November 26, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
Themed Bibles are generally a bad idea. For one thing, every part of God's Word is meant to speak to every Christian. Themed Bibles tend to emphasize only the parts of the Bible that speak about the particular theme, leaving other potentially important aspects of Scripture under-emphasized or ignored (and here I'm thinking primarily within the context of “daily devotions”).
Secondly, Scripture purposefully makes use of many different genres (and different themes!) to convey the Gospel message in the most comprehensive way possible. A Bible that goes out of its way to draw attention to only a single theme can have the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the Gospel message itself.
Now, none of this is to say that themed Bibles are inherently sinful or that the dangers I've mentioned will necessarily result from using them (I actually own a Couples' Devotional Bible). So naturally I didn't think much of the new Green Bible. I assumed it was just another gimmick. And on one level, it is that. The paper used in The Green Bible is 100% recycled, the ink is soy-based, and the cover is made of cotton-linen. At the beginning is a collection of essays about being a “green” Christian by such international figures as Desmund Tutu, N. T. Wright, and even Pope John Paul II. But it's most prominent feature is that it is the first ever “green letter edition” of the Bible. No, the words of Christ are not in green. Rather, every verse that supposedly speaks to the subject of “Creation Care” is printed in green. Like I said, it's gimmicky. And if that's all it was, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Heck, I'm a sucker for this kind of thing myself. I want to be a good Steward of God's creation as much as the next Christian. But then I started poking around the book's website. As it turns out, the green bible may actually be teaching something dangerously close to idolatry.
“2) Which verse praising creation is from the Psalms?”
The answer is Psalm 19:1, “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” What's the problem? This verse is NOT “praising creation.” It's doing the exact opposite, expressing how creation praises God. To my mind, this is kind of a big deal (is anyone else thinking of Romans 1:25?).
“4) Where did Jesus go to commune with nature?”
(It's been said before, but it bears repeating here: Jesus was not a hippy). The answer to this question is apparently found in Matthew 14:23 (the quiz has the answer as Matthew 4:23, but I assume this is simply a typo), “And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up the mountain by himself to pray.” Seriously, are the people responsible for the green “bible” actually reading it? Jesus didn't go up the mountain to commune with nature! He went up to pray (literally, to commune with God!). Stretching the meaning of a verse to make a point is one thing. Butchering a verse and literally replacing God with nature…that's a whole new ballgame.
Now, maybe this quiz is just a poorly conceived promotional tool that doesn't refelct the actual content of the green bible. That's certainly possible. But if the excerpt they provide from one of the opening essays is any indication, the content is no better than what we've seen so far. In her essay, “The Dominion of Love”, Barbara Brown Taylor says of the sixth day of creation:
Still, this new information is a real come down—a reminder that while God may have made human beings for special purpose, we were not made of any more special stuff than the rest of creation. We were made on the same day as cows and creeping things and wild animals of every kind. God gave us dominion, it is true, but God did not pronounce us better than anything else that God had made.
The “new information” she is referring to is that land animals were also created on day six. Apparently Ms. Taylor was under the impression that the only thing that made human beings special was that we had a whole day all to ourselves. She also mentions our being given dominion over the earth, and the fact that God pronounces all of His creation to be good, not just man, but all of this is merely peripheral to the real issue. If she had consulted even the most elementary level Bible scholarship, instead of simply assuming what I can only imagine are her culturally-inherited misconceptions about traditional Christian teaching, she would have seen very quickly that mankind's special place in creation is founded upon our unique status as image bearers of God. As it stands, the main point of her essay ends up missing the point entirely.
I would like to invite comments and feedback from anyone who might be willing to defend the green bible. It's still possible that I've made egregious leaps and assumed things based on these short previews that aren't really true of the bible itself. So if anyone owns a copy and would like to defend it, I'm open to hearing your arguments.
Like I said, I have no problem becoming “green.” I will probably never buy an SUV (as if that's all it means to be green!). I really do want to be a good steward of God's creation. But if the only way to join the “green team” is to accept poor theology and pseudo biblical scholarship that effectively butchers the Word of God…we evangelicals will have to work on starting our own team. I have no doubt that “God is green” (in a sense, at least), but if He is, He ought to have said so. We shouldn't have to twist His words to make them say something they're not really saying.
November 20, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
November 19, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
Thanks to Aaron Gleason for passing this link along to me.
I sure am glad that we Evangelicals have moved on to caring about more
important social issues. Because if we still cared about protecting the
unborn, we'd be in rough shape right now.
November 5, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
Barack Obama will be the next President. Regardless of how you feel about this outcome, we must remember that God is at work in all things, and do our duty as Christians and American citizens and pray for our (soon to be) President.
Dr. John Mark Reynolds shares his own thoughts:
Wednesday the sun came up and I was happy. It is still morning in
America. The candidate I voted for did not win, but I got to vote in a
free and fair election. Power will be passed peacefully and the
Constitution is intact.
