eChurch Blog

Cross-post by Cranmer’s Curate

Cranmer’s Curate thanks the Institute of Ideas very much for inviting him to be part of the audience at a ‘Question Time’ event at Sheffield University on Monday evening and for giving him a nice glass of wine beforehand.

Defying the cynicism of post-Christian Britain, the speakers went out of their way to be thought-provoking and unconstrained by political correctness. The evening was attended by students from various Sheffield secondary schools, who had been participating in a debating competition during the day.

‘On the panel’ were Dr Rhiannon Vickers, senior lecturer in politics, University of Sheffield; Kim Knott, professor of religious studies, University of Leeds; David Harsent, award winning poet and TV scriptwriter; Dennis Hayes, Professor of Education, University of Derby and founder of Academics for Academic Freedom; and Bill Carmichael, former news editor of the Yorkshire Post and now a journalism lecturer at Sheffield University. In the chair was Austin Williams, director of the Future Cities Project.

The subject of religion came up. Called by the chairman as the gentleman in ‘the religious garb’, a dog-collared cc tried to make the point that an evening of free speech like that occasion would be inconceivable without the English Bible – God’s gift to the nation through an Evangelical Christian, William Tyndale. Your curate suggested that this fact was being airbrushed out of educational syllabuses by political correctness. How many school pupils have heard of William Tyndale? This comment was greeted sympathetically, a strong contrast to how similar comments are greeted at meetings of the institutional church.

Your curate recalls the atmosphere of disapproval which met his comment at a recent deanery synod that Evangelical businessmen who contribute generously to net-giving churches that generally disapprove of remarriage after divorce have nothing to be ashamed of. He also recalls the shocked reaction to a comment at a diocesan lecture at Sheffield University a few years ago when your curate drew attention to Article 18 and the fact that the Church of England officially teaches that Jesus Christ is the only Name under heaven by which people must be saved. Your curate was even accosted by a Church Army captain after a speech at a diocesan synod and accused of ‘ruffling feathers’.

It seems that parts of the world are wanting to shake loose from the grip of political correctness whilst the institutional church seems to be stuck in a time warp of 1980s’ student politics.

‘ruffling feathers’

Lord forfend that churchianity should have its feathers ruffled.

Outrageous behaviour from Cranmer’s Curate I’m sure you’ll agree.

Our Lord would never dream of ‘ruffling feathers’, whatever next?

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it

By Sandro Magister

Benedict XVI has taught it to the faithful in a general audience, against those who call for a new beginning for Christianity, without hierarchy or dogmas. The secret of good governance, he said, is “above all to think and to pray”

Few have noticed it, but in the thick of the storm that has battered the Catholic Church in the wake of the scandal presented to the “little ones” by some of its priests, Joseph Ratzinger has faced the challenge in a way uniquely his own. With a surprising lesson on the theology of history, not without references to his own experience as theologian and pope.

He gave the lesson to the pilgrims crowding the hall for the general audience on the morning of Wednesday, March 10.

The pope repeatedly looked up from the written text and improvised.

At the center of the lesson stands Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, doctor of the Church, one of the first successors of Saint Francis as head of the order he founded.

And this is the first of the autobiographical features. Because it was precisely on Saint Bonaventure’s theology of history that the young Joseph Ratzinger published, in 1959, his thesis for certification to teach theology, which has recently been republished.

The novelty of this early text was that it compared, for the first time, Saint Bonaventure’s theology of history with the highly influential version of Joachim of Fiore.

Joachim of Fiore has had a tremendous influence on both Christian and atheist thought, in his own century and in later ones, up until our own time. Thirty years ago, the theologian Henri De Lubac dedicated a two-volume study to this influence, entitled: “La posterité spirituelle de Joachim de Flore.”

When today, in reaction to the scandal of some priests, appeals come again for an epochal, radical purification of the Church, a new Council to be a “new beginning and rupture,” a spiritual Christianity made up of the bare Gospel without any more hierarchies or dogmas, what is being invoked if not the age of the Spirit proclaimed by Joachim of Fiore?

In his lesson last March 10, Benedict XVI described and made accessible with rare clarity the contrast between Joachim and Bonaventure. He showed how Joachim’s utopia found fertile ground in Vatican Council II to reproduce itself once again, successfully opposed, however, by the “wise helmsmen of Peter’s barque,” by the popes who were able to defend simultaneously the novelty of the Council and the continuity of the Church.

