November 9, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: 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)
Unfortunately I can’t comment on Ted Koppel’s show, Nightline, since every time I’ve seen it was on I’ve changed the channel. However, I don’t think many people will be disappointed to see someone else fill the slot after his last show on November 22, 2005. Reflecting on some of the notable incidents that occurred during his tenure as host, Koppel offered this:
“My complaint is that the administration has done a poor job of explaining why we're in Iraq. You don't fight a war and allow just a tiny fraction of the population to carry the burden. It's hard to make the case that the rest of us are sharing in the burden of being at war when our taxes have been cut, not increased. There are no victory gardens. No one is being asked to do anything, really.” (HT: Hewitt)
I have no problem agreeing with Koppel that the Bush administration has done a poor job communicating to the American people (we’ve done far better communicating to terrorists). However, the rest of his comment is simply bizarre. Perhaps only “a tiny fraction of the population” is carrying the burden because the burden’s not big enough for everyone to carry. Perhaps lowering taxes has done far greater good than raising them would do. Perhaps there are more important things to do than create victory gardens.
Out of the kindness of my compassionate conservative heart, I’ve gone ahead and created a victory garden for Koppel. I know it’s small, but I’m not as rich as he is and I (like most sane people) have better things to do than create victory gardens.
For the Koppels of the world, an explanation may be in order. First there are a couple of beautiful flowers (Iraqi women who have real rights). Next is the spectacular lawn gnome (toppled Saddam). Finally, we have a lush bush (a ballot box). Each of these is a significant victory we should all celebrate resulting from the war in Iraq.
Posted in Main Page, Politics, Roger's Posts 
3 Comments »
Check out this month's “God or Not”–a Christian/Atheist blog carnival–over at Chad's blog, Eternal Revolution. But bear in mind Chad's advice:
The whole idea of this little experiment is to get people with different viewpoints to talk to each other. This is a rare chance to escape from the echo chamber and figure out why people believe or don't believe. Note: The GOD or NOT Carnival is not a spectator's sport.
The topic of this month's carnival is “Proof,” so follow the links, meet some new people, and go represent Christ!
(For more general info about the carnival, click here.)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Religion (General) No Comments »
We'll be voting tomorrow in California. Thankfully, this also means we need endure only one day more of over-the-top, emotional, ridiculous ads for state ballot propositions. Every election, I can predict with near certainty what I'll vote for even before I do any research into the issues. How, you may ask? It's easy. I just take note of the ads that seem to be obscuring the actual facts with red-herring circuses and vote the opposite.
Take Proposition 77, for instance. This proposition would turn redistricting over to the hands of three retired judges. The idea is that the legislators would no longer be able to keep themselves in power artificially by drawing the district lines so they can never lose their seats. I wasn't sure how I was going to vote on this one–I heard some reasonable arguments both for and against. Then I saw the ad. The ad features three bumbling judges–one chomping on some gum and the other two squinting incompetently at a map as they randomly cut it into pieces and try, unsuccessfully, to fit the pieces together properly. That's why we should vote against 77? Seriously, that's your best argument? As soon as anyone pulls out the drama, I get suspicious and wonder what they're hiding.
Even worse are the ads against Prop. 75. This proposition would require unions to get permission from each member before taking money out of his or her paycheck for political contributions. If a member disagrees with the political cause, he won't be forced to hand over his money to support it.
Sounds reasonable, right? Not according to the unions. I received a forwarded anti-75 email from a union member claiming this is the first phase of Schwarzenegger's secret two-part plan to take away people's pensions and health benefits (you can see the text of the email here). Then it claimed 75 is unfair to unions because “it does not restrict corporations–even though corporations regularly spend an enormous amount of shareholders' money on politics.” Well, last time I checked, corporations do not take money out of their employees' paychecks to spend on political causes, so there's no need to pass a proposition that requires them to get employee permission before doing so! Shareholders can pull out any time they wish. Teachers can't just walk away from the teachers' union.
