In lieu of starting something new, a more extended commentary/ramble through things I noticed.
The left continues to be tone deaf regarding biblical references … The comments take the linked piece to task for misreading Jonah. But before that, they misread Jeremiah wasn’t preaching against oppression. If you find that this warning (Jeremiah 7:5-15 in which the primary warnings can be found):
For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.
“Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, declares the Lord. Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it because of the evil of my people Israel. And now, because you have done all these things, declares the Lord, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of Ephraim.
Note, “oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow” certainly might be remarks against oppression but to hold that as the primary focus of the message and not “stealing, murder, committing adultery, and seeking false gods” … then one is, well, wrong.
What is he talking about. Mr Westmorland-White at Levelers notes:
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples to refuse to swear any oaths at all. Since the time of Constantine, most Christians have refused to take Jesus seriously at this point with oath-taking being common in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and all kinds of Protestantism. In this nation, we even use Bibles in administering oaths–having people swear on a book that includes Jesus’ ban on swearing!!
I suppose one could take a very wide (liberal?) understanding of what “swearing an oath” means … but I’ve been Eastern Orthodox for over a year now (and that’s first on his list of offending denominations) and I have no idea what he’s talking about. Do you? Does reciting the creed with it’s profession of faith equal an oath? If so, I proudly announce that I’m guilty. But … otherwise I have no clue what he’s trying to get at, oaths “being common” in Eastern Orthodoxy. Is this just ignorance on his part?
Over at Positive Liberty, Jim Babka looks at science and religion, which is interesting in its own right, ultimately I think I’m agreeing with much of what he says.. However, it seems to me the view that science as expressed by Dawkins is merely an unusual divorce from the theology and, in essence, the expression about what is the goal and end of science from religion. Religion (and specifically the Hebrew/Christian faith) does connect with science as a process and its goals. [aside: This is also not an emergent process as noted in a comment, but something a little more complicated, see for example Polanyi’s engagement with what science is about and how it is done in Personal Knowledge
.] I’d make the Chestertonian claim that mainstream/orthodox Christianity doesn’t just engage and connect with the scientific endeavor … it “gets it exactly right” and further that ‘getting right’ is not to resort to non-overlapping magisteria. Genesis 1 for example, with it’s onotological classification of living things, can be noted as an affirmation of the idea that the material world is intelligible. In that view, the first chapter of the first book (which is very foundational) asserts from the very beginning that the bedrock of the materialism on which science is based is true. This notion, that the universe is intelligible, is in fact the crucial idea, taken on faith, that everyone engaged in science believes. St. Augustine in his Confessions, notes that the material universe praises (worships) its creator through our understanding of how it is made and fits together. In that view, scientists (be they believers or not) are embarking on the project of allowing God’s universe to praise Him. Which leads to the interesting remark, if Augustine is right … then scientists atheist or not are worshipping God by their actions. For does motive matter so much, if I beat a child with a chain with the “intention of improving him” it is still remains child abuse, even if “my heart” was in a different place.” For the materialist atheist scientist the origins of his belief in the material consistency of nature derive intellectually from Christian roots. Further, his actions are that by which Nature praises its Creator. To not engage in worship, for the scientist, is not a thing which is possible for that is the basis of his action.
I will however disagree with Mr Babka’s recent parting remark (in a comment):
I actually don’t like using the term “Christian.” One reason is, that term is associated, in most folks minds, with Christianity — the institution. And I’m no fan of institutions.
If, as St. Paul remarks on marriage, the relationship between husband and wife is to be as Christ and his Church … then one cannot abandon the institution … for that is the church, well, specifically the Christian people, worshipping, praying, and forming that/those institution(s) known as our churches cannot be let go. One cannot, I think, be truly Christian and not be a fan of the Church.