It’s a small step from spiritualism to anarchy, Benedict XVI warned. That’s the way it was in Saint Bonaventure’s century, and that’s the way it is today. In order to be governed, the Church needs hierarchical structures, but these must be given a clear theological foundation. This is what Saint Bonaventure did in governing the Franciscan order. For him, “to govern was not simply a task but was above all to think and to pray. At the base of his government we always find prayer and thought; all his decisions resulted from reflection, from thought illumined by prayer.”

The same thing – the pope said – must happen today in the universal Church: “governing, that is, not only through commands and structures, but through guiding and enlightening souls, orienting them to Christ.”

This is the second, decisive autobiographical trait from the lesson on March 10. In it, Benedict XVI said how he intends to govern the Church. He said it with the meek humility that is characteristic of him, putting himself in the shadow of a saint.

Just as for Saint Bonaventure the theological and mystical writings were “the soul of governance,” so it is for the current pope. The soul of his governance is the liturgical homilies, instruction for the faithful and the world, the book on Jesus, in short, “thought illuminated by prayer.” It is there that the hierarchical structure of the Roman Church and its acts of governance find their foundation and nourishment. It is from there that the Church of Pope Benedict draws healing for its children’s sins and an answer to the attacks – far from innocent – that reach it from without and from within.

From the Associated Baptist Press:

DIDCOT, England (ABP) — Churches, by and large, still haven’t entered the digital age when it comes to evangelism — but those who have are reaping huge rewards, according to a new survey.

A poll conducted by Christian technology company Endis, which provides the ChurchInsight church web platform and has offices in the United States and the United Kingdom, indicates that when churches deliberately focus their websites on attracting outsiders they see a corresponding rise in the number of non-Christian visitors. But many focus on the internal life of the church, and their effectiveness is reduced.

Endis polled 1,600 churches for its DigiMission project, asking questions about church size, the website’s target readership, the number of Christians and non-Christians coming to events, and the influence of the website on their decision to attend.

The 120 churches that responded reported more than 1,300 non-Christian visitors in the last 12 months to church events, services and discipleship courses through the Web — an average of 11 non-Christian visitors per church. For Christian visitors the figure is 1,600, an average of 14.

Among the survey’s key findings were that most churches’ websites were not created with the unchurched in mind. Only half offer an outline of the gospel, and only a quarter provide testimonies of people who have come to faith in Christ.

Endis spokesman Geoff Knott said there were clear differences in the effectiveness of different websites.

“When we looked at the successful sites, we found that they had the gospel on their site, and that people were able to book into events like Alpha courses,” he said. “Interactivity is important, but we didn’t find that blogs or forums did much. The other thing that was very successful was stories.”

It was also noticeable that larger churches were less effective than smaller ones at attracting unchurched people.

“Smaller churches of between 100 and 150 are very good at getting guests in. I think they push harder, using Google Adwords for instance — they’re trying to grow. Are we losing our mission edge as we grow bigger?”

He stressed that good content and ease of use were far more important than a sophisticated image or a multiplicity of functions.

The survey was welcomed by Tony Whittaker, the U.K. coordinator for Internet Evangelism Day. Most church websites fall short of what they could be for various reasons, he said.

“They are often mainly ‘brochureware’ — static informational pages with little interactive comment, or frequently updated material such as a blog or Twitter feed,” he said. “Another reason is that wittingly or unwittingly, they present the church as a building where there is a program of meetings. Obviously, there is some truth in this.

“But the greater, and more meaningful and biblical truth, is that the church is a big family in that community, which happens to meet together from time to time, as families do in one or more locations. In other words, it’s people, not programs.”

There were many ways of showing this on websites, he said, such as including photographs of members.

He also referred to churches’ habit of using Christian jargon. “Sites that are actually effective for outsiders have looked at themselves through an outsider’s eyes — or better, actually asked non-yet-believers to give an honest opinion of the site — and built everything around that understanding.”

Tips for church websites from DigiMission:

• Identify your audience. Most church websites are designed for the reached, not the unreached.
• Try to be more interactive. Letting visitors sign up for events gives them an immediate opportunity to get engaged with you.
• The Web is just part of your mission effort. Multiple contact by different means increases chances of success. There’s no substitute for personal contact.
• Be serious about the Web. It’s the new printing press, and hundreds of millions of people use it every day.
• Think about what image you’re communicating. What does your site say about your church?
• Put the gospel on your website. How would you explain the gospel simply to someone who never heard it before?

All stand and sing….There may be trouble ahead….

Breaking: Bishops Give Consent to the Election of Mary Glasspool.

Diocese of Los Angeles Announces Successful Canonical Consent of Bishop-Elect Glasspool

Ordination and consecration set for May 15

March 17, 2010

The Office of Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has notified the Diocese of Los Angeles that the canonical consent process for Bishop-Elect Mary Douglas Glasspool has been successfully completed.

As outlined under Canon III.11.4 (a), the Presiding Bishop confirmed the receipt of consents from a majority of bishops with jurisdiction, and has also reviewed the evidence of consents from a majority of standing committees of the Church sent to her by the diocesan standing committee.

Glasspool was elected Bishop Suffragan on December 5, 2009. Her ordination and consecration is slated for May 15; Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori will officiate.

END

[Episcopal News Service] Diocese of Los Angeles Bishop-elect Mary Douglas Glasspool has received the required number of consents from diocesan standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction to her ordination and consecration, the presiding bishop’s office has confirmed.

Glasspool, 56, was elected bishop suffragan on Dec. 5. Her consecration is set for May 15.

Glasspool is the second openly gay partnered priest to be elected a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

AAC Statement on TEC Approval of Partnered Lesbian Bishop

The Episcopal Church announced today that it will consecrate its second non-celibate homosexual bishop on May 15. The Presiding Bishop’s office announced that a majority of bishops and diocesan Standing Committees consented to the consecration of Bishop-elect Mary Douglas Glasspool as a suffragan bishop of Los Angeles.

The following is a statement from Bishop David C. Anderson, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council, on the announcement.

“What this means is the majority of The Episcopal Church’s leaders – down to the diocesan level throughout America – are exercising no restraint as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates of the Anglican Communion. Despite pleas to the contrary, they have given their consent for a partnered lesbian to become a bishop, not just for Los Angeles, but for the whole church.

Unfortunately, this comes as no surprise because The Episcopal Church, at its General Convention this summer, voted in favor of allowing dioceses to determine whether they will conduct same sex blessings using whatever rites they deem appropriate. Even if The Episcopal Church should eventually decide to sign an Anglican Covenant, it has shown time and time again that it will not abide by traditional Christian and Anglican Communion teaching on marriage and sexuality.”

The Anglican church really doesn’t need this right now and I bet the reactions and impact analysis will come fast and furious. I’ll post any interesting links here for anyone interested. Let me know if you write something on this one.

Stand Firm – A lethargic appeal in light of the Mary Glasspool thing

If you ask people who Saint Patrick was, you’re likely to hear that he was an Irishman who chased the snakes out of Ireland. It may surprise you to learn that the real Saint Patrick was not actually Irish-yet his robust faith changed the Emerald Isle forever. Patrick was born in Roman Britain to a middle-class family in about A.D. 390. When Patrick was a teenager, marauding Irish raiders attacked his home. Patrick was captured, taken to Ireland, and sold to an Irish king, who put him to work as a shepherd. In his excellent book, How the Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill describes the life Patrick lived. Cahill writes, “The work of such slave-shepherds was bitterly isolated, months at a time spent alone in the hills.” Patrick had been raised in a Christian home, but he didn’t really believe in God. But now-hungry, lonely, frightened, and bitterly cold-Patrick began seeking out a relationship with his heavenly Father. As he wrote in his Confessions, “I would pray constantly during the daylight hours” and “the love of God . . . surrounded me more and more.” Six years after his capture, God spoke to Patrick in a dream, saying, “Your hungers are rewarded. You are going home. Look-your ship is ready.” What a startling command! If he obeyed, Patrick would become a fugitive slave, constantly in danger of capture and punishment. But he did obey-and God protected him. The young slave walked nearly two hundred miles to the Irish coast. There he boarded a waiting ship and traveled back to Britain and his family. But, as you might expect, Patrick was a different person now, and the restless young man could not settle back into his old life. Eventually, Patrick recognized that God was calling him to enter a monastery. In time, he was ordained as a priest, then as a bishop. Finally-thirty years after God had led Patrick away from Ireland-He called him back to the Emerald Isle as a missionary. The Irish of the fifth century were a pagan, violent, and barbaric people. Human sacrifice was commonplace. Patrick understood the danger and wrote: “I am ready to be murdered, betrayed, enslaved-whatever may come my way.” Cahill notes that Patrick’s love for the Irish “shines through his writings . . . He [worried] constantly for his people, not just for their spiritual but for their physical welfare.” Through Patrick, God converted thousands. Cahill writes, “Only this former slave had the right instincts to impart to the Irish a New Story, one that made sense of all their old stories and brought them a peace they had never known before.” Because of Patrick, a warrior people “lay down the swords of battle, flung away the knives of sacrifice, and cast away the chains of slavery.” As it is with many Christian holidays, Saint Patrick’s Day has lost much of its original meaning. Instead of settling for parades, cardboard leprechauns, and “the wearing of the green,” we ought to recover our Christian heritage, celebrate the great evangelist, and teach our kids about this Christian hero. Saint Patrick didn’t chase the snakes out of Ireland, as many believe. Instead, the Lord used him to bring into Ireland a sturdy faith in the one true God-and to forever transform the Irish people.

