This is the essence of Michael Ward’s presentation on CS Lewis’s apologetics during the recent Lewis symposium at Iasi University.
Thanks, Manu Contac, for the link.
This is the essence of Michael Ward’s presentation on CS Lewis’s apologetics during the recent Lewis symposium at Iasi University.
Thanks, Manu Contac, for the link.
A doua zi a simpozionului CS Lewis a avut loc in Sala Ferdinand a universitatii, mai adecvata unei reuniuni stiintifice cu o participare totusi relativ redusa pentru dimensiunile aulei. (Vezi AICI prezentarea primei zile a simpozionului.)
Domnul asistent dr. Mircea Paduraru de la facultatea de filologie a universitatii iesene a deschis sesiunea de dimineata cu tema ‘CS Lewis si diavolul. Despre strategia determinarii indeterminabilului’, bazata, desigur, pe o analiza a cartii lui Lewis The Screwtape Letters. Domnul Paduraru a scris o teza de doctorat foarte apreciata (si premiata, atunci cind a aparut in volum) pe tema ‘Diavolul in literatura populara romaneasca’. De aceea alegerea acestei teme n-a surprins pe nimeni. Continue reading “Simpozionul C. S. Lewis de la Iasi – Fotoreportaj – ziua a doua”
Simpozionul C.S. Lewis de la Universitatea din Iasi a fost initiativa doamnei Denise Vasiliu, doctorand al acestei universitati, si a fost o reusita din toate punctele de vedere. Evident, organizarea unui asemenea eveniment academic a solicitat o munca asidua de echipa, precum si sustinerea deplina a conducerii universitatii.
In cele ce urmeaza va prezint un rezumat al simpozionului si impresiile mele asupra acestuia. Imi cer ietrare anticipat pentru calitatea redusa a imaginilor, dar a avut la dispozitie un aparat foto modest si nu am vrut sa deranjez miscindu-ma in sala pentru a cauta unghiurile cele mai favorabile. Sper sa ma iertati pentru asta. Daca mai tirziu voi obtine fotografii mai bune, de la cei care le-au facut cu aparate profesioniste, sper sa le pot inlocui.
UPDATE – Asa cum am promis, am obtinut citeva fotografii mai bune si le inlocuiesc pe ale mele in aceasta versiune revizuita. Multumesc lui Florin Vasiliu pentru ajutor. Continue reading “Simpozionul C. S. Lewis de la Iasi – Fotoreportaj – ziua intiia – UPDATE”
Atheists claim to have a monopoly of intelligence and rationality. Bill Maher is for sure one of those. However, from time to time he meets somebody who brings him back to the reality of the limits of his intelligence. Who knows, maybe so day he will wake up.
The christian is Ross Douthat, NY Times columnist, who has a book out called “Bad Religion”.
Acesta este textul intergral al prelegerii pe care Horia-Roman Patapievici a tinut-o luni, 28 octombrie 2013, la Facultatea de Ştiinţe Economice a Universitatii “Babes-Bolyai” din Cluj, asa cum a fost transcris de Mihnea Maruta.
* * *
(…) Vreau să vă spun ce sunt aceste Les Pensées, despre care vă voi vorbi astăzi. Ele au intrat în posteritate sub numele de pensées. Asta s-a tradus în româneşte prin “cugetări”, dar ele nu sunt nişte cugetări, nu sunt nişte maxime. Altfel spus, ele nu sunt ceea ce i se năzare unui om, oricât de respectabil ar fi acest lucru, în momentul în care stă ori cade pe gânduri. Nu.
Ele reprezintă ceea ce, în intenţia lui Pascal, era o apologie a adevărului religiei creştine. Ceea ce el a încercat să facă în această lucrare – care nu este încheiată şi asupra căreia nu avem o certitudine în ce priveşte ordinea fragmentelor rămase – a fost să dezvolte un argument constrângător, un argument complet (pentru că le-a criticat pe toate celelalte) în favoarea căilor prin care se demonstrează existenţa lui Dumnezeu şi a argumentelor prin care putem stabili adevărul religiei creştine.
Asta este, de fapt, Les Pensées. O să-i spunem în continuare aşa, nu-mi place cum sună “Cugetările”, dar, de fiecare dată când auziţi acest lucru şi când vă veţi referi în amintire, ori în intenţie, la această lucrare, să nu uitaţi ceea ce este ea de fapt.
Vreau să vă spun cum anume au reacţionat erudiţii în momentul în care au construit ediţii din fragmentele rămase de pe urma lui Pascal. În primul rând, trebuie să înţelegeţi că modul în care au fost păstrate aceste hârtii era unul inspirat de o mare pietate. Pentru că Pascal era considerat nu numai geniul pe care l-aţi auzit descris de Chateaubriand, ci era şi notre saint, era “sfântul nostru”. Aşa-l considera nu doar comunitatea măicuţelor de la Port-Royal, nu doar comunitatea familiei, dar şi oamenii care auziseră de el şi de faptele sale de sfinţenie.
Pascal a murit înconjurat de simţământul că cel care a murit a fost un sfânt. Aşa cum, atunci când a murit Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea, cei din Piaţa Sfântul Petru au strigat “Sanctificat acum!”, tot acesta era şi sentimentul celor care au rămas în urma lui Pascal. Ca atare, aceste fragmente au fost păstrate nu doar cu grijă, ci şi cu pietate, pentru că cel care le lăsase nu era doar un mare savant, ci şi “sfântul nostru”.
Cum au fost organizate aceste fragmente? E important să ştiţi acest lucru în momentul în care, dacă n-aţi făcut-o deja, veţi citi această lucrare, ca să înţelegeţi mai bine ce se pune între dumneavoastră şi Pascal. Cei de la Port-Royal… vă spune ceva acest lucru, Port-Royal?
Citi AICI pre;egerea in intregul ei.
Here is just a fragment from a very interesting interview given by Bono to Michka Assayas, which can be found in his book called Bono:
Bono: My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don’t let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that’s my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that’s not so easy.
Michka: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn’t so “peace and love”?
Bono: There’s nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that’s why they’re so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you’re a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross. Continue reading “Bono on Jesus – An Interview”
Here is a short presentation of conformed speakers at the CS Lewis Symposium at Iasi University, 7-8 Nov 2013:
Confirmed Speakers (Alphabetical order):
Here are a few details on the symposium, from the website of the event:
The talented British writer and respected scholar and teacher at Oxford University for 29 years and then a professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University, C.S. Lewis is one of the twentieth-century greatest literary figures who opened doors to new worlds of ideas, fantastic discoveries and insights of human experience and enduring questions of human meaning. Covering a wide spectrum of topics, he wrote prolifically in many genres: novels, poetry, fantasy, science fiction, essays, letters, literary history and criticism, and apologetics. Continue reading “CS Lewis Symposium Presentation”
My story is almost always met with surprise: How could an atheist convert to Christianity at Harvard, the bastion of secular intellectual elitism?
Now this reaction has some empirical justification. A recent meta-analysis of studies on religion and intelligence found that yes, overall, people with high IQs and test scores are less likely to be religious. Researchers analyzed 63 studies on religion and intelligence from the past 80 years with differing results to discover the slightly negative correlation between the two.
Unlike previous studies that tried to explain the data by suggesting that smart people simply see past religion’s claims, these researchers, led by University of Rochester psychologist Miron Zuckerman, tried to identify other social factors in play. Nevertheless, the hype about their conclusions is overblown, and all of us—the religious and the non-religious—should be wary of placing too much weight on their findings. Continue reading “Jordan Monge – Why Intelligent People Are Less Likely to Be Religious”
This may be hard to swallow, especially for those on the right theologically. Yet, the questions asked refuse to go away easily.
Vlad Criznic si-a facut blog.
Was Mt. Sinai really located on the Sinai Peninsula? Some dabate this. Here is a presentation of one of these alternative theories, in two parts.
Here are Gerald Rau’s six models for the question of beginnings: on how what is came into being. Worth delving into.
O conferinta organizata la 4 iulie 2013 de Centrul Areopagus la Universitatea de Vest din Timişoara.
Dr. Jerry Root este profesor la Wheaton College, in Wheaton, Ill.
I offer you this excellent theological rfelecction by American Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, in the context of the current fierce theological debates around the virtual space on Piper’s usual insensitive comments about God punishing people in disasters, what may be called his ‘abusive theology of “deserved” tragedy’ (as Rachel Held Evans calls it), as rooted in what Scot McKnight calls a view of God’s ‘meticulous sovereignty’.
