OH NO SHE DIDN'T!

'We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine – “dull dogma”, as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man – and the dogma is the drama.'
- Dorothy Sayers

You go girl!

Against Developmental Philosophy

We think our fathers fools,

So wise we grow;

Our wiser sons,

No doubt will think us so.

Alexander Pope

Bertrand Russell was Wrong

Any philosophy can be internally consistent, but you’ve gotta get ur axioms right. Here’s the logical outworking of atheism – a thought system built on the most erroneous of first principles - according to Berty:

That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding dispair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

If there were no God (absurd!), and all we had to look forward to was the inevitable heat death of the universe, then Russell - and all his pessimistic clan - are right. Thankfully, they're not.

Listen to Local Natives

These guys own – sounds like a more modern (read: not 19th Century) Fleet Foxes. Plus I’ve got mad love for Casey-Affleck-Assassination-of-Jesse-James-moustaches, as sported by frontman Taylor Rice.

Is Jesus Pitchfork Approved?

A friend recently gave me a copy of Douglas Moo’s Encountering Romans.

It got me thinking: there’s a surprising amount of good theological (or at least quasi-biblical) allusion going on in Pitchfork-approved bands - given that Christianity is pretty much the cardinal sin for hipsters.

A brief selection:

Anything by Sufjan Stevens (hello Seven Swans/Songs for Christmas)

Wolf Parade: “What makes a sinner serve, unless he knows you’re alive?” (cf. Romans 1:4)

Surfer Blood:

Forget the second coming

I need you in the here and now

Instead of dreaming up a way to spread your name across the world somehow

When you told me you were leaving

I wasn’t thirsty for revenge

No I wasn’t disappointed much at all

Coz you’ll be back again

Pseudo-Modernity: The Cultural Vacuum

Nigga READ MY MIND

In postmodernism, one read, watched, listened, as before. In pseudo-modernism one phones, clicks, presses, surfs, chooses, moves, downloads. There is a generation gap here, roughly separating people born before and after 1980. Those born later might see their peers as free, autonomous, inventive, expressive, dynamic, empowered, independent, their voices unique, raised and heard: postmodernism and everything before it will by contrast seem elitist, dull, a distant and droning monologue which oppresses and occludes them. Those bornbefore 1980 may see, not the people, but contemporary texts which are alternately violent, pornographic, unreal, trite, vapid, conformist, consumerist, meaningless and brainless (see the drivel found, say, on some Wikipedia pages, or the lack of context on Ceefax). To them what came before pseudo-modernism will increasingly seem a golden age of intelligence, creativity, rebellion and authenticity. Hence the name ‘pseudo-modernism’ also connotes the tension between the sophistication of the technological means, and the vapidity or ignorance of the content conveyed by it – a cultural moment summed up by the fatuity of the mobile phone user’s “I’m on the bus”.

On the plus side, following @NotPopeBenedict, @fakepastormark and @fakejohnpiper via twitter give Web 2.0 some meaning xD

Wife Acquisition Algorithm

Inspired by Mark Driscoll's sermon on dating.

People are Idiots

Bigger Stronger Faster is the best exposition of:

1. The essential (sinful) nature of man;

2. The tension between “winning” vs doing what’s right;

3. How pervasive the idiocy of ignoring data/logic/reason/scientific method among the unwashed masses is;

4. The importance of the libertarian state (especially for the non-Christian) and the adjunct: how utterly powerless authoritarianism is in modifying behaviour (lol @ laws against steroids) - WHO WOULDN'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN PUT IN YOUR BODY?!?

These batty beurocrats are even HINDERING studies into the long-term effects of the drugs; we already know that steroids are absolutely safe when not abused (ie. cycled intermittently over short periods); but senseless laws blocking their use in clinical trials prevent any way of ascertaining the effects of chronic usage.

That’s all from me; I’m gonna go get some Adders from my G.P. – it is time for Easter revision, after all J

The Joyous Exchange

Mike Reeves' Unquenchable Flame is a great collection of Reformation info, much of which I heard him present back at (the great!!) New Word Alive festival in 2009.

Here's one gem:

The third, and perhaps most important of Luther's main works that year, was The Freedom of a Christian. Having made his attacks, this was his positive explanation of his gospel, and he dedicated it to the pope, since, for all his attacks on Rome and the popes, he wanted to save the man himself.

At the head of it is a story of a man who marries a prostitute - Luther's allegory for the marriage of King Jesus and the wicked sinner. When they marry, the prostitute becomes, by status, a queen. It is not that she made her behaviour queenly, and so won the right to the king's hand. She was and is a wicked harlot through and through. However, when the king made his marriage vow, her status changed. Thus she is, simultaneously, a prostitute at heart and a queen by status. In just the same way, Luther saw that the sinner, on accepting Christ's promise in the gospel, is simultaneously a sinner at heart and righteous by status. What has happened is the "joyful exchange" in which all that she has (her sin) she gives to him, and all that he has (his righteousness, blessedness, life and glory) he gives to her. Thus she can confidently display "her sins in the face of death and hell and say, "If I have sinned, yet my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned, and all his is mine and all mine is his."

Bam! Damn right it's a "joyous exchange" - may we never, dear Christian, plunge ourselves into the faecal pit of intrinsic righteousness.

Sola scriptura

Sola fide

Sola gratia

Solo Christo

Soli Deo gloria!

CS Lewis Uber Quotes

All from The Quotable Lewis. It’s no wonder Piper considers Lewis one of the 3 most influential dead men in his life. I’ve loved his Christian devotional writing (remember: doctrine = devotion) since reading Mere Christianity back in the summer of 05 (or was it 06 – I only remember the strange looks from English Literature classmates on reporting my holiday reading record)

He says it better than I can, so no apologies for lengthy quotations

Salvation (Quote 1311, from Mere Christianity, Bk IV, pp. 137-140)

The point in Christianity which gives us the greatest shock is the statement that by attaching ourselves to Christ, we can “become Sons of God.” … God has brought us into existence and loves us and looks after us, and in that way is like a father. But when the Bible talks about us “becoming” Sons of God, obviously it must mean something different. …

One of the creeds says that Christ is the Son of God, “begotten, not created”; and it adds “begotten by his father before all worlds.”

… To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies. … But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. … A man makes a wireless set, or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man creates is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God. …

… What man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life – the higher and different sort of life that exists in God. …

And that is exactly what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor’s shop. We are the statues and there is a rumor going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.

I’d always passed over Paul’s comments about us “becoming like Sons of God” – who could believe such a haughty claim? But is this flagrant boast, that we will become “partakers in the Divine nature” correct? Can the truth be so glorious? And to what extent does this apparent apotheosis permeate our New Creation being? I need to look into this.

Apology

Like every historical fact, the resurrection of Jesus can be doubted. But when God takes in hand the reliability of the witnesses, the courage of their preaching, the futility of the opposition, the effects of the Gospel, the coherence of the message, the all-embracing sufficiency of the Christian worldview, and the spiritual glory of Jesus Christ - when God takes all of this and more in hand, he is able to open the mind of the most resistant skeptic. When God wakens us from the stupor of unbelief and shines into our mind with "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ", what we see, along with the terrible splendor or his suffering, is the grandeur of his resurrection.

Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ, pp 113-114

Hidden Sin

1Blessed is he

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

2Blessed is the man

whose sin the LORD does not count against him

and in whose spirit is no deceit.

3When I kept silent,

my bones wasted away

through my groaning all day long.

4For day and night

your hand was heavy upon me;

my strength was sapped

as in the heat of summer. Selah

5Then I acknowledged my sin to you

and did not cover up my iniquity.

I said, “I will confess

my transgressions to the LORD”—

and you forgave

the guilt of my sin. Selah

6Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you

while you may be found;

surely when the mighty waters rise,

they will not reach him.

7You are my hiding place;

you will protect me from trouble

and surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah

8I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;

I will counsel you and watch over you.

9Do not be like the horse or the mule,

which have no understanding

but must be controlled by bit and bridle

or they will not come to you.

10Many are the woes of the wicked,

but the LORD’s unfailing love

surrounds the man who trusts in him.

11Rejoice in the LORD and be glad, you righteous;

sing, all you who are upright in heart!

Amen.

Why Heaven Will be Better than Avatar

Read about a bunch of losers getting suicidal after watching Avatar - and not even coz of its bland excuse for an engaging plot - apparently real life just can’t compare to James Cameron’s rainforest paradise.

But I guess some of the underlying themes – eternal life, renewed creation, new bodies etc. are actually pretty reminiscient of Christian theology; and as the Bibles says, God has put eternity on the heart of man – so on one level, I can understand the longings of these goons. So here are a few reasons why heaven will be better than Avatar®

• No 3d glasses required (no headaches either!)
• No stoopz blu ppl
• No environmental agenda/pantheistic paganism subtext
• God is present as a Person; not some vague, unsatisfying and ultimately static panentheistic life force

Diet and Training

Which is more important? If you want to get big, eat; if you want to get strong, lift! It really is that simple. I'm always confounded listening to my female colleagues - each one of which is always wishing she were a few pounds (stones) lighter.

I've endured tales of everything from diet coke only(!) diets to some crap about a "raisin detox" (not sure what these mysterious - and undetectable - toxins are, nor what good is expected to come of eating 1Kg of raisins every day for a week.

And when I suggest weight training, I'm usually met with looks suggesting I've slept with their sister, mother and cousin, and uploaded the video evidence. Most women seem to think that coming into contact with a barbell or any serious weights will turn them into this:

when in truth, in the absence of androgenic hormone supplementation, the reality is likely to be closer to this:

Every one of the female weightlifters I've trained with at Woking and Crystal palace has looked great. So ladies, forget diet coke and raisins; and follow the simplest of 2-step plans:

1. Eat more.

2. Lift more.

Oh, and feel free to send in "after" pictures :)

Toro y Moi

Channelling Neon Indian

Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ

I'm pretty sure John Piper has lost the ability to write badly. Great book, free download.

Thngs i dnt understnd

youtube comments

why pitchfork reviews hiphop

teh hypostatic union

ppl who listen to radio

RACIESM

70 Resolutions

My man Jonathan Edwards was concerned with more than losing weight or "taking more risks:"

1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God's glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriad's of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

The rest.

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

Conclusion to a generally good article on Dricsoll:

Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

Amen!!

Avatar

Driscoll linked a great article on the worldview of Cameron's Billion-dollar blockbuster. Much like a pretty girlfriend with nothing upstairs: nice to look at, but you soon get bored and look for something better. Oh, and 3D hurt my eyes >.<

It’s fitting that James Cameron’s “Avatar” arrived in theaters at Christmastime. Like the holiday season itself, the science fiction epic is a crass embodiment of capitalistic excess wrapped around a deeply felt religious message. It’s at once the blockbuster to end all blockbusters, and the Gospel According to James.

But not the Christian Gospel. Instead, “Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message. A recent Pew Forum report on how Americans mix and match theology found that many self-professed Christians hold beliefs about the “spiritual energy” of trees and mountains that would fit right in among the indigo-tinted Na’Vi.

As usual, Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming. The American belief in the essential unity of all mankind, Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s, leads us to collapse distinctions at every level of creation. “Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator,” he suggested, democratic man “seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.”

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.

Indeed, it represents a form of religion that even atheists can support. Richard Dawkins has called pantheism “a sexed-up atheism.” (He means that as a compliment.) Sam Harris concluded his polemic “The End of Faith” by rhapsodizing about the mystical experiences available from immersion in “the roiling mystery of the world.” Citing Albert Einstein’s expression of religious awe at the “beauty and sublimity” of the universe, Dawkins allows, “In this sense I too am religious.”

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

GLOBALWARMINGAGENDA

Was browsing through some old photos; found this bad boy

Gotta love spending trillions lowering carbon emissions in the face of skant evidence linking human activities to rises in average world temperatures. Who needs schools, hospitals or infrastructure, anyway??