St. Patrick’s Breastplate

I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.

Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.

By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord?

This judgement certainly took me by surprise:

Telegraph:

Catholic adoption society wins court battle over gay rights exemption

Catholic Care had said it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it was made to comply with the new anti-discrimination legislation.

The Charity Commission had rejected its plea to an exemption under the Sexual Orientation Regulations but a High Court judge this morning allowed the adoption charity’s appeal.

Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in London, ordered the commission to reconsider the case in the light of the principles set out in his judgment.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, was the last Catholic adoption charity to continue its fight against the equality legislation.

The Roman Catholic Church lost a battle against the regulations when they were introduced in 2006.

Continue Reading

And this from the Mail:-

The last Roman Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales today won a High Court battle today over legislation forcing it to consider homosexual couples as parents.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, launched the legal action saying it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it has to comply with the legislation.

The agency is the only one of 11 Catholic adoption agencies in the country to continue to fight the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

The law outlawed discrimination against gay couples in the provision of goods and services and was pushed through Parliament in 2007 in spite of protests from leaders of all the mainstream religious faiths.

It meant that Catholics adoption agencies – which together found new homes for about 250 children in care each year – were obliged to assess same-sex couples as potential adopters or foster parents.

Read more

Pink News covers the reaction of Terry Sanderson:

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said the decision was “alarming”.

He told PinkNews.co.uk: “This is an alarming decision and the first major setback for the protection of gay people from discrimination by religious groups.

“It is unfortunate that the court has enabled Catholic Care to exploit what was obviously an error in the drafting of the equality legislation. The loophole this created was never intended to be used this way.

“If the Charity Commission reverses its previous decision – as the court is asking it to – we can look forward to a tidal wave of similar challenges from bigoted Catholic organisations who are determined not to accord any rights to gay people at all

“If Catholic Care wants to operate an adoption service based on bigotry, then it should not receive public funding to do so, and I hope that those statutory authorities that provide the money will now withdraw it.”

Read All

Further Links:

BBC – A Catholic adoption society has won a High Court battle over laws forcing it to consider gay couples as parents.

George Pitcher Telegraph: Really very good news that a High Court judge has found in favour of the adoption society Catholic Care’s appeal against the Government’s equality legislation, which would have required it to stop discriminating against same-sex couples in its placing of children.

Anglican Samizdat – Predictably, the gay rights group, Stonewall wasn’t too happy.

Damian Thompson Telegraph – An unexpected victory today for Catholic Care, the adoption agency for the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam, which went to the High Court to stop the Government and the Charity Commission forcing it to refer children to gay couples.

BHA – The British Humanist Association has expressed its dismay at the decision today by Mr. Justice Briggs that the Charity Commission must reconsider its policy of promoting equality for gay people by preventing religious adoption agencies from discriminating against them.

Melanie Phillips – A premature case of grief and joy

2 separate blog posts reviewing the Times. One looking at the Times coverage of the Catholic Church and the other their coverage of Israel.

First from Damian Thompson (Telegraph)

Lord Rees-Mogg, are you proud of the way The Times is vilifying the leader of your Church?

On Saturday, The Times attempted to drag Pope Benedict XVI into a paedophile scandal with this disgusting headline:

POPE KNEW PRIEST WAS PAEDOPHILE BUT ALLOWED HIM TO CONTINUE WITH MINISTRY

As I reported at the time, this headline was described as “grossly misleading and downright irresponsible” by the leading American commentator Phil Lawler on CatholicCulture.org. The then Archbishop Ratzinger allowed a priest accused of sexual offences from another diocese to go into retreat in Munich while he received counselling; he knew nothing of the decision to put the priest into ministry and by the time the priest was accused of further offences, Cardinal Ratzinger had been in Rome for years.

