Posted on 04/03/2010 9:50:37 AM PDT by betty boop
Review of Life After Death: The Evidence
by Stephen M. Barr
Life After Death: The Evidence
by Dinesh D’Souza
Regnery, 256 pages, $27.95
While much apologetic effort has been spent arguing for the existence of God, relatively little has been spent defending the reasonableness of belief in an afterlife and the resurrection of the body, despite the fact that these are among the hardest doctrines of biblical religion for many modern people to accept. D’Souza brings to the task his renowned forensic skills. (By all accounts, he has bested several of the top New Atheists in public debate.) He understands that persuasion is less a matter of proof and rigorous argument than of rendering ideas plausible and overcoming obstacles to belief.
One obstacle to belief in bodily resurrection is the difficulty of grasping that there could be places that are not located in the three-dimensional space we presently inhabit, or that there could be realms where our intuitions about time, space, and matter simply do not apply. D’Souza rightly points out that modern physics has broken the bounds of human imagination with ideas of other dimensions—and even other universes—and has required us to accept features of our own universe (at the subatomic level, for example.) that are entirely counterintuitive. He shows how blinkered, by contrast, is the thought of many who think themselves boldly modern, such as Bertrand Russell, who asserted that “all experience is likely to resemble the experience we know.” Another impediment to belief in life after death is our experience of the disorganization of thought as sleep approaches and the mental decline that often precedes death. While near-death experiences do not prove as much as D’Souza suggests in his interesting chapter on the subject, the discovery that many have a surge of intense and coherent experience near the very point of death does counteract to some extent the impression of death as mere dissolution.
D’Souza approaches his subject from many directions. In two chapters, he gives a very accessible account of recent thought on the mind-body problem and the reasons to reject materialism. In the chapter “Eternity and Cosmic Justice,” he bases an argument for an afterlife on our moral sense. Our recognition that this world is not what it objectively ought to be suggests not only that there is a cosmic purpose, but that this purpose is unfulfilled and unfulfillable within the confines of this world. Some of his philosophical arguments, however, are less happy. In particular, his use of Hume and Kant to undermine what he regards as the pretensions of science will provoke not only scientists, but all those who have a strongly “realist” epistemology. D’Souza can also be faulted for sometimes claiming to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated. Nevertheless, even those who find loose ends in his arguments will be rewarded with many fresh perspectives on the only question that really is of ultimate importance.
I agree. I like Palin and she has a solid following among conservatives.
I pray Republicans aren't dumb enough to split the ticket again and hand re-election to our great muslim leader. Basic Republican values can keep the party intact and boot the "Magic Negro" out of office.
God willing.
But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses.
It was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart.
The phrase it was god who hardened Pharaoh's heart is simply a summation, and is no more literal than saying a philandering wife or husband hardened yours...not that I'm comparing God or his actions to a philandering spouse, mind you.
As such, if you are suggesting here that Pharaoh's demeano,r is actually God's demeanor by proxy, then I obviously disagree...
Possibly he did. But that doesn't mean God is engaged in mixing and matching every man, cat or flatworm that comes along, or that someone's blue eyes really make a cosmic difference in God's proverbial eyes.
What a strange innovation. Tell me more about these different wills.
Here is an excerpt of a brief explanation from Are There Two Wills in God? by John Piper :
I really wouldn't call this an innovation, since it is so strongly supported by scripture.
Not insofar as their inspired status is concerned, but liturgically only the Gospels are on the altar, and only an ordained person can read them in the church, while everyone is standing. Conversely, all other parts of the Bible are read by laity while the congregation is sitting.
The Orthodox have a saying lex orandi, lex credendi, loosely translated "how we pray is how we believe." In other words, the Church liturgically sets the Gospels apart and above all other scripture because it considers the Gospels apart and above all other scripture, through which all other scriptures is interpreted and reconciled.
The Divine Liturgy or Holy Mass is not just a "service" as the name implies—it is the life of the Church.
Catechism is a handy book that answers the obvious questions. But it does not give you the insight into the orhtopraxis of the Church.
A child, by necessity, has blind faith. A child also does not know right from wrong, so how can that be the "model" to strive for?
It is more likely that Jesus was not talking about the nature of their faith but about their de facto innocence.
The point is they are not the word God, yet they are scripture.
Nevertheless, I would still maintain that those verses met with God's approval
Based on what?
Nader was never in a position to derail naitonal elections. Perot did and what good did that do?
Do you know if he could compete money-wise as an Indy?
Charlie Crist is a Greek-American (original surname Christodoulos) and Greeks tend to place ethnicity above party lines. Of course, they are not the only group that does. But in this election they are a factor and they are a tight group that has money.
You have other liberal pseudo-Republican Greeks in Washington, such as Olympia Snowe and Paul Sarbaines to mention the most obvious. The fact that both support abortion did not stop the Gr. Orthodox Church in America from honoring them. Nor do I hear that any of them has been denied Eucharist in their parish.
I happen to be a fan of Palin, and I really don't think she is advocating a formation of a new party.
No she is not advocating it but the tea Party can easily become a choice for an ambitious project Ross Perot style. Like him, Palin is a grass-roots type of a personality who also happens to be very ambitious. If she is not drafted for the 2012 elections, I believe she might siphon off Republican votes and an independent.
Rather, I have heard her say what is true, that it is the GOP that needs to go back to its roots of fiscal conservatism
Which Republican advocates fiscal liberalism nowadays? That's not very original of her FK. How can you even make that an issue when we piled up the deficit to begin with?
The Scriptural truth says all things come from God.
Make up your mind. Either wealth and status come from God through His favour or they do not. You cannot have it both ways.
Too bad so many RC apologists today seem so determined to argue every point with Christians that they deny even this fact.
I agree, that so many Raving Calvinist apologists keep arguing against the Scriptural and Church teachings that make up true Christianity, as it was from the time of the Apostles. One major problem is that the Reformation and then the Restoration claimed to be true Christianity, when in actual truth, their children have almost completely abandoned Christianity. Look at the Seventh Day Adventists, the Latter Day Saints, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Created by and through the same process that all the religions of men have been since the 1500s.
Even your own particular waning cult, the OPC, wasn't created until 1933 or so, depending on which point in time you want to nail its creation down to. A creation of men, living its short life and then dying. Fortunately, the Church was created by Christ and we have His promise of protection. When the OPC is gone, who will mourn it?
The Church has not given a definition on this presumably because the idea that, for instance, Nehemiah to be as authoritative as the words of God Incarnate is so ludicrous so as to be not even worthy of consideration.
I mean, really. If you have Jesus Christ Himself standing beside Ezra, who are you going to pay more attention to?
Thank you for the posting - I learn much of Reformed thought each time that you exchange this sort of information. Piper does bring up Acts 2:23 which is quite plain, yet, there is no indication of the 'how' of the plan. Foreknowledge, certainly, but not predestination. Does God plan based upon His foreknowledge, but not predestination? That is the Christian belief from the beginning. And, since God has already experienced everything, the idea of 'plan' is an anthropocentric one, since we are in time, and God is not.
Therefore we know it was not the "will of God" that Judas and Pilate and Herod and the Gentile soldiers and the Jewish crowds disobey the moral law of God by sinning in delivering Jesus up to be crucified. But we also know that it was the will of God that this come to pass. Therefore we know that God in some sense wills what he does not will in another sense.
Actually Piper was arguing quite well until he wrote this. The interesting thing is that since the overall position is Scripturally wrong (yet defensible), he just nullified a rather good argument (arguably the best that could be made) just in this one paragraph. Do I believe that God Created His Universe and then interferes in it subtly, poking and nudging? Sure. Does He have two wills, one of which is more dominant than the other? On the face of it, no.
Not insofar as their inspired status is concerned, but liturgically only the Gospels are on the altar, and only an ordained person can read them in the church, while everyone is standing. Conversely, all other parts of the Bible are read by laity while the congregation is sitting.
Absolutely correct. The only exception that I have experienced is this past Good Friday in which our pastor was unavailable, our permanent deacon read the part of Christ, and I was selected to read the part of the Narrator. I received a special dispensation so that I could read the Gospel of John (the toughest and the most brutal Passion narrative) and I stood at the ambo, while the deacon stood at the altar.
The Orthodox have a saying lex orandi, lex credendi, loosely translated "how we pray is how we believe." In other words, the Church liturgically sets the Gospels apart and above all other scripture because it considers the Gospels apart and above all other scripture, through which all other scriptures is interpreted and reconciled.
Absolutely correct. The rest of the Bible is read with the laity sitting; the Gospels are with the congregation standing at full attention. The Gospels of Jesus are the pinnacle of God's revelation to us; there is no way that mortal man, however inspired, can possibly come up with revelation that is as important or more important.
The Divine Liturgy or Holy Mass is not just a "service" as the name implies—it is the life of the Church.
The term 'service' has reduced the idea of the Mass and the worship of God to a mere tea party in many churches.
Catechism is a handy book that answers the obvious questions. But it does not give you the insight into the orhtopraxis of the Church.
The Catechism certainly is a how to book. It interprets Scripture. But you are correct; the Mass is to be experienced - actually to be done by each person - since experience can be passive. The Mass and the worship of God is to be active.
Try to follow this now. It's the third time it's been stated and it's just not that difficult.
All things are from God. Wealth is from God. Some people are blessed by wealth and other people are destroyed by wealth.
Therefore, wealth, in and of itself, is not always a good thing.
But it is from God. It is God who "made us to differ," as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:7.
If you think your bank accout or healthy children or happiness is of your own making, well, that is simply ingratitude to the Triune God who bestows all blessings.
Repent of it.
Third time? Gibberish repeated twice does not mean clarification.
All things are from God. Wealth is from God. Some people are blessed by wealth and other people are destroyed by wealth.
Not so fast. You have repeatedly stated that God is in control and that God determines all.
If you think your bank accout or healthy children or happiness is of your own making, well, that is simply ingratitude to the Triune God who bestows all blessings.
So you are confirming that the Reformed view is that your bank account is the direct and complete bestowing of the Reformed God. Thank you.
Repent of it.
Paul is correct. Reformed women don't have a clue.
1 Corinthians 14: 34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.
Joel Osteen and Rick Warren preach a prosperity gospel. How's that working out for you?
Has the papacy come to such an ungracious point in its history it now denies God's hand in the blessings of our lives?
Amazing.
This is the thinking that led the Reformed to embrace slavery. Whatever I happen to amass is God's wish and however I wish to amass it is God's plan. It is the realization of the complete and utter unChristianity of this type of thinking that led such as Carnegie to completely repudiate his Calvinist thinking and to engage in utter and complete Christian philanthropy. If a bank account were the measure of God's blessing, why are you not now venerating Obama? Or the Clintons? Or Soros?
When you get around to answering the simple question, ping me.
God does not micromanage. That includes bank accounts. If He did, according to the Reformed, then all Reformed oughta be wealthy. How’s that working out in your favour? Are you on line from your yacht journeying from Hawaii to Sri Lanka right now?
Pitiful. No wonder the Roman Catholic apologist looks to Mother Mary and not to Christ alone for their salvation. They don't understand what He provides.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.