November 4, 2008 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
I don't remember many companies giving out free items just for voting in past elections, but this time around there's a growing list of freebies available if you show your “I Voted” sticker.
November 3, 2008 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger OvertonName: Roger Overton Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com Site:http://ateamblog.com About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Californians have been subject to a variety of ads for and against
Proposition 4 over the last few weeks. Since most of the ads I’ve seen
are misleading, I thought it might be helpful to shed some light on the
arguments that have been made from both sides.
A summary of Prop 4:
Prop 4, also known as “Sarah’s Law,” would amend the California
Constitution so that parental notification would be required 48 hours
prior to an abortion. If the minor fears parental notification due to
potential abuse, the law would allow for certain adult relatives to be
notified and require the doctor to report the parents to Child
Protection Services. Exceptions are made for cases of medical
emergencies, prior parental waivers, or court waivers. Doctors would be
required to report statistical information on the abortions they
perform to the state of California. If the parents are not notified
properly, the law would allow them to file for damages in a civil
lawsuit. The law would also allow for minors to appeal to the courts if
they believe they are being coerced into having an abortion.
Fact Check #1:
The group behind Prop 4 named it “Sarah’s Law” after a fifteen year
old who died from complications resulting from an abortion. What they
don’t tell you is that this girl was in a common-law marriage with the
father. It is unclear whether or not she would have been required to
notify her parents in her specific situation. Furthermore, a
representative of the Prop 4 support group said that Prop 4 could have
saved “Sarah’s” life. There’s really no reason to believe it would
have. While it is hypothetical, given the situation it seems likely she
would have gone through with the abortion and would have been equally
vulnerable to dying from resulting complications. (source: http://www.lifenews.com/state3440.html)
Fact Check #2:
The most popular argument against Prop 4 is that it would put teens
in danger because it requires them to notify potentially abusive
parents. A commercial portraying this has been airing constantly and it
is all over the “no” group’s website. These commercials mislead the
public into believing that Prop 4 requires pregnant minors to report
their abortion only to their parents or legal guardians. However, the
option of notifying an adult family member is clearly and thoroughly
explained in the proposition. This adult family member could be a
grandparent, stepparent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling,
half-sibling, or first cousin. Furthermore, opponents to Prop 4 have
not been able to cite a single case where the minor was victimized as
the result of notification in any of the thirty-five states where
similar laws currently exist.
Fact Check #3:
Another story cited by supporters of Prop 4 is that of a
fourteen-year-old girl who was raped over one hundred times by a
thirty-nine year old man. He took her to Planned Parenthood (PP) twice
and the supporters imply that PP performed the abortion. The ad faults
PP for not reporting the predator and implies that Prop 4 could have
lead to the predator being stopped. Only the pregnancy test was
performed at PP, not the abortion. PP could have notified authorities
regarding the pregnant minor, but they likely had no way of knowing who
the predator was to report him. The predator was actually the minor’s
stepfather and both the minor and stepfather claimed he was her father
to the hospital that performed the abortion. Had Prop 4 been in effect,
it would have changed nothing since it appeared that the parent was
notified.
Fact Check #4:
The website against Prop 4 claims that, “What we see happening in
other states with parental notification laws is that some teens opt for
a dangerous alternative – illegal abortion. Teens may even take matters
into their own hands (back alley abortions, self abort or worse).” This
is a typical slippery-slope argument from pro-choice debaters. Using
their logic we could argue that since robbing banks can be dangerous,
we should make it legal and banks should make stealing easier. What is
the result of Prop 4 on teens who refuse to have a “safe” abortion due
to parental notification? The truth is that there is no evidence that
this has ever happened in the 35 states that have similar laws to Prop
4.
Conclusion
Both sides have been misleading in some way in arguing for their
position. As voters, it is our responsibility to work through the
arguments and attempt to make a thoughtful decision based on the facts,
not the rhetoric. The “yes” and “no” websites are likely the best
places to start sorting fact and fiction:
http://yeson4.net http://www.noonprop4.org The problems I point out with the “pro” Prop 4 stories only have to do
with their anecdotes. I think the campaign seems to be grasping at any
story they can find that can be used to appeal emotionally to voters;
to the degree that they misrepresent some of the stories as I pointed
out. (There are more stories on their website and I would be surprised
if they embellished all of them.) However, the only problems I can find
are with their stories; not with the fundamental arguments why the
proposition is needed. I think their arguments are sound and
compelling, and they do themselves a disservice by the way they appeal to
these stories. My criticisms of the “no” side are with their
fundamental arguments. They have not provided any
good reason to reject the proposition.
October 28, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
With Proposition 8 on the ballot in California, it is important to stop and think about the issue of marriage and family in general and how these institutions relate to the state. How should a Christian (or anyone) approach the issue of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage from a philosophical and political point of view? Is there a case to be made for traditional marriage apart from the Bible? Is this simply an issue that should be left to the individual?
Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California addresses these questions on his blog. Without addressing prop 8 specifically, Dr. Clark attempts to sketch a foundation for thinking about the relationship between marriage and the state from a Natural Law perspective, drawing from both Christian and Pagan thought.
Here is a rather lengthy and meaty paragraph to give you the gist of his argument:
One of the areas in which the
magistrate has a legitimate interest is the regulation of marriage and
the constitution of the family. The family is constituted by marriage
as a male and a female and whatever children may issue from that
marriage or be adopted into it. It is a creational institution. The
state does not create families or marriages but it recognizes and
governs them. In the nature of things, the definition of fundamental
social institutions such as the family or marriage, which is the
beginning of the family, the social and civil recognition of the
covenant between persons to live together as a natural family. These
natural, creational institutions are fundamental to any society. If
marriages and families are defined in homosexual terms, then society
itself is redefined and its relations to nature are radically
re-defined. This is why the magistrate has an interest in marriage and
families generally. If nature or creational boundaries are no longer
normative for marriage and family then what norms are there? All social
relations devolve to mere convention (will), become arbitrary, and
constantly re-defined. When nature is recognized and obeyed, bestiality
is illegal because it is contrary to nature. If bestiality is defined
as mere convention then it can only be prohibited on the basis of will
or convention or in the interests of the animals. What if someone
decides or gives plausible arguments that his animal has given consent?
What then of pedophilia? Apart from the constraints of nature and
natural law, why exactly should civil society forbid it? This is not a
“slippery slope” (if this happens, then that will happen) argument. I
am merely pointing out questions that already exist (there are
advocates of both pedophila and bestiality) and the necessary
consequence of denying the existence of nature and natural boundaries.
The magistrate has a right and a duty to enforce marriage and divorce
laws in order to enforce natural, creational boundaries in the same way
he has a duty to protect a society from theft and fraud.
October 25, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
S. T. Karnick has written a piece for Salvo Magazine that is worth reading. It may be the most reasonable appeal to the Same-Sex Marriage camp I've ever read.
The issue, it’s important to remember, is not whether society will
allow homosexuals to “marry.” They may already do so, in any church or
other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There
are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so…
No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and
nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to
stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. Further, any couple of
any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their
union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them.
Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and
inanimate objects, can and do “marry” in this way. What the law in most
states currently does not do, however, is force third
parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize
these “marriages” and treat them as if they were exactly the same as
traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states
are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This,
of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting
the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these
relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of
same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s
power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages
whether they want to or not.
No doubt many will not find this article persuasive. But consider why. I have a feeling that it is because Same-Sex Marriage advocates think that Same-Sex Marriage is morally acceptable (even virtuous), and that it is morally obligatory for everyone to recognize it. But this is not the argument that the “No on 8″ crowd is making. Their argument is based on the premise that gay couples are somehow being barred from marrying (which is untrue) and that the moral issue at stake is one of freedom of choice, tolerance, and liberty. But as this article adeptly points out, it is the radical Same-Sex agenda that is now threatening true freedom of choice and tolerance.
October 24, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
I'm a big geek. I don't deny it. I'm really exited about the new Star Trek film from director J. J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Mission: Impossible III). Here's a sneak peek at the new look of Trek:
Eric Bana's Romulan villain, Nero, looks pretty cool. And the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the inside of an Apple store! We always knew the future would run on Mac.
Edit: In case you're wondering if this has anything to do with philosophy/culture/apologetics, it does. Here are a few quotes from this week's Entertainment Weekly:
“[The Star Trek] ethos may seem cornball to an America darkened by a decade's worth
of catastrophe, but after an election season that has seen both
presidential nominees run on ''hope'' and ''change,'' Star Trek just may find itself on the leading wave of a zeitgeist shift — away from bleak, brooding blockbusters and toward the light.”
Director Abrams adds, ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''And Zachary Quinto (who plays Spock) says, ''This is a franchise that offers hope for unity — and so does Barak Obama.''
Star Trek has always been on the optimistic/humanistic side of things, and people have typically associated its ideology with liberal politics. At the same time, however, Abrams needs this movie to appeal to the widest audience possible. So will Star Trek push the PC envelope, or will it find a way to walk the cultural tightrope and become next summer's optimistic version of The Dark Knight?
October 18, 2008 Posted by David NcloseAuthor: David NName: Email: dvnilsen@gmail.com Site:http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com About: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority.
In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed.
Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!"
Education Info:--Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California
--2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University
--2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar CollegeSee Authors Posts (75)
Dr. Michael Horton's new book, Christless Christianity, is now available (with a DVD set soon to follow). I just got my copy and I'll be reviewing it in the near future. For now, here's a short preview of the DVD:
How often we approach the throne of grace as desperate beggars. Yet He never once turns us away, but lavishes the richest of riches upon us. 2009-10-06
November 26, 2008 Posted by David N 
Posted in Book Reviews, Culture, David's Posts, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Politics, Science, Theology 
No Comments » 
content rss
Recent Comments