Continue Reading

And this from Melanie Phillips (Spectator)

With friends like these…

In its leading article today, the Times blames Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu for the row with America. Yet this row (see below) was ramped up deliberately by Obama who used a minor diplomatic blunder by Israel as a pretext to take the gloves off viciously and unfairly against it — a move which has served dangerously to inflame further Palestinian violence against Israel, on which Obama (like the Times leader) is silent.

The Times insists it is a friend of Israel. With friends like these…

Cross-post by Mariano from Atheism is Dead. This is part 3. Part 1 is here and part 2 here.

In this segment I will consider part of the American Humanists Association’s “Interesting Facts You Might Not Know.” Having considered one of their facts: in part 1, I will now consider: “Without a god, why be good at all?”

This fact is elucidated thusly:

Without a god, why be good at all?

Because you know you want to, anyway. Unless you were born a sociopath or had your natural sensibilities destroyed in childhood, you have the same general sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, kind and mean that people have all over the world.

No matter whether people are raised Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, humanists, anything else, or nothing in particular, they all have the same sorts of ethical notions and feelings. Thus, except in extreme circumstances, they all can compare notes with each other and appeal to one another’s moral sensibilities. No specific belief is necessary for goodness.

Human beings are social primates. So they have basic feelings of empathy and sociality built in, just as do other social primates like chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, baboons, and the like. These animals don’t get their social behavior from Scripture and neither do you. Morality finds its roots in human nature.

Human beings are also conceptual thinkers who have a sense of cause and effect. This allows for refinements of nature’s promptings through a better understanding of short and long-term consequences. And it allows humans to learn from experience so their natural inclinations can be made to work better for them.

Humans are also communicators. They share their thoughts and experiences with each other and across generations. This builds up a lore of ethics that further refines human notions of morality. And it allows people to apply their discoveries in evolving systems of law, religion, community standards, social organization, business ethics, etiquette, and the like.”

This argument may function in their well-within-the-box-atheistic-presupposition-goupthink yet, it fails for various reasons including:

1) It is a non sequitur.
2) It is presuppositional.
3) It is an argument to ridicule.
4) It has a defeater in the form of Judeo-Christian theology.

Let us consider each in turn:

1) It is a non sequitur:

Note that the premise was “Without a god, why be good at all?” but it is never explained why we should be good at all without a god. The only why is “Because you know you want to, anyway.”

Atheism, or atheists, offer no why but only musts, oughts and shoulds—no ontology but only epistemology—no ethos but only mores–no absolute finite regress but only an infinite regress of assertions piled one atop another like to many tels.

When it comes to moral issues atheist can, and do, make various epistemic statements. They may even claim that there are absolute morals. Yet, they cannot make ontological statements as they have no foundation for morality beyond “Because I say so,” or if enough people agree, “Because the government, state, police, etc. say so.”

In other words, atheists make dogmatic authoritarian assertions about morality but can never provide a why. As an example, consider Richard Dawkins’ words:

If somebody used my views to justify a completely self – centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did – I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds…I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious.

Thus, he concludes,

I think it would be more…I’m going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this…in this society you can’t get away with it’ and call the police.[1]

Note that he presupposes that the police, the authority, agree with him. What if he was in Nazi Germany and called the police to complain about the mistreatment of Jews (and others)?

Note that while the question is “Without a god, why be good at all?” the one and only answer offered is, “Because you know you want to.” This raises two questions: 1) how do you know that I want to and 2) what if I do not want to?

The answers are 1) they do not know and 2) then you will either get caught and be incarcerated by other, fitter, social primates or you will not get caught, enjoy doing non-good and simply get away with it—non-good will be for your benefit as you will enjoy doing it.

Let us consider the answer to 1) again as gleaned from the American Humanist Association’s perspective. It is actually a very common atheist tactic—replace cogent and reasoned discourse with arguments to ridicule (and arguments to embarrassment, arguments from outrage, arguments from personal preferences, etc.): “how do you know that I want to?” because if not you are a sociopath (“or had your natural sensibilities destroyed in childhood”).

In other words, if you simply do not want to, then you were either born wrong or someone messed you up to the point that you are wrong (wrong according to the AHA).

Overall, I would not say that they make no sense but that there is at least one other way to understand their take of the issue.

