Earlier today, for the period between twelve and five hours ago, this website and blog may have been difficult (or impossible) for you to access. I’ve been discussing it with my tech friend, and it appears that somebody with an address locating them at Oxford University (i.e. ending with ox.ac.uk) has been engaging in malicious activity against the site, at one time hitting the blog 1599 times over four hours until the server was unable to cope. They were not alone, but this particular user/system was the main offender.

Of course it’s nice to attract attention from that particular part of the world, but this isn’t quite the sort I’m after! Some upgrades have been made to the server so this is less likely to have the same effect in the future should similar actions be taken. The IP address in question has been blocked.

Whenever security measures are upgraded, some innocent parties are affected. If you know of anyone who is having difficulty accessing the site, please let me know (or ask them to let me know). Email me: peoples dot glenn at gmail dot com.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Quote of the day, from John Locke:

Death then entered, and showed his face, which before was shut out, and not known. So St. Paul, Rom. v. 19, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” i.e. a state of death and mortality : and, 1 Cor. xv. 22, “In Adam all die;” i.e. by reason of his transgression, all men are mortal, and come to die.

This is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only he, but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserved endless torment, in hell-fire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could any one be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die;” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would any one think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?

John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures in the Works of John Locke (1824 edition, volume 6, p. 4.),

I part ways with Locke when he says that Adam’s sin did not involve the whole human race. Perhaps disturbing to some readers, I think that “Adam” in the story of Eden actually represented the whole human race but I won’t delve into that now (although for what it is worth, I think that this understanding removes the rationale for some of the crasser theories of the “transmission” of sin from Adam to us).

Locke’s comments on the actual punishment for sin, however, seem to me to be not only true, but to be obviously so. If only such common sense prevailed among my evangelical brothers and sisters!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I received this message today, and thought I would pass it on for the benefit of my New Zealand readers. The message comes from Catalyst.

We are delighted to announce the launch of Catalyst Books today.

Catalyst books is a New Zealand initiative enabling students and graduates to find and purchase quality books from a christian worldview on their academic discipline or profession at fantastic prices with free shipping.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Here’s the next instalment of the “Nuts and Bolts” series, in which I spell out some of the basic terms and concepts used in the various branches of philosophy and theology.

I’ve already written plenty of blog entries (and even a podcast series) on dualism, but a recent online conversation with a couple of Christian bloggers prompted me to write this, because it drove home the fact that plenty of Christians don’t know what the word means, to the point where they will even get into lengthy arguments about not being a dualist when they aren’t yet sure what a “dualist” even is (yes, this actually happened recently). In the interests of being part of the solution, I present: What is dualism?
Read the rest of the entry »

(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Hat tip to M and M for bringing this news story to my attention.

Remember that controversy over the anti-smacking law? The short story: The law change in New Zealand meant that absolutely any force of any kind used in the discipline of a child (such as a spank, or moving a child by force to his room, or anything else involving force) is a crime and there is no legal defence that can be made against the charge of assault in such cases. Realising that if actually applied, the law would be horribly unjust and crazy to boot, the current Prime Minister John Key (who was not in government when this law was passed) sought to put the mind of Joe public to rest by advising police and social agencies not to get carried away (my paraphrase). I’ve explained already that this is a fundamentally wrong approach to law, and I won’t revisit this here.

Fast forward to a story that appeared in today’s New Zealand Herald:

Judge turns tables on driver’s schoolboy accuser

A schoolbus driver was taken to court for grabbing the arm of a rowdy boy who would not stop pulling a girl’s hair.

But the judge threw out the charge – and had a policeman take the 12-year-old boy to the police cells as a warning.

Jim McCorkindale, 70, of Gore in Southland, told the Weekend Herald that while dropping off children last July, he saw two boys pulling the hair of a girl and got out of his driver’s seat to try to stop it.

“I went over and touched the boy on the arm to attract his attention, and that was the assault.”

When the boy did not respond to being told to stop, “I threatened to hit him in the ribs, and he flinched and let the kid’s hair go to protect his ribs”, Mr McCorkindale said.

“But I never touched him again.”

The boy had continued misbehaving after Mr McCorkindale returned to his seat.

Article continues below

Children on the bus called the police and he found officers waiting to talk to him when he finished his run.

When police rejected the option of diversion, Mr McCorkindale received a court summons.

But in the Gore District Court, Judge Kevin Phillips threw out the charge.

Instead, he told the boy he should be “thoroughly ashamed” of himself and had a policeman take him to the cells, the Southland Times reported.

Mr McCorkindale said he found it disgusting that he was charged in the first place.

“You can’t do a bloody thing,” he said. “It’s better to hop out of the bus and leave them to it. See nothing.

“The days of sit down, shut up, do as you are told, are gone. When I was going to school, you did what you were told. Now, you sometimes do as you’re asked – if it suits you.”

That’s right.  He took hold of the arm of a boy who was pulling a little girl’s hair, and for this, the police charged him with assault. These are the police who are being given the power to decide whether or not the law should be applied in cases of parents who use force in the correction of their children.

Feeling safe?

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Every Christian who decides on a stance to take on the mind-body issue is going to have to live with the fact that there will be certain “problem texts” in the Bible that appear to conflict with the position they take. As a physicalist, I think there is a very small number of such texts for my view, and I think there are plausible explanations for all of them (for example Jesus’ words to the criminal on the cross Luke 23:43, which I discussed recently). What one hopes to do is to settle on a view that has fewer problems than all others, problems that have an explanation in sight.

I think that traditional Cartesian/platonic dualism has a real problem, therefore, when it comes to 1 Corinthians 15, as I think it contains a problem for dualism – a problem with no real solution that I can see. The chapter is a decent size, so I won’t reproduce it here, but go ahead and read it first to make sure I’m representing what it says faithfully. The subject is the resurrection of the dead, and it arises because some of those in the church in Corinth had said that there will be no resurrection. The Apostle Paul makes a number of comments on this, one of which concerns my point here. In doing so he indicates that he cannot possibly have been a dualist.
Read the rest of the entry »

(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

This is the Nicene Creed:

1. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
2. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
3. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
4. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
5. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
6. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
7. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.*
8. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
9. He has spoken through the Prophets.
10. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
11. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
12. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

Word count: 223
Points: 12 (although I guess that depends on how you divide it up)

Bear in mind that this statement was written in a time when Christian orthodoxy was taking considerable pains to define itself in such a way as to avoid heresy. A lot of thought and planning went into this creed, and yet there it is; elegant, simple, clear and above all, succinct. If the above describes your faith, and you’re not being sneaky with any of your words, using hidden meanings or anything like that, you simply mean what you say, then as far as your beliefs go, you’re a Christian. That’s what this Creed was designed to determine. Simple.
Read the rest of the entry »

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

OK, I thought I’d give this a try. You see that area over to the right where all those buttons are? I want to push those buttons down and I want YOU to be right there, above them.

As a way of keeping the bills at this site paid and as a way of promoting your blog or site, I’m putting ad space up for rent. This site gets plenty of traffic these days. It was New Zealand’s fourth ranked blog in January, so if your ad is here, it will get seen. As this is my site, I obviously reserve the right not to run any given advertisement. Your ad can be for anything at all, subject to my discretion. Ads that are for something at least remotely related to the subject matter of this website will likely get preference, but there’s nothing stopping anyone from asking.

The cost is $3.50 (US) per month, purchased in 3 month blocks. Your ad will need to be no bigger than 135 x 135 pixels, and I’m more than happy to make one for you (that’s free). The ad will hyperlink to your website/blog in a new window. There will be a limit of four ads up at any given time, but it’s a little optimistic at this stage for me to suppose that there would ever be a waiting list. So if you’d like to support the site and you have something to promote, drop me a line.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

In the wake of his debate with Dinesh D’Souza on whether or not the Christian God exists, John Loftus says that even if he didn’t win, he learned a lot. I asked him if, given his loss (as a few people see it – including Loftus I think) in this debate, he was still hoping to debate William Lane Craig, something he has wanted for a while. After all, I figured, although D’Souza is good at what he does, Craig is more qualified and experienced. John’s answer was bold enough: “I’m not afraid. I’ll debate any Christian any time. Are you game?”

For those who follow this blog, you may have just done a double take. At this blog I publicly offered to debate John Loftus, back in April 2009.  Being somewhat amused by this apparent challenge, I reminded John that he had already received such an offer from me but had not taken it up. Here’s what came next: “Glenn, what are you talking about? I have no recollection of this.”

I thought I’d do him the favour of jogging his memory. I have also pointed this out in the comments thread. Here is what transpired here in April 2009:
Read the rest of the entry »

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

On the 9th of February 2010 at the University of Illinois (Champagne-Urbana campus) Dinesh D’Souza debated John Joftus on the question “Does the Christian God Exist”?

There exists a broad consensus among those who I have read assessing the debate, whether Christian or sceptic (including John Loftus himself). I won’t tell you what that consensus is. By the time you’ve watched the debate, I won’t need to. Here’s part one of the debate. There are thirteen parts:

As you listen to this debate, bear a couple of things in mind. Firstly, D’Souzah is a good presenter of arguments and I would take no credit from him. However, it’s not terribly controversial to say that he isn’t the most academically esteemed defender of Christianity out there. Someone like William Craig would take that title, and perhaps the title of the best public defender of Christianity as well. Bear in mind, in light of how you see this debate unfold, that John Loftus wants a public debate with William Lane Craig. For the sake of the Christian cause, I’d really like that to happen. But I doubt that it will. That would be like Ken Ham demanding that Richard Dawkins publicly debate him on Darwinism. It would be great for Darwinism, but it will never ever happen.

(2 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...