Really Recommended Posts

Really Recommended Posts 11/22/13- Miraculous Gifts, Concordism, Archaeology, and more!

postI have to admit, I think this is one of the most engaging “Really Recommended Posts” I’ve put together. There are multiple views presented on two of these posts, and the others give some good food for thought. Check out opposing views on charismatic/miraculous gifts; delve into the notion of concordism from different sides. Leave comments to share your own thoughts on these issues. Then, archaeology, abortion, the Noah movie, and Hume round out the discussion. I hope you’ll drop some comments to let me know your thoughts.

Debate: Have the New Testament Charismatic Gifts Ceased?– The “Strange Fire” book and conference have caused a huge amount of discussion to arise within evangelical circles regarding miraculous/charismatic gifts. Do these gifts continue past the New Testament times? Here, Michael Brown debates Sam Waldron on this topic. I have also written presenting four major views on this topic should you like to explore the topic more deeply. Which side do you think is correct? Why? Leave a comment!

Defending Concordism: Response to The Lost World of Genesis One– Concordism is the view that science will line up with biblical teaching about origins and other scientific aspects of reality. One major challenge to the position is the notion that the Bible simply doesn’t address such things. Here, Reasons to Believe, a major concordist group, answers several objections posed against concordism. William Lane Craig has recently answered a question about concordism himself, in which he raises a few objections to the position and explains why he is not a concordist. What are your thoughts on this debate? Leave a comment!

A Brief Sample of Old Testament Archaeological Corroboration– The Old Testament clearly makes a number of claims about the actual historical events of the Bible. Here, J. Warner Wallace addresses some of these claims and notes how we have archaeological research to back them up.

How the ADF kept nurses who wouldn’t perform abortions from being fired– The ADF–Alliance Defending Freedom–successfully reached a settlement regarding a hospital that was going to force nurses with moral objections to abortion to perform them. I find this a particularly stunning case, because so often the pro-choice side says things like “Don’t want an abortion, don’t get one!” But this is shown to be mere lip service, because now the attempt is being made to force even those with moral objections not to get abortions, but to actually carry them out. I am very pleased to see that sound reasoning prevailed and the nurses were not forced to do this or lose their jobs. It remains troubling to me that anyone would even think this could be okay. Check out the post.

How Should Christians Respond to Noah the Movie?– Greg West over at The Poached Egg (an amazing site you should follow if you don’t already!) found this gem of a post regarding the “Noah” movie. Check out my own thoughts on the trailer and upcoming film.

David Hume’s Genuine Theism– A provocative title, to be sure! In this brief post, the author argues that one of Hume’s aims was to restore “genuine theism” over and against rationalistic deism. It’s a quick read, but very thought-provoking.

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a Lutheran, feminist, Christ-follower. A Science Fiction snob, Bonhoeffer fan, Paleontology fanboy and RPG nerd.


9 thoughts on “Really Recommended Posts 11/22/13- Miraculous Gifts, Concordism, Archaeology, and more!

  1. Regarding the How the ADF kept nurses who wouldn’t perform abortions from being fired post, this may seem to be a victory for those who believe abortion is murder. But the facts of the matter are three-fold: therapeutic abortions save lives and so by refusing to participate in this medically necessary therapy to provide best practices, these nurses are acting contrary to their professional standards. This is not just a firing offense from a particular job but an act of choice that earns disbarment for those who willingly and knowingly act contrary to these standards of care.

    The second is one of principle that has been overshadowed by the false dichotomy presented by those who see abortion only as murder: the principle involves either respecting best practices of a profession or respecting people’s religious beliefs who exercise that profession. This will require some thinking. In this particular case, I can understand people who define the abortion issue this way to see this resolution as a victory. It’s not. The real cost imposed on all of us is an ethical setback to how professions are regulated. Now consider: this outcome opens the door to having other people deciding for you which medical treatments you are eligible to receive based not on professional standards and best practices but on their religious standards!.

    For those able to think this clearly, imagine never knowing if a doctor will treat you according to First World medical knowledge or some Iron Age moral preference. Expand this scenario to pharmacists who may or may not fill a prescription based on his or her religious preference, physiotherapists who may believe reiki to be magically affective, diagnosticians who believe demons are busy at work, technicians who feel empowered to activate their faith healing in place of a doctor’s prescribed treatment, and so on. As if this weren’t toxic enough to how medicine must be practiced to be medicine, let us now move outside the christian comfort zone and wonder how this ‘victory’ might look with different religious beliefs dictating your access to any and all of the medical services. On what medical grounds is this ‘victory’ based when we allow the religious beliefs of individuals to trump best medical practices? None… as far as I can see.

    This ruling is a travesty and just another example of how religion poisons everything.

    Posted by tildeb | November 22, 2013, 10:08 AM
    • The trend in your comments on abortion continues: your responses all insist on begging the question.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | November 22, 2013, 10:22 AM
      • So are my points invalid?

        Posted by tildeb | November 22, 2013, 12:31 PM
      • Fairly obviously so. The first point does not consider that the objector considers the life of the unborn. You beg the question against that position. The second point does the exact same thing. If it actually is someone’s life at stake in abortion, then clearly your objection fails. But as you continually do, you use the favorite weapon word of “religion” to stigmatize those with whom you disagree and beg the question against their position. Your third point is a gross misrepresentation of the issue at hand. Once again, you use the word “religion” to stigmatize the alleged “religious other” and then beg the question against their position. Your comments have followed this trend for some time: beg the question by assuming the opposite position is true; celebrate by bashing the religious other.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | November 22, 2013, 12:37 PM
      • JW, you continue to respond to my questions with this trope, that I am begging the question, that I am assuming that abortion is right. Only by attributing this to me as my assumption does you counter argument appear to relevant. It’s not relevant because it’s not me assuming anything; the college of nurses have established that personal feelings do not warrant refusing to enact best medical practices! And because therapeutic abortions are established medical knowledge to save lives, the profession has ruled against its members withholding treatment for personal reasons.

        The first point is that an individual agrees to professional standards when entering a profession. This is not begging the question. Personal feelings don’t apply. This is not begging the question. To think they do apply is to not understand the role of the professions (with their colleges and boards). This seems to pertain directly to you. All professions are so regulated. This is not begging the question. For example, when a police officer dons the uniform of office, his or her job is to enforce the law. The officer is not to introduce personal feelings in its place or impose favoured and selective enforcement of laws they personally agree with and suspend enforcement for laws they choose not to agree with! If the officer cannot enforce the law (for personal reasons), then they must abdicate the job rather than change the job to allow the officer to act in ways that may or may not enforce the law depending on personal preferences and considerations. This is not begging the question. The same is true for nurses, who either must respect their college’s standards of practice or leave the profession. This is not begging the question. This point has nothing whatsoever to do with granting why a person doesn’t wish to uphold the standards of practice they have agreed to uphold and so the fact of the point is not me weighing the issue (or not) considering the feelings of the nurses in this particular case so it is not a point that is begging the question. It remains a point that personal feelings and preferences are not the arbiter of their professional conduct as you seem to assume.

        The second point I raise is about the cost of accepting the first point: that it is a ‘victory’ to elevate a person’s feeling above, in contrast and conflict with, agreed upon professional standards of practice. My point is that by allowing this to happen, one is granting the absence of choice from those who otherwise should receive proper medical treatment. The point is that the nurses’ personal feelings remove the patient’s choice. This is not begging the question but a fact that continues to kill real women in real life by other real people withholding medically necessary treatment for personal reasons. You and other anti-choice advocates seem to be okay with this as long as the other person isn’t a fetus. This is not begging the question.

        My third point builds on the first two and offers a look into a world where regulated professions are subject to personal whims. The moral arguments put forth by the anti-abortion advocates is very much a religious imperative, funded and organized by religious organizations. But the principle of allowing personal religious beliefs to dictate what medical treatments people can receive is exposed when we change the religion! I was hoping that might wake people up to the danger of permitting such belief casual effect in this case by keeping the principle intact when religious people from outside the christian faith begin to exert their preferences on you – in medicine, in education, in law, in public policy, and so on – without you having any recourse because you’ve abandoned the legal requirement to have choice, to force practitioners to have to meet professional standards… on the alter of abortion! This is not begging the question but exposing the paucity of principle – and the costs it imposes on all of us in ways we may not have ever considered – when people are willing to sacrifice it in the name advocating personal religious belief to be superior in law.

        Posted by tildeb | November 22, 2013, 2:21 PM
      • Okay, it is not a religious argument. It is a biological argument. Ironically, it is the pro-life advocate that argues from science while the pro-choice advocate makes philosophical categories to dehumanize the unborn. This is not a religious argument. Your continually use that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. “Personal religious belief” is not at stake here. A position based upon scientific and philosophical argumentation is. You are dogmatically (ironically) denying the rights of others to define their beliefs. The very fact that you continue to say it is a “religious” belief as opposed to an actual scientific statement: the unborn is a living human being who is not the same human being as the mother…. is insulting. Stop it. Now. Seriously, what part of that statement is religious? none of it. Don’t answer that question either, I’m not setting you up for another pontificating speech.

        Now, I’m done with you using my site as a soap box. Please be a little more succinct with your answers. There is absolutely no reason that a comment on a post that is just a series of links needs to be over 500 words.

        Finally, I still maintain that the very category of “religious” is a construct intended to defame the made up religious other. Your comments a prime example of how this plays out: classify someone as a “religious other”; denigrate their beliefs. Dismiss their beliefs because they are religious. Rinse and repeat. Again, stop it. I’m done allowing this sham to continue. If you can’t do anything but recycle insults for people you mislabel, you’ll no longer be allowed to comment on this blog.

        That means, by the way, referring to pro-life persons as pro life and not “anti-choice.” I don’t label pro-choice persons anti-life; nor would I. I actually respect other people. You don’t seem to have that respect. Start having it, or you won’t be commenting here any more.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | November 23, 2013, 1:24 AM
  2. I had an interesting conversation with Tildeb a long time ago.
    I guess he feels really frustrated due to American fundamentalism which is (psychologically) very understandable.
    But this, of course, gives him absolutely no right to disrespect other religious people who are quite nice (like you apparently are).

    Otherwise, the argument used by pro-choicers is that something is morally wrong only if it causes pain. And of course unborn babies are bunch of chemicals who cannot yet feel anything at all.

    Lovely greetings in Christ.

    Posted by lotharson | November 24, 2013, 12:49 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,859 other subscribers


Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
%d bloggers like this: