I’m out of practice, but engaged a bit over @ Evangelical Outpost in a discussion on world view. Sort of. It started out with Joe Carter listing his confession or statement of faith, or what I called his manifesto. A list of the doctrinal stances he personally works from.
It turned into a freewheeling discussion, but what interests me for this post are the questions.
One was “Do Christian bloggers fail when they do not address important current events, especially of catastrophes”,etc? I know I have had the same reaction of anger as was expressed… but I also ended up thinking better of it. So what are the opinions here? News bloggers will of course, by their nature, cover breaking news, their challenge is simply to address the event with the proper tenor, etc ( as far as the morality of their posting) – but for those who usually write with different themes, are they letting down their readership when they ignore the event on their blog? There are all sorts of reasons for that to happen, not the least of which some do not know what to say. Is that OK?
The exact question was this:”Joe again your blogging is oblivious … is that your world view at work?” And I am wondering if that reflects on our world view? Does this negate the integrity of a Christian view of life and the world?
Another question is maybe similar, although more subtle. It is this,” Do the failures of Christians and the Church to live up to their standards then negate the integrity of their message?” I realize that people like to point fingers at Christians for their inability to be perfect, but does this logically negate the whole of their system, or the many testimonials to how it did empower them and change their lives for the better. Is it a supportable claim that Christianity renders little more than a placebo effect?
Another side question: Can the evolution theory claim all of science as its own? Or is it just an inclusion that is given more weight by its adherents than it merits? Is there science outside of the evolution theory is what I’m asking I guess.
And then there is this:”I think reason is at least as good an anchor as faith.”
Is it? Has time through the historical record shown this? I could probably argue against that on several levels, but does the idea have any merit? Where would one argue that from…what base of support? It just seems to be a zeitgeist hopeful thinking. Sort of like- hey, can we just go back to the idealism of the age of Enlightenment? Is reason a reasonable source of the moral standard, IOW?