Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion
I know I am going to get in trouble with this, but here goes ...
The catch phrase "Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion" has, I suspect, only come into use over the past few years. I don't know its origin (I suppose I could look it up in Wikipedia or Google it), but I do know when I started to hear it. It was about 7 or 8 years ago at a church I was attending. I believe it showed up in some Sunday School material, and then seemed to permeate throughout the entire church. In fact, it used to be used as a reason for why something was the way it was. For instance, someone would make a comment and then end it with "after all, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion."
Don't get me wrong - I know exactly what is being said here. I grew up a Baptist, and constantly heard about other religions (and other denominations within Christianity) being way too "religious" in their faith; the idea being that they were more concerned about tradition and works and the details of their particular set of beliefs and not so concerned with their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
The point in using such a catch phrase is, I think, to try and emphasize the "personal" aspects of Christianity - personal in that we have a God who is intimately involved in our lives, we have a saviour who loves us and intercedes for us with the Father, and we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us! That's a rather personal belief system.
Here is the problem - Christianity is, without a doubt, a religion. So to say that Christianity is a relationship but not a religion is to tell an untruth. Here is the definition of religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
According to this definition, Christianity is a religion, just as Isalm and Judaism are religions.
Words have definitions, and when we communicate with those around us we need to be careful to understand what we sound like to others when we use words just because those words have definitions. To say that Christianity is not a religion, is to ultimately sound foolish because the common usage of the word "religion" defines a category that Christianity fits squarely within.
We do not have the privilege to simply redefine words because we may not like what baggage might be attached to those words, and such is (I believe) the reason for this catch phrase. Instead, I think we need to stress the tenets of Christianity; we should be very clear when we communicate what our beliefs are to indicate that we are not the members of a religion that is so concerned with being "religious" in the way that term is all too often understood. We must also be sure to express the personal nature of our belief system; especially as it relates to God.
Christianity is indeed a religion, but it is also a relationship with our glorious creator God through Jesus Christ our LORD.
-- Brian
Friday, December 14, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
More Great Light
I am currently in the process of post-processing wedding photos from earlier this year in preparation for putting together a photo album, and came across a picture of the wedding cake that is just fantastic. This is such a big deal for me, because I rarely shoot pictures that I would classify as "fantastic". And lest you think I am simply blowing my own horn here, I had at least two other people say they thought it was fantastic as well :) No, really, I did!
The challenge for me was to figure out *why* the picture looked as good as it did. I knew it was a quality of light issue, but thought there was more to it. In the end, I enlisted the help of other photographers in the SmugMug forum (known as Digital Grin), and got their input as well.
The more I learn about photography, the more I learn how important light really is - especially in showing "depth".
There is this type of light known as "flat lighting", which means (as you can probably guess) that there is equal light coming from all sides of the subject. The result of this is that the subject looks very flat - as opposed to 3D. If you are a novice at photography, then you might not even know this is what is going on. All you can probably tell is that the photograph doesn't look as good as you would like it to. This is *exactly* the type of light you get from direct, on-camera flash, by the way. This is why it is *always* a good idea (when using flash) to either take the flash off-camera, or to bounce it off a wall to your left or right, which essentially takes that flash off camera (along with making it much softer).
Here is the photo in question:
Notice a couple of things about the lighting here:
1) There are absolutely no harsh shadows - the light is very "soft". Some of the light is coming from ambient light streaming through windows into the room, which helps to give the warm look to the photo.
2) The left of the entire cake and tablecloth is brighter than the right (there is a shadow on the right). This helps to give "depth" to the photo, and was accomplished by bouncing my flash off the wall to my left. In this case, since the color of the wall was very close to the color of the cake and tablecloth, there was no color cast to get rid of in post-processing.
3) There is a highlight on the right side of the cake that is most noticeable on the bottom tier. I am unsure of the source of this light (sorry, I didn't plan it that way :) ).
4) In addition to the lighting of the cake, the cake itself is just gorgeous, the room is very formal and there is really nothing distracting in the background. Also, the placement of the napkin, plates, and bouquet is very natural looking (no, I didn't place them there).
All in all, it has been a fun study of a "lucky" shot I got more than 3 months ago, and has inspired me to start looking more for these lighting scenarios when I am actually taking the picture.
-- Brian
I am currently in the process of post-processing wedding photos from earlier this year in preparation for putting together a photo album, and came across a picture of the wedding cake that is just fantastic. This is such a big deal for me, because I rarely shoot pictures that I would classify as "fantastic". And lest you think I am simply blowing my own horn here, I had at least two other people say they thought it was fantastic as well :) No, really, I did!
The challenge for me was to figure out *why* the picture looked as good as it did. I knew it was a quality of light issue, but thought there was more to it. In the end, I enlisted the help of other photographers in the SmugMug forum (known as Digital Grin), and got their input as well.
The more I learn about photography, the more I learn how important light really is - especially in showing "depth".
There is this type of light known as "flat lighting", which means (as you can probably guess) that there is equal light coming from all sides of the subject. The result of this is that the subject looks very flat - as opposed to 3D. If you are a novice at photography, then you might not even know this is what is going on. All you can probably tell is that the photograph doesn't look as good as you would like it to. This is *exactly* the type of light you get from direct, on-camera flash, by the way. This is why it is *always* a good idea (when using flash) to either take the flash off-camera, or to bounce it off a wall to your left or right, which essentially takes that flash off camera (along with making it much softer).
Here is the photo in question:
Notice a couple of things about the lighting here:
1) There are absolutely no harsh shadows - the light is very "soft". Some of the light is coming from ambient light streaming through windows into the room, which helps to give the warm look to the photo.
2) The left of the entire cake and tablecloth is brighter than the right (there is a shadow on the right). This helps to give "depth" to the photo, and was accomplished by bouncing my flash off the wall to my left. In this case, since the color of the wall was very close to the color of the cake and tablecloth, there was no color cast to get rid of in post-processing.
3) There is a highlight on the right side of the cake that is most noticeable on the bottom tier. I am unsure of the source of this light (sorry, I didn't plan it that way :) ).
4) In addition to the lighting of the cake, the cake itself is just gorgeous, the room is very formal and there is really nothing distracting in the background. Also, the placement of the napkin, plates, and bouquet is very natural looking (no, I didn't place them there).
All in all, it has been a fun study of a "lucky" shot I got more than 3 months ago, and has inspired me to start looking more for these lighting scenarios when I am actually taking the picture.
-- Brian
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Problem with Pragmatism
In present day apologetical encounters, one is sure to eventually come across an unbeliever who claims that we should not believe the Bible because science has proven it to be untrustworthy. After much back and forth, the apologist may feel a tad bit overwhelmed as the unbeliever responds to point after point with scientific proof and evidences that support their contention. If the apologist disagrees with the conclusions that these scientists have come to, then they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove that the conclusions these scientists have come to are wrong.
In addition, the unbeliever may stress that what the Christian has to offer is mere subjective opinion, whereas what science has to offer are “facts” which are “objective” and derived from “repeatable” observations. It is no surprise, then, that the apologist finds himself in a very precarious position. After all, how can the apologist become sufficiently educated in all the various areas of scientific study in order to come up with a meaningful rebuttal to each and every criticism that is raised? How can he or she keep track of all the latest discoveries and “revelations” that are occurring on a daily basis, and (furthermore) determine which are valid and which are not? A daunting task, if one chooses to take this approach.
To add to this frustration, consider what 1 Pet. 3:15 has to say -
“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” [ESV] (emphasis mine)
If you weren’t aware that there was Biblical warrant for *always* being “prepared”, well now you know!
As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry all you cat lovers), and this is definitely the case when it comes to apologetics. One approach is to attack the conclusions of science themselves, and demonstrate that they are incorrect. However, that is certainly not the *only* way, nor the most effective in my mind, and here is why.
All unbelievers, scientific in their criticisms or not, have to answer the same basic questions - just as believers do. Regardless of the criticisms being leveled against the claims of the Bible, those making the criticisms have foundational questions which must first be answered, before their claims can even be evaluated. For the unbeliever appealing to science to support their criticism of the Bible, the most foundational question is this - “why should we accept science as a method for determining truth?” When it comes to the trustworthiness of the Bible, *truth* is exactly what is being challenged, after all.
If an unbeliever says “this particular claim in the Bible is not true”, then they have taken upon themselves the burden of giving a *reason* why the claim in question is not true. If their reason is because science has concluded something to the contrary, then they now bear the burden of demonstrating why a scientific conclusion is to be accepted as true, as opposed to a conclusion drawn from the Bible.
If you happen to raise this challenge to the unbeliever, be prepared for all variety of backlash. (Please note, I am not saying *all* unbelievers are like this - or even *most* - only that I have encountered enough who respond in this way to confidently state that it is not unlikely for you to encounter similar responses). What types of responses might you get if you challenge science as a means for determining truth? There are a variety, actually, but a very common one is this - “we use science because it works.”
One must at this point ask the question “exactly what do you mean when you say science ‘works’”? It isn’t that you don’t necessarily understand what is meant by the word as it is being used, but rather that you want your unbelieving friend to stop and think about what they are really saying. “It works” implies that “it” (whatever it happens to be) facilitates our ability to accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.
Just look at all science has done for us, after all - it has healed disease, extended our lives, made those lives more comfortable, increased dramatically our ability to communicate and transport things across great distances, etc. So, when someone claims to have “scientific proof” that the Bible is not entirely true, it is only natural to sit up and take notice.
Herein lies the problem. The fact that we Christians are so easily taken in by such phrases as “scientific proof” should be bothersome to us. After all, what is it about the fact that science “works” that should lead us to so blindly accept that the conclusions it comes to are true? Just what kind of “reason” for accepting scientific conclusions is this, after all?
What the unbeliever is doing (whether they are aware or not) when they appeal to the claim that “science works”, is offering a pragmatic justification for accepting that scientific conclusions are true. The problem here is that there is no necessary correlation between something “working” and the purported “truth” of the foundational premises used to accomplish the goal in question.
Let me state this a bit differently, and then follow up by way of example.
There is a distinction between “reason” in the sense of a motivation, and “reason” in the sense of logical justification. Many times in this type of discussion, definitions are blurred and equivocation occurs, making it difficult to see this difference.
For instance, when the question is asked “why trust scientific conclusions?” and the answer comes back “because science works”, the “reason” here is really just an explanation of the motivation behind the decision to trust science in this way. The “reason”, as stated, is not a logical justification for believing that the associated premises are true.
Let’s look at an example in the realm of moral justification to make this easier to see. Let’s say a husband abuses his wife. When you ask this man what the reason is for this abuse, he may answer “because it makes me feel good” - in other words, for this man “it works”. This “reason” is simply an expression of his motivation, it is *not* a moral justification for his actions (unless he has a very warped moral standard).
In the same sense, one can offer pragmatism as a motivation for accepting scientific conclusions as truthful, but that is a far cry [i.e. categorically distinct] from offering a logical justification for accepting them as truthful. Pragmatism as a logical reason fails miserably.
The problem with offering the justification “we use science because it works” is that one must also justify that which “works”. In other words, if science allows us to accomplish some particular goal, then one must justify that this particular goal is what we should logically be pursuing.
Even then, using pragmatism as a justification still fails because it is possible to accomplish the same goal by following distinct sets of beliefs which are contradictory to one another. Since there is no logical way for sets of contradictory beliefs to both be true, the fact that either or both allows us to accomplish what we want cannot logically entail that they are representative of reality (i.e. what they claim to be true is in fact true.)
Take the goal of being a moral individual. Since both Judaism and Christianity hold to a belief that one should do this, one could accomplish that goal while accepting either the entire belief system of Judiasm *or* of Christianity. These two belief systems, however, contain contradictory beliefs (especially as regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ).
If you ask a member of either belief system “why do accept the tenets of your faith as true?” they could both honestly answer “because it facilitates me being a moral individual” - in other words, “because it works”. The only thing different between this line of questioning and the line of questioning above is what the “it” is (i.e. the goal) that “works”. In this example, it is being a moral individual, whereas in the example above pertaining to scientific conclusions, it is being able to predict with a good degree of accuracy, the outcome of future events.
Pragmatic justification, therefore, can only provide a motivation for accepting something as true, but can never provide a logical justification for accepting something is true.
This has direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not it is rational to accept claims from science as “gospel” when it comes to the question of evaluating claims in the Bible to be true