IrContent

If you are on NetFlix and ordered movies in December you probably saw the artwork by Leonardo DiCaprio depicting a tree with symbols of many world religions and faiths hanging from it. It was just so freakin’ beautiful it brought a tear to my eye. Actually it made me want to puke. Anyway, Blockbuster has a better program anyway so I cancelled with NetFlix, and sent them the above correspondence. If you can’t read the message it in the image here it is:

I just wanted to let you know that I found the artwork by Leonardo DiCaprio to be very belittling to world religions. The implied suggestion that all these contradictory faiths are just part of one big whole or are on equal footing regarding their veracity is very PC but also reflects ignorance and misunderstanding. The choice of NetFlix to send this relativistic artwork out on its envelopes contributed largely to my decision to cancel my membership.

Feel free to use it if you like!

Just for fun, let’s see how many mistakes we can find in the traditional Christmas story compared to what the Bible actually teaches. Here’s a few . . .

• Although it was Gabriel who announced Mary’s pregnancy to her, we don’t know the name of the angel who appeared to Joseph. (Maybe it was “Harold,” you know: “Hark the Harold Angel Sings” . . . sorry.)
• The story of Mary riding a donkey does not appear anywhere in the Biblical account.
• It was only the shepherds that came to see the baby Jesus.
• There were no “kings”- they were Magi, or “wise men.”
• The number of wise men is not mentioned (the Bible mentions 3 gifts, but does not say that each gave exactly one gift or that all present gave a gift).
• Jesus was between 41 days and 2 years old when the magi arrived.
• The star appeared above the house where Joseph’s family was living.
• Jesus was probably born in a house in a section not normally designated for guests - not a barn (animals were often kept indoors, hence the manger).
• The star is nowhere called “The Star of Bethlehem.”
• The star was indeed in the east - but it did not take the wise men to Jerusalem. In Jerusalem they asked for directions, after leaving Jerusalem the star appeared again and led them to the house in Bethlehem.
• It is possible that Jesus born on December 25th, but Scripture doesn’t say what day it was. Some scholars point to the fact that the shepherds were out in the field “keeping watch over their flock by night,” as proof that Jesus was born sometime in the spring but this has been contested as well.
• The Bible doesn’t mention any cattle lowing, or that there were even any present. We are told that there were flocks of sheep in nearby fields, but there is no mention of a donkey, cow, camels, or any other such creatures.
• And as for Jesus not crying - well, it seems likely that He cried like any normal baby would. He wept for His friends and the lost as a man.

Davis the Metaphysical Pluralist (see Links) tagged me with a Meme in honor of C. S. Lewis. How could I say no?

“In honor of his death, I want to attempt to start a new Meme based on Lewis. Here are the questions . . . I hereby tag Doug Beaumont, Matt Graham, the Moldy Thomists, John Depoe, Keith, Clint and Xavier from Summa Philosophiae, and anyone else. “

1. What was the first book by Lewis that you ever read?

(A) Mere Christianity

2. What is your favorite book by Lewis?

(A) Mere Christianity

3. How many books by Lewis have you read?

(A) 6 (or 12 if you count the Narnia series separely).

4. What books are they?

(A) Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Abolition of Man, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Narnia Series.

5. If C.S. Lewis got in a fight with Francis Schaeffer, who would win?

(A) I think Lewis would win. Schaeffer would be all soft from sitting around L’Abris confsuing Kant with Aquinas while Lewis would be coming back from an Oxford pub ready to rock and roll.

6. What books on Lewis have you read?

(A) Between Heaven and Hell by Peter Kreeft.

7. What made Lewis great?

(A) He was a first class scholar with lay sensibilities, he had a wide vision of the world, he was the consumate wordsmith, and was amazingly honest in his
writings.

I have been reading some Calvinist books lately trying to get a handle on what they actually teach compared to the caricatures often heard from non-Calvinists of various stripes. One of the issues that provides a foundation for the Calvinist enterprise is the notion of free will which seems to lead to the rest of Calvinist doctrine. I have a potential counterexample that I would like some help with because I can’t believe it hasn’t been thought up before but no one seems to know the answer. Any Calvinists out there that can help me out with this one?For most of the Calvinists that I have read they basically believe that either the will is not free or that it is at least not free in the sense that people have equally possible choices given whatever conditions they happen to be in. Rather, Calvinists argue, people are free in the sense that they are allowed to do what they most desire at a given moment. So if my strongest desire is to take a drink of coffee rather to not do so, and I can, then I am free.If someone buys into this notion of free will then it is easy to see why Calvinists insist that God must regenerate a person prior to faith. If the Calvinist is correct that free will means doing what we desire, and the Bible is correct that no one naturally desires God (Rom. 3:11-18, etc.), then no one would ever naturally desire God. Therefore, says the Calvinist, God must perform a supernatural act in order for us to desire Him. Being “born again” in this sense means becoming a new kind of creature - a creature that desires God. The “ULIP” in “TULIP” pretty much follows.

I am still investigating this notion of free will, and so will not comment on it at this time, but there seems to me to be a way out of this dilemma even given the Calvinists’ definition of freedom. (I have only read three or four books so far, and maybe someone deals with this so please don’t flame me if I missed it, but so far no one I have talked to has an answer for me.) OK - here it is: the Argument from Cauliflower.

Granting the Calvinists’ notion of freedom - that a choice is free so long as it is in concert with one’s greatest desire - what happens when two conflicting choices are presented and neither are desirable? For example, I do not like Cauliflower - I find it rather disgusting in fact and can barely choke it down when it is served to me. However I do eat it because it is good for me and I would rather endure Cauliflower than get sick. There seems to be a distinction between something positively desired and something that is less negatively desired when compared to another greater negative desire. Sproul himself mentions something like this in his explanation of freedom - he doesn’t desire to pay his taxes, but he pays them because his greater desire is to not go to jail!

Well, why can’t this work for faith as well? The Calvinist always seems to point to biblical denials of fallen mankind’s natural positive desire for God as if these prove that natural man could never have a less negative desire for God than something else (say, Hell). Given the two choices of God or Hell why couldn’t an unregenerate person desire to serve God more than he desires suffering in Hell?

That’s it really. Any takers?