It was published initially in The Christian Cenruty. It is copyrighted, so I will give you only the beginning of ti. You can find the text in its entirety at the link I provide.
* * *
It’s often said that three claims of the Christian tradition — “God is omnipotent,” “God is love” and “Evil exists” — present a logical contradiction. One of the claims has to be revised. Do you agree?
If by “evil exists” you mean that evil possesses a real substance of its own, and that it therefore exists in the way goodness exists (or, for that matter, a tree, a rabbit, an idea or a dream exists), in point of fact Christian tradition has usually denied this quite forcibly. Patristic and medieval thought (drawing, admittedly, on Platonic precedent) defined evil as a privation of the good: a purely parasitic and shadowy reality, a contamination or disease or absence, but not a real thing in itself. This, incidentally, is a logically necessary claim if one understands goodness and being as flowing alike from the very nature of God and coinciding in him as one infinite life. Continue reading “Where Was God? An Interview with David Bentley Hart”
These days, many postmoderns are discovering or rediscovering Jesus, what he says and what he means.
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake side, He came to those … who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: ‘Follow thou me!’ and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” (Albert Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus.)
“Since the Reformation, Protestant churches have generally interpreted Jesus through the Apostle Paul. Today, many postmodern Christians are learning to interpret Paul thorough Jesus.” (Tony Campolo, New Baptist Covenant convocation, 2012, paraphrased)
“Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen. Nobody knows but Jesus.” (African-American spiritual) Continue reading “Bill Leonard – As One Unknown”
This is serious discussion by Peter Enns of basic hermeneutical principles for dealing with some of the controversial texts in the Bible, like those of creation or those about God commanding the extermination of the Canaanites.
NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED
Edith Rachel Merritt Seville Schaeffer died on March 30, 2013 in her home in Gryon, Switzerland, where she had moved 13 years ago to be surrounded by memories, her music, her son’s paintings and the detailed care organized daily by her daughter Deborah Middelmann. She was born on November 3, 1914 as the third daughter of Dr. George Hugh and Jessie Maude Seville in Wenchau, China, where her parents ran a school for girls and taught the Bible in Mandarin.
Edith Schaeffer marked her life with the expression of rich ideas, often rebellious against the staid and superficial life she saw among Christians. The oldest sister became a communist in New York of the 30ies, the second eloped. Edith Seville married Francis August Schaeffer in 1935 and in no way was she the typical pastor’s or missionary wife. She turned her active mind to work with her husband, teaching first seminary wives to think and to question, to create and make of life something of integrity, as her husband so wanted her to do. Continue reading “Udo Middelmann – In memoriam Edith Schaeffer”
A tough matter, that most Christians tend to ignore or belittle (feeling it is minor and, anyway, these injustices were not done by TRUE Christians – whatever their definition of being a Christian is):
‘Martin Bashir after quoting Christopher Hitchens puts it like this in the Veritas Forum interview at Columbia.
The behavior of so-called Christians, followers of Christ, has been so reprehensible over the centuries that it in and of itself denies the very existence of this God of love you talk about in your book. How do you respond to that?
This isn’t a small problem. In fact Keller admits that this is the greatest argument against the truth of Christianity.’
Following Rachel’s post on the ‘evangelical heart’ here is another post, this time by Peters Enns, which tries to make us think sincerely about ourselves, by getting on our nerves.
I will just paste a few paragraphs.
* * *
I have felt for years that, as right as he is, Noll may be too optimistic.
In my experience, the real problem isn’t simply a failure on the part of Evangelicals to engage the world of thought. Evangelicals earning higher degrees and publishing their findings in the wider intellectual community isn’t what’s needed.
The real scandal of the Evangelical mind is that we are not allowed to use it.
Calling for Evangelical involvement in public academic discourse is useless if trained Evangelicals are legitimately afraid of what will happen to them if they do.
A more basic need is the creation of an Evangelical culture where the exercise of the Evangelical mind is expected and encouraged.