This proposition does not in any way restrict the amount of money unions can spend on political causes. It only restricts the money they can take from people who don't want to give it. Does this sound like it's “limiting our political voices” and “silencing employees” as they claim, or is it finally giving a voice to those who disagree? It most certainly does not “unfairly restrict the ability of union or association members to contribute to their organization.” In fact, it's quite the opposite! My father would have been grateful to have had the opportunity to be released from paying for causes he disagreed with for the decades he served as a teacher.
Their final argument is: “The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that no public employee can be forced to join a union or association and contribute to politics.” Then what exactly is the current process for opting out? What kind of public hoops does one have to jump through to accomplish this? And if people can already easily opt out, then what's the big deal about this proposition–it won't change anything, right?
A word to the wise, proposition-ad-makers: when you twist ideas and use words like “scheme” and “secret plan,” and when you make dramatic radio commercials where a shocked man sitting at the breakfast table with his wife declares, “I thought dictatorships were going out of fashion. Guess I was wrong!” you sound a little crazy. Or desperate. Either way, I'm not going to vote with you.
Truth is simple and has its own force. If you have to dress up your position in a clown costume and set it dancing to ominous music with a booming megaphone and a water-squirting tie in order to persuade people, there's a problem.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics 5 Comments »
The following is a letter I sent to a man who had ruled out the possibility of all miracles on principle. The fact is that one cannot simply assert that miracles can't happen (i.e., one can't say, “this miracle didn't happen because miracles can't happen”), but instead, the true scientist must examine the evidence and follow where it leads–even if the conclusion challenges his previously held beliefs. Fortunately, though miracles have a supernatural cause, the evidence of the effect is available for our scrutiny just as the evidence for any historical event in history is available to us. The resurrection of Christ, if it actually happened in history, is too crucial an event to dismiss because of a personal philosophical bias against the supernatural, so I sent this man the following brief outline of the evidence for the resurrection:
1. The disciples and early Christians believed in an actual, physical resurrection, according to the first century historical evidence.
(Please note that at this point, I'm only arguing for what the disciples believed, and not whether or not it's true.) Consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14 (I should also note here that scholars–Christians and critics–do not question that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in the mid first century): “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” The context of this passage along with the Jewish concept of resurrection both support the idea that Paul was referring to a bodily resurrection and not merely a “spiritual” one.
So the Christians considered the resurrection to be an actual, bodily event that was central to their faith. Indeed, as Paul asserts, without that resurrection there is no faith.
2. The resurrection was central to Christian teaching early on and was not a later addition.
There is a pre-biblical creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now….”
The technical phrase “for I delivered to you…what I also received,” along with the phrases “and that…and that…and that” indicate that Paul is reciting a creed and this is not his original writing. This creed places the atonement and the resurrection at the center of the Christian faith and is not Pauline material. In fact, it can be traced back to within a few years of Jesus–probably to the ministry of Peter and James who are mentioned specifically in the creed (James is mentioned in v. 7).
If the crucifixion happened in 30 AD, Paul's conversion happened in approx. 33-35 AD. Three years later (36-38) he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James (see Galatians 1:18-19), so it's probable that when they discussed the gospel then, this creed was passed on to Paul. (An indication of this is the fact that Peter and James are mentioned specifically in the creed, so it probably came from their area.) Now if the creed was already formulated when it was given to Paul, this means it dates back to earlier than 36-38 AD. And of course, the belief predates even the creed. Again, this time frame is accepted by critics and Christians alike. Some would date the creed even earlier.
3. The disciples experienced something.
You must agree that the disciples experienced something. Whatever that something was, it changed them from a group of people who deserted Jesus and began to disperse after his death to bold proclaimers of his resurrection.
What happened to change their minds? They claimed it was seeing the resurrected Jesus. Were they trying to perpetrate a hoax? This is extremely unlikely, for nobody would go through torture and death (as most of them did) for something they knew to be a lie. So the disciples were convinced. Were they fooled by someone or something? Or did Jesus actually rise from the dead?
4. Naturalistic explanations fail.
Different naturalistic explanations have been offered to explain the disciples' experience. Those explanations have either been debunked or do not explain the evidence as adequately as does the resurrection. For example:
“Jesus faked his death (or fainted), and did not really die on the cross.” This theory is impossible since if a man were to only pretend to be dead on a cross, he would have to discontinue pushing himself up and down in order to breathe. However, as soon as he did that, he would, of course, not be able to breathe and would be dead anyway.
“The disciples [or some other party] stole the body.” We are back now to the idea that the disciples sincerely believed the resurrection to be true (they would have recanted had they known it to be a lie). So it's highly unlikely they stole the body. Additionally, had anyone else stolen the body (the Jews or the Romans), they (the body-stealers) could have easily produced a body and put an end to the unrest that was resulting from the birth of the church. This church had its start in Jerusalem where critics had a reason to stop it and the means by which to do so if any body still existed. They did not produce a body, and the church continued to grow.
You should seriously examine whichever naturalistic position you hold to see if it's actually logical. However, I think the weight of the evidence lies with the resurrection, and rational people should always side with the weight of the evidence–even if they don't like what they find there. As Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
(See here for a case for the resurrection using only widely accepted historical facts and here for a book by an Orthodox Jewish man who, though he has a different idea about the meaning of the resurrection, is convinced by the evidence it actually occurred in history.)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Religion (General) 8 Comments »
Sorry for the lack of posts this week! I spent a few days sick on the couch, watching Season 4 of Alias (I started Season 1 a few months ago, and my goal is to catch up to the current season by the end of the year…I'm not sure what this says about me…or my goals, but there it is). I should be back to my normal, opinionated self soon.
In the meantime, I wanted to let you all know I have a column up at Townhall.com. Here's an excerpt:
Thursday night, I caught the beginning of “C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation” and then kept watching, sensing that something interesting was coming. My first clue? The victim was a Christian. On CBS Primetime, this can only mean one thing: there must be a twisted and disturbing story behind this murder. I wasn't disappointed. The tension built until the discovery of the horrifying truth– the victim's child had been adopted as an embryo, implanted, and carried to term through a program called “Project Sunflower.”
SARA (disdainfully): Project Sunflower promotes itself as doing God's work.
CATHERINE (with disgust): I know a stripper who said the same thing.
I watched in wonder as Catherine continued to rage against “Project Sunflower.” I just kept asking myself, why would she be angry with someone for finding adoptive parents for unwanted embryos? Catherine eventually gave this explanation for her uncontrolled anger toward the project's director: “Philosophically, I completely disagree with her–I'm pro-choice, I'm for stem cell research”….
Read the rest here at Townhall.com.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page 4 Comments »
For the most part, the special allowed evangelicals to make their case, and they were not treated unfairly. It seems the bias was mainly coming from the writer of the AP article. For example, this quote from the article: “Haggard…declares that, although Americans live in a pluralistic society, 'all of us have a responsibility to advance God's will through government'” actually turned out to be (paraphrased): “All of us have the responsibility to advance God's will through government [i.e., to do what's right and create a just society] but we live in a pluralistic society and nobody is seeking to establish a theocracy.” This conveys a very different meaning from the phrasing used by the writer of the article!
The actual special focused more on understanding evangelicals than fostering fear of them. Thank goodness! I didn't agree with everything said by the evangelicals, but I do think they were able to make some cogent points, if anyone were to watch this special with an open mind and not be distracted by prejudice against certain images.
Other than that, it continues to amaze me that people can be so upset that conservative Christians think they're right and would like to see more people in government who reflect their views when they, themselves, regardless of their religious position, also think their views are correct and would also like to see more people in the government who reflect their views. We Christians are no different from anyone else in our standing and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy, nor in our belief that we're voting in the best way possible for our society (don't all people right or left believe this?), and our participation ought not to be treated any differently.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics, Religion (General) 11 Comments »
My sister emailed me this morning to tell me about a commercial she had just seen for tonight's “Dateline NBC” which, as she put it, “appeared to be about the evil evangelical Christians taking over the world.”
The show airs tonight at 8:00, and if this article is any indication, the purpose of this investigation is most likely an attempt to make people fear evangelicals and their tyrannical beliefs. (It's possible the perceived slant could be coming from the article writer and/or the commercial editors and not the special itself.) Here's an excerpt from the AP article:
[Brokaw] also explores why so many Americans are turning to this expression of faith, and whether some evangelicals are going too far: imposing on others their spiritual beliefs not only for personal reasons but also for political reasons.
Some time is given to evangelical pastor Ted Haggard to explain evangelicalism:
Attempting to explain the growth of the evangelical moment, Haggard says, “It's not political–it's authentically spiritual renewal.”
But then the article adds:
But Haggard, who speaks regularly with the White House, also declares that, although Americans live in a pluralistic society, “all of us have a responsibility to advance God's will through government.”
The description on Dateline NBC's site sounds much more benign, so I suppose we'll have to wait and see the actual special. I do think it's important we all watch. We should be aware how others see us–regardless of whether they're right or wrong.
I'm not surprised that people misunderstand the motivations of our beliefs and actions (e.g., the AP description of the GodBlogCon contained similar misunderstandings of our motivations). People are so afraid of Christians having a voice and affecting policy in this country. I would just ask them to remember that Christians were the ones who pushed for the abolition of slavery both here and in England, and it was the Christian values of Dr. Martin Luther King that fueled the civil rights movement. Neither group of people “imposed their spiritual beliefs on others.” Maybe those incidents were just too long ago for people to remember.
I do find it interesting that, currently, if liberal religious people cite their faith as “propelling” them (even John Kerry said this), nobody has a problem with this. I suppose it's okay for them to do so because they're right…er…left…you know what I mean.
This does seem to suggest that it's not so much Christians that people fear as much as it is conservatives. Since many conservatives happen to be Christians, Christians then become the targeted group, easily caricatured and/or vilified. If one is able to get people to fear Christians and identify them with conservative thought, then everyone will want to distance themselves as far as possible from conservatism.
In the meantime, it's perfectly fine for every non-conservative group in America to try to affect legislation and advance its beliefs (see here, here, and here).
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics, Religion (General) 2 Comments »
October 28, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: 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)
Weekend reading (because you may need all weekend): “Characterizing a Fogbank: What Is Postmodernism, and Why Do I Take Such a Dim View of It?” from Keith DeRose via Certain Doubts. Don't miss the response (comment #52) from McLaren himself!
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy 2 Comments »
October 28, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: 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)
Weekend reading (because you may need all weekend): “Characterizing a Fogbank: What Is Postmodernism, and Why Do I Take Such a Dim View of It?” from Keith DeRose via Certain Doubts. Don't miss the response (comment #52) from McLaren himself!
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy 2 Comments »
October 28, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: 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)
|
What could be good about parallel universes, ectoids, and a
thing name Huntikrog? Not much, unless they’re all part of a graphic novel by
Doug TenNapel. Well known for his unusual characters and creatures, TenNapel
doesn’t disappoint with Earthboy Jacobus.
|
On
his way home from a retirement party, Chief Edwards hits
a terra-whale. Out of the terra-whale comes a boy named Jacobus. This
may sound terrible to some people, but to Chief Edwards it was an
opportunity to be who he was
supposed to be. He fathers (and mothers) Jacobus into his teens,
attempting to
keep him safe from long hair, smokes and ectoids.
The story that unfolds is born from an incredible
imagination creatively rooted in a conservative-Christian worldview. Even if
one doesn’t agree with the politics or religion, TenNapel’s originality in
thought and art must be appreciated. If Creature Tech was an argument against
naturalism, Earthboy Jacobus is a rant against postmodern socialism, and
a hilarious one at that.
Earthboy Jacobus is
Doug TenNapel’s finest work yet on every level. It is an inspirational story of
courage, patriotism, redemption, and charity toward holographic women that will
satisfy its reader like ma’s home cookin’.
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments