Last month IFC podcast hit 500 downloads!
Now, I don't have the software to show me who is downloading the podcast, but regardless - I am quite humbled.
That 500 people would subject themselves to one man rambling on about his faith...
...makes me wonder: don't they have anything better to do?!
So, I guess I should say thank you for listening, but then I ask myself: do I have anything worth listening to?
After all, I'm just a man working out his faith...I don't pretend to have anything to offer than my thoughts as they come to me.
If you have suffered through one of my podcasts (and are not my mom!) then I humbly thank you for at least your attention and hope that you could take away...something.
Chris
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The God Delusion - A quick review.
I was planning to do a multi-part review of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. However, after further consideration, I have decided not to.
This blog, this ministry, I wish to focus on positive things. And while someone might think tearing down TGD is good, it doesn't help.
Let's be honest, my review is not going to change any minds - much like the book failed to change mine.
For the book, I will say this: I was disappointed. If it challenged ANYONE to seriously question their faith, I would wonder it's strength to begin with.
If you do wish to find a critique on this book can find many out there. Mine, however, will not be one of them.
Chris
This blog, this ministry, I wish to focus on positive things. And while someone might think tearing down TGD is good, it doesn't help.
Let's be honest, my review is not going to change any minds - much like the book failed to change mine.
For the book, I will say this: I was disappointed. If it challenged ANYONE to seriously question their faith, I would wonder it's strength to begin with.
If you do wish to find a critique on this book can find many out there. Mine, however, will not be one of them.
Chris
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Book Review - The Final Summit by Andy Andrews
This is the premise of Andy Andrews' book The Final Summit. A very unique book. I haven't read something quite like it. The main character, David Ponder, is whisked away to presumably heaven to have a "final summit" other "travelers."
I'm not entirely certain what a traveler, but in they include various people from the past: Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill, etc. David Ponder, leads this group of travelers in the final summit to save mankind. Their answer can save mankind, if they can only discover what the answer is, and if they can do it in the time provided.
The answer?
Two words.
The Final Summit is filled with interesting historical events and "personal" accounts of such event from "those who were there" This Final Summit will keep you interested in discovering the answer. And while the answer may not be as “exciting” or “big” as you would expect, once you think about it, it starts to make sense.
(NOTE: I have received this book for free through Booksneeze.com. The review is my own. I did not recieve this book in return for a positive/negative review. For more information visit Booksneeze.com)
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The God Delusion - Part 2 - The God Hypothesis
The following is a post I submitted to richarddawkins.net so some of it is more geared to the followers of that sight. There I was told my input on the book would be appreciated. We shall see!
Okay, for those of you who are ravenous here is my perspective. Like Dawkins I'm not much for labels, so rather than saying "Christian" I prefer to say I'm a follower of Jesus.
That being said, let's move on shall we? I know you are ready with your replies. So am I.
I'm skipping right up to Ch 2 - The God Hypothesis.
"The God of the OT is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
There's a mouthful.
Strong words from Dawkins who claims later that he's "not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
Yet, most of his book, in arguments against “God” is against the “Christian” God – including Jesus. Yes, he takes small glimpses at other gods, but still his main focus is on the Christian God. But, then again, he really doesn’t as most of the “attacks” and arguments about God are really only pointed at religion – some of his arguments I agree with.
His opening statement in Ch. 2. However says TO ME two things, which I have pointed out. 1) A lack of understanding of the Bible (which is different than knowledge of). 2) or a purposeful misrepresentation of the Bible for argumentative purposes.
For point 1 it could be innocent lack of understanding from someone who doesn’t dive into the word to fully understand not only the “what’s” of the Bible, but the “why’s” “how’s” and “what’s really going on.”
By the sheer differences of denominations in church points out that this really is not so easy of a task.
Personally, I think if someone makes such a comment they should – if they truly want to be so critical – do a couple things.
1) Provide “proof” from the Bible. Verses, etc.
2) Read, look into, study, various critical analysis of the text that “proves” one’s assertions – such as Dawkins makes.
But Dawkins doesn’t even do step one. He just says it, as if he’s an authority of OT scholarship. Which he never states.
None of you would accept this type of characterization of Dawkins (or Darwin) without AT LEAST someone doing some quoting, or examples…
Though, his character sketch aligns (or influences) yours so no further, critical thinking, work is needed to be done on your (the readers) part.
Remember, Dawkins states that he hopes religious leaders become atheists at the end of his book – that’s a pretty tall order considering said leaders DO critically study the Bible.
Pretty much if I said “evolution is a false, delusional, pathetic, valueless means to describe life as we know it.”
You would AT LEAST want me to back up my argument. Or hint I’m about to do so.
Dawkins does try, later on to justify his statement – but we’ll get to that when he does.
As for attacking God – as of page 41 he hasn’t done so (outside of his statement). He only has attacked religion. He finally says this: “The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible.” And what about the other gods? He doesn’t say. Nor, again, does he even provide even a piece of evidence of this so-called-monster.
Not yet.
Dawkins also states that he doesn’t see any reason “theology” should be a subject at all.
I could see why he would think so.
Also on page 57 he asks the question: …by what criteria do we then decide which of religion’s moral values to accept?
By religion, he means the Bible. Yet, not an attack on God (any/all) just on religion.
But this argument again implies that 1) Dawkins is a Biblical scholar and understands all of what is going on in the Bible. 2) Given this “fact” there is no further need to look into those section of the Bible for possible further understanding. Or 3) again, deliberate misleading on Dawkins’ part.
I for one subscribe to point – 1. Just for clarification.
The rest of this chapter is more attacks on religion and not so much on God. I didn’t highlight, but a quick scan reveals no quotes from the Bible…nor attacks on any/all gods as he claimed.
I know you are probably chomping at the bit to tell me to “prove” my claims that Dawkins isn’t representing the Bible correction (for either stated reason).
I will…but not now. Dawkins doesn’t feel the need to “prove” his assertions at this point in the book, so I don’t feel the need to “prove” mine in this post.
I’ll just follow his lead.
However, that shouldn’t stop you from looking into yourself.
Next post: Argument’s For God’s Existence
Peace and Love
Chris
Okay, for those of you who are ravenous here is my perspective. Like Dawkins I'm not much for labels, so rather than saying "Christian" I prefer to say I'm a follower of Jesus.
That being said, let's move on shall we? I know you are ready with your replies. So am I.
I'm skipping right up to Ch 2 - The God Hypothesis.
"The God of the OT is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
There's a mouthful.
Strong words from Dawkins who claims later that he's "not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
Yet, most of his book, in arguments against “God” is against the “Christian” God – including Jesus. Yes, he takes small glimpses at other gods, but still his main focus is on the Christian God. But, then again, he really doesn’t as most of the “attacks” and arguments about God are really only pointed at religion – some of his arguments I agree with.
His opening statement in Ch. 2. However says TO ME two things, which I have pointed out. 1) A lack of understanding of the Bible (which is different than knowledge of). 2) or a purposeful misrepresentation of the Bible for argumentative purposes.
For point 1 it could be innocent lack of understanding from someone who doesn’t dive into the word to fully understand not only the “what’s” of the Bible, but the “why’s” “how’s” and “what’s really going on.”
By the sheer differences of denominations in church points out that this really is not so easy of a task.
Personally, I think if someone makes such a comment they should – if they truly want to be so critical – do a couple things.
1) Provide “proof” from the Bible. Verses, etc.
2) Read, look into, study, various critical analysis of the text that “proves” one’s assertions – such as Dawkins makes.
But Dawkins doesn’t even do step one. He just says it, as if he’s an authority of OT scholarship. Which he never states.
None of you would accept this type of characterization of Dawkins (or Darwin) without AT LEAST someone doing some quoting, or examples…
Though, his character sketch aligns (or influences) yours so no further, critical thinking, work is needed to be done on your (the readers) part.
Remember, Dawkins states that he hopes religious leaders become atheists at the end of his book – that’s a pretty tall order considering said leaders DO critically study the Bible.
Pretty much if I said “evolution is a false, delusional, pathetic, valueless means to describe life as we know it.”
You would AT LEAST want me to back up my argument. Or hint I’m about to do so.
Dawkins does try, later on to justify his statement – but we’ll get to that when he does.
As for attacking God – as of page 41 he hasn’t done so (outside of his statement). He only has attacked religion. He finally says this: “The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible.” And what about the other gods? He doesn’t say. Nor, again, does he even provide even a piece of evidence of this so-called-monster.
Not yet.
Dawkins also states that he doesn’t see any reason “theology” should be a subject at all.
I could see why he would think so.
Also on page 57 he asks the question: …by what criteria do we then decide which of religion’s moral values to accept?
By religion, he means the Bible. Yet, not an attack on God (any/all) just on religion.
But this argument again implies that 1) Dawkins is a Biblical scholar and understands all of what is going on in the Bible. 2) Given this “fact” there is no further need to look into those section of the Bible for possible further understanding. Or 3) again, deliberate misleading on Dawkins’ part.
I for one subscribe to point – 1. Just for clarification.
The rest of this chapter is more attacks on religion and not so much on God. I didn’t highlight, but a quick scan reveals no quotes from the Bible…nor attacks on any/all gods as he claimed.
I know you are probably chomping at the bit to tell me to “prove” my claims that Dawkins isn’t representing the Bible correction (for either stated reason).
I will…but not now. Dawkins doesn’t feel the need to “prove” his assertions at this point in the book, so I don’t feel the need to “prove” mine in this post.
I’ll just follow his lead.
However, that shouldn’t stop you from looking into yourself.
Next post: Argument’s For God’s Existence
Peace and Love
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)