so I could respond.
I have to admit that I chickened out. I think my points were valid insofar as Christianity itself goes, but I'm on far more tenuous footing when it comes to pontificating on string theory. I also wanted to avoid causing hard feelings. So, after composing the message, I decided against sending it. But as I ran across it today, I liked the general thrust of my thoughts -- finer points of string theory aside, I think my argument holds water. And so, for your reading enjoyment, here is a short little diatribe against using string theory to explain spiritual phenomena:
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
And now for something completely different...
I came across a draft of an e-mail that I wrote a long time ago in response to an acquaintance of mine (henceforth referred to as Dee) who is enamored with the possibility of intersections between string theory and numinous Christian experience, particularly of the divine. Dee suggested that string theory might provide an explanation for some of the more mystical elements of Christian faith, including communion with the Almighty and the communion of the saints. I was troubled by some of the theological implications of such thinking, and did a bit of reading on the subject so I could respond.
I have to admit that I chickened out. I think my points were valid insofar as Christianity itself goes, but I'm on far more tenuous footing when it comes to pontificating on string theory. I also wanted to avoid causing hard feelings. So, after composing the message, I decided against sending it. But as I ran across it today, I liked the general thrust of my thoughts -- finer points of string theory aside, I think my argument holds water. And so, for your reading enjoyment, here is a short little diatribe against using string theory to explain spiritual phenomena:
Hey, Dee! I received your essay on the theological implications of string theory -- what a thought-provoking treatment of the subject! I can tell that you put a lot of careful thinking and effort into it. That said, some of the questions you pose gave me pause, and I wanted to see what you thought of my response.And that's my two cents on the matter.
I know that string theory posits the existence of dimensions beyond length, height, width, and time. It's very possible that I'm mistaken here, but I seem to recall that scientists speak of a total of 10 space-time dimensions: 4 that we commonly deal with, plus 6 that are unbelievably small and somehow "attached" to the main 4. If I understand string theory correctly, it's within these 6 additional dimensions that strings oscillate.
I would tend to disagree with the notion that strings somehow enable us to tune in or out of God's "wavelength," as you suggest. That's actually a naturalistic way of explaining a spiritual phenomenon. If string theory is true, then it is part of the natural order that God made. I think a good case can be made that God is extradimensional, i.e., He transcends the space-time continuum to which the natural order is bound. If that's accurate (and I think Scripture bears this out), then spiritual phenomena such as communion with God, the unity of the saints, or anything that (as you put it) "gets us on God's wavelength," should be seen as the inbreaking of the transcendent God within the natural order.
We belong simultaneously to two worlds -- both the now and the not yet. As such, we are a curious intersection of flesh and spirit, earth and heaven, natural and supernatural. Your thinking on string theory is undeniably innovative, and I fully appreciate your expression of awe at the ingenuity and complexity of God's handiwork. In my opinion, however, it's a grave mistake to attempt to explain the human soul or our experience of God's presence by invoking what is essentially a physical process. Atheistic materialists do the very same thing in an effort to deny the supernatural (and thereby Christian theism) altogether. Rather than providing a convincing apologetic for Christianity, you have unintentionally given those antagonistic to Christian theism logical and philosophical ammo.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: science, string theory, theology
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
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Thoughts on Hell, Part I
"Why, oh WHY, Mr. MonT-SteR, would you write about such a morbid and terrifying subject?"
Well, friends, I have to confess that I don't really like doing it. As I mentioned in my last post, I feel compelled to do so. You'll see why as you read on.
I need to begin by first relating a conversation I had in college with someone who found herself increasingly at odds with the Christian faith she had grown up with. For the sake of this post, I'll refer to her as Mona. Mona's boyfriend at the time was an ardent atheist, and a very bright one at that. No doubt his questions and points of disagreement with Christianity seemed insurmountable to her, and so Mona teetered between belief and apostasy.
A chance meeting between the two of us in the hall of our dorm gave us the opportunity to chat, which in turn brought up matters of faith (or the lack thereof). Eventually, Mona confessed that she was nearly prepared to chuck her faith altogether.
"Really?" I asked, with an alarm I couldn't hide. "How come?"
"Because there are things about Christianity that I don't think are right," she said. "For example, I just don't believe that a good and loving God would send people to Hell."
We both had classes to attend, so time didn't allow for any further discussion on the matter until later. But I knew enough to understand that Mona's objection was ill-formed -- it didn't accurately reflect a Christian understanding of judgment and punishment of the wicked.
"Well," I replied, "I have to say that I disagree with you on that. If you'd like, we can talk about it later."
Mona said she'd like that, and we went our separate ways.
I'm sorry to say that a combination of busyness and shifting social circles made our parting that day a permanent one. I never did get to talk with Mona about Hell or any of the other Christian doctrines she was struggling with. But our short conversation serves to illustrate what a stumbling block the notion of Hell can be to belief in Christ. Millions of people ask Mona's question every day: How can a good and loving God allow people to suffer unspeakable horrors in Hell for all eternity?
But tMR readers asked another question at the beginning of my post: Why write about this of all things? Well, I actually pretended that 1) tMR actually has readers, and 2) said pretend readers actually asked that question. Pathetic as that may be, here's my two-part answer:
Stay tuned for Part II....
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
"Why, oh WHY, Mr. MonT-SteR, would you write about such a morbid and terrifying subject?"
Well, friends, I have to confess that I don't really like doing it. As I mentioned in my last post, I feel compelled to do so. You'll see why as you read on.
I need to begin by first relating a conversation I had in college with someone who found herself increasingly at odds with the Christian faith she had grown up with. For the sake of this post, I'll refer to her as Mona. Mona's boyfriend at the time was an ardent atheist, and a very bright one at that. No doubt his questions and points of disagreement with Christianity seemed insurmountable to her, and so Mona teetered between belief and apostasy.
A chance meeting between the two of us in the hall of our dorm gave us the opportunity to chat, which in turn brought up matters of faith (or the lack thereof). Eventually, Mona confessed that she was nearly prepared to chuck her faith altogether.
"Really?" I asked, with an alarm I couldn't hide. "How come?"
"Because there are things about Christianity that I don't think are right," she said. "For example, I just don't believe that a good and loving God would send people to Hell."
We both had classes to attend, so time didn't allow for any further discussion on the matter until later. But I knew enough to understand that Mona's objection was ill-formed -- it didn't accurately reflect a Christian understanding of judgment and punishment of the wicked.
"Well," I replied, "I have to say that I disagree with you on that. If you'd like, we can talk about it later."
Mona said she'd like that, and we went our separate ways.
I'm sorry to say that a combination of busyness and shifting social circles made our parting that day a permanent one. I never did get to talk with Mona about Hell or any of the other Christian doctrines she was struggling with. But our short conversation serves to illustrate what a stumbling block the notion of Hell can be to belief in Christ. Millions of people ask Mona's question every day: How can a good and loving God allow people to suffer unspeakable horrors in Hell for all eternity?
But tMR readers asked another question at the beginning of my post: Why write about this of all things? Well, I actually pretended that 1) tMR actually has readers, and 2) said pretend readers actually asked that question. Pathetic as that may be, here's my two-part answer:
- I want to explore the biblical case for the reality of Hell. Is it solid, tenuous, or inconclusive? Through that process, I hope to present an accurate picture of Hell that may serve to remove an obstacle to belief in Christ for some who read The MonT-SteR REPORT.
- I am embarking on this project because I recently had two extremely vivid and disturbing dreams about Hell. I belong to the camp in Christianity that believes God still chooses dreams as a means of communication that is both secondary and subservient to the record of Scripture. Hence, I feel that the dreams I had may reflect the reality of Hell in some measure. But I only want to discuss them in light of what the Bible has to say on the matter, since it is the authoritative standard for Christian faith and praxis.
Stay tuned for Part II....
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: dreams, eschatology, hell, theology