Note that the reason that the American Humanist Association do not really answer the question, sans ridicule, is that the answer they offer after the word “childhood” deals with their interpretation of how the general sense got there and not why we should follow it; never why we should be good.

The AHA’s (non)answer is basically the same answer that atheist’s ultimately offer to any of life’s deepest questions: it just is. After all, they state that “you have the same general sense…all have the same sorts…have basic feelings…roots in human nature.”

Interestingly, at this point that atheists and theist could agree to a certain extent and only depart ways when it comes to how naturally occurring morality got there; got here, within us. According to Judeo-Christianity God has written His laws within us and they are mediated via our conscience. Sam Harris argues, actually asserts, that they are “hard-wired” into us which caused me to ask “What if I short circuit?” Likewise, while God’s law is in our hearts the Bible states that our consciences can become “seared.”

…I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts… (Jeremiah 31:33).

…the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness… (Romans 2:15).

…speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron… (1st Timothy 4:2).

Thus, “whether people are raised Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, humanists, anything else, or nothing in particular” God has not left them unguided and has written His law in their hearts and minds.

Thus, the only reason as to why is “Because you know you want to, anyway,” but what if I do not want to? We will get to this in just a moment. Note that there may be a defeater to this claim in the form of references to us being social primates, conceptual thinkers and communicators.

2) It is presuppositional.

There are quite a few presupposed assertions that make up this fact.

“you have the same general sense of right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, kind and mean that people have all over the world.”

If so, why argue against theism? Perhaps because it is wrong, unfair, unjust and mean. I actually believe that there is much truth in this presupposition which I will discuss below.

“No specific belief is necessary for goodness.”

This claim is interesting and faulty for the following reason: let us state that no specific belief is necessary for goodness. Thus, when you do good you do not need a specific belief for doing so. Fine.

What if you do have a specific belief for doing good? Again, fine.

Good is done by both specific and non-specific.

Now, what happens when non-specific belief personage does not do good, or does the opposite of good? Well, they violate nothing at all.

What happens when specific belief personage does not do good, or does the opposite of good?

Then they are violating the very specific belief upon which their good was based in the first place.

Non-specific belief personage is not accountable to anything, does good for no reason and violates nothing when they do not do good, or does the opposite of good.

Specific belief personage is accountable, does good for good reason and violates the very tenets to which they are supposed to be adhering when they do not do good, or does the opposite of good.

Moreover, when non-specific belief personage does not do good they have no good reason (pun intended), no good premise upon which to condemn their non-good.

When specific belief personage does not do good they have good reason, good premise upon which to condemn their non-good.

“Morality finds its roots in human nature…natural inclinations.”

Again, I actually find much truth here which I will discuss below. Yet, morality is taught. Children are born with a natural propensity towards selfishness that manifests itself in various forms. G.K. Chesterton wondered why the doctrine of original sin was so disputed consider that overabundance of evidence supporting it.

“evolving systems…”

In a manner of speaking, considering morality to be evolveing (present tense) is problematic for atheists in that it logically disallows them from condemning any past action: that was the morality back then. Of course they, particularly the aggressing sects of atheism, disregard this logical conclusion. It also makes it difficult to ascertain today’s morality: might I be condemning something as immoral that is, even as I speak, evolving towards being moral or did it already do so yesterday? To, again, reference Richard Dawkins; he considers that we may know the evolving moral zeitgeist because “It’s in the air.”[2]

[1] Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins
[2] Larry Taunton interview, Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:

1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”

2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link

PART 4

David over at Anglican Samizdat has picked up on an interesting piece in the Guardian, which headlines:

How going green may make you mean. Ethical consumers less likely to be kind and more likely to steal, study finds

And continues:

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the “licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour”, otherwise known as “moral balancing” or “compensatory ethics”.

Humorously, David notes the Canadian Anglican church’s love of all things green.

It was only a few minutes after reading this that the Church of England website posted the following:

Government and third sectors will work together over the next five years to tackle key environmental issues such as climate change and sustainable development, according to the vision set out in Shaping our future, a new report published this month.

Made me laugh anyway….

When is it going to end? Previous posts here, here, here and here.

Anglican Mainstream:

“A fresh attack today between 1 a.m. to 3 a.m.. The fulanis came to Byei village 4 kilometres to Riyom, killing twelve people, 6 women including one pregnant woman, 2 men and 6 children.  10 houses destroyed. Please pray for us. Let God remove the sword of the wicked and release the miracle of peace, non-vengeance and healings.”