But, with few exceptions, that culture does not exist. The scandal of the Evangelical mind is that degrees, books, papers, and other marks of prestige are valued–provided you come to predetermined conclusions. Continue reading “Peter Enns – The Deeper Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: We Are Not Allowed to Use It”
“I wish your project heartily well,” wrote C.S. Lewis to Christianity Today, “but can’t write you articles.” Carl F.H. Henry, founding editor of the magazine, had invited Lewis in 1955 to contribute to the magazine’s first issue. Lewis declined. Henry, was not, as the saying goes, “A day late and a dollar short.” He was over a decade late, and no dollar amount would have mattered as Lewis gave the lion’s share of his royalties to charity.
There was a time when Lewis would have said yes: when Nazi soldiers marched into Poland and threatened the stability of the world. Adolph Hitler’s influence on C.S. Lewis’ apologetics is an irrefutable fact. The Führer’s evil campaign paved the way for the clear speaking Lewis to engage listeners through the British Broadcast Service. Even as bombs fell over London, Lewis’ baritone voice could be heard on radios across Europe. His evangelistic approach was tailor-made for men at war.
Thus, Mere Christianity was born in the fullness of time. This classic work, though published in 1952, was taken from the transcripts of his broadcasts from the early 1940s. By the time the book was available in print, Lewis was already changing his approach. As Solomon said, “There is a time for war and a time for peace.” Lewis modified his methods for both. Continue reading “Dan DeWitt – Why C.S. Lewis Didn’t Write for Christianity Today”
Sixty years ago, London publisher Geoffrey Bles first released a revision of three sets of radio talks by an Oxford literature don. The book was called Mere Christianity, and there was nothing “mere” about it. A somewhat disjointed set of C. S. Lewis’s views on a wide range of theological, philosophical, and ethical matters, the book became the most important and effective defense of the Christian faith in its century.
As Mere Christianity (henceforth “MC”) goes into its seventh decade of publishing success, rivaled still by no other apologetic, it’s worth taking a look at its unlikely success.
The first reason why MC should not have worked is rather basic: It doesn’t deliver what its title promises. It does not do even what John Stott’s classic Basic Christianity does—namely, outline at least the basics of evangelicalism’s understanding of the gospel. Given the title’s own promise and Lewis’s express intent of offering “mere Christianity,” we get something substantially less than that, as I think Puritan pastor Richard Baxter, from whom the phrase comes, would affirm.
Furthermore, MC offers not only less than “MC,” but also more: Lewis’s own opinions about domestic relationships, marriage, and gender; and his particular take on the vexed question of God and time (which, in my view, has powerfully perpetuated Christian Platonism and its “timeless God” among many people who have never read Plato). The danger here is the danger that resides also in C. I. Scofield’s dispensationalist notes to his famous Reference Bible. (I recognize that this is perhaps the first time anyone has claimed that Lewis and Scofield are peas in a pod, but they are both remarkable publishing successes.) The danger is that the secondary and idiosyncratic are bundled with the primary and universal, and taken in together by the trusting reader as being “simply Christian.” Continue reading “John G. Stackhouse Jr. on the ‘Mere Christianity’ Phenomenon”
Chiar daca uneori face consideratii legitime, in esenta Andrei Gaitanaru trateaza in acest text in mod destul de confuz si cu o cunoastere superficiala a problemelor discutate o chestiune controversata in spatiul evanghelic american.
Ca sa nu mai vorbim de apelul la argumente patristice, foarte putin relevente, de vreme ce Parintii Bisericii nu s-au confruntat cu datele pe care trebuie sa le ia in seama in interpretarea lor bibloica teologi precum John Schneider.
Voi ce credeti?
Darrel Falk grew up in a “wonderful home and a wonderful church” near Vancouver, British Columbia. A shy, serious child, he had a reputation among his friends for never lying or swearing. He asked Jesus into his heart at age 4, and through an altar call at age 10, asked for a second work of grace, in the holiness language of his Nazarene church. “I feel so clean inside,” he said afterwards in tearful wonder.
Todd Wood was born a generation after Falk in Rives Junction, an unincorporated village in the heart of Michigan. His father was a truck driver, and they lived on 13 rural acres, out of sight of the nearest neighbor. Northwest Baptist, a small, fundamentalist church his parents had helped to start and many relatives attended, was at the heart of his life. He attended a K-12 Baptist school with 25 students in his graduating class. A quiet boy, Wood loved doing research papers, going far beyond teachers’ expectations in tracking down extensive sources. Few in his acquaintance had been to college, and he had never met a scientist.
Both Wood and Falk grew up with absolute confidence in the Bible, a strong sense of family, and a belief that church was the place to find meaning and community. Both of them had an unusual aptitude for mathematics and an interest in science—though neither one had much idea what science was. They could have followed very similar pathways, and in a sense, they did. Continue reading “A Tale of Two Scientists: What Really Happened ‘In the Beginning’”
‘Why do so many Americans reject the modern theory of evolution? Why does creationism, thoroughly refuted by scientists, retain such popularity among the public? Is the perceived conflict between evolution and Christianity genuine, or is it merely an illusion peculiar to Protestant fundamentalism?
Seeking answers to these questions, mathematician Jason Rosenhouse became a regular attendee at creationist conferences and other gatherings. After ten years of attending events like the giant Creation Mega-Conference in Lynchburg, Virginia, and visiting sites like the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and after hundreds of surprisingly friendly conversations with creationists of varying stripes, he has emerged with a story to tell, a story that goes well beyond the usual stereotypes of Bible-thumping fanatics railing against coldly rational scientists. Through anecdotes, personal reflections, and scientific and philosophical discussion, Rosenhouse presents a more down-to-earth picture of modern creationism and the people who espouse it. He is neither polemical nor insulting, but he does not pull punches when he spots an error in the logical or scientific reasoning of creationists, especially when they wander into his own field, mathematics. Along the way, he also tells the story of his own nonbeliever’s attempt to understand a major aspect of American religion. Forced to wrestle with his views about God and evolution, Rosenhouse found himself drawn into a new world of ideas previously unknown to him, arriving at a sharper understanding of the reality of science-versus-religion disputes, and how these debates look to those beyond the ivory tower.
A personal memoir of one scientist’s attempt to come to grips with this controversy-by immersing himself in the culture of the anti-evolutionists-Among the Creationists is a fair, fresh, and insightful account of the modern American debate over Darwinism.’ (From Amazon)
Carson, I am as skeptic as you are, if not more, about the usefulness of apologetics in postmodernity. But I have to confess that Keller impressed me too. I do not know if I will have time to watch this, but I will put a link to it on my blog, so that those interested in this discipline could do it
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
Many secular and many evangelical voices agree on one ‘truism’—that if you are an orthodox Christian with a high view of the authority of the Bible, you cannot believe in evolution in any form at all. New Atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and creationist writers such as Ken Ham seem to have arrived at consensus on this, and so more and more in the general population are treating it as given. If you believe in God, you can’t believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, you can’t believe in God.
This creates a problem for both doubters and believers. Many believers in western culture see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How then, can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their traditional theological beliefs? Seekers and inquirers about Christianity can be even more perplexed. They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but, they say, “I don’t see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science.” Continue reading “Tim Keller – Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople”
‘Knowing that they are in a minority among Protestants did not limit the gathering’s enthusiasm. About 60 participants came by special invitation, with the proviso that their names would not be publicized without permission. This was intended to encourage open conversation on sensitive topics. Attending were such luminaries as N. T. Wright, Alister McGrath, John Ortberg, Tim Keller, Scot McKnight, Os Guinness, Joel Hunter, and Andy Crouch. Prominent scientists included Ian Hutchinson of MIT and Jennifer Wiseman, senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope. Forty-one pastors and parachurch leaders participated.’
For many Romanians, to be an evangelical means to believe in a six 24 hour days creation and to believe that God could have brought the world into being through an evolutionary process is worse that being the devil himself.
A little bit of education about the fact that one could be an evangelical and and not be in denial about the facts of science may hurt a bot, but it good, hopefully, for intellectual maturity.
Since today I have heard that the Archbishop Rowan Williams will retire from his position at the end of this year, allow me please to reblog my favourite post about him on this blog.
You may read the full story on the Archbishop of Canterbury website.
Teachers at a Scottish church primary school asked children to write the following letter:
How did you get invented?”
Alex Renton, a British journalist and non-believing father of one of the children emailed the letter to various church institutions, with very little response, if any: to the Scottish Episcopal Church (no reply), the Presbyterians (ditto) and the Scottish Catholics (a nice but theologically complex answer).
Finally he also sent the letter to “the head of theology of the Anglican Communion, based at Lambeth Palace”. Here is the response she got:
View original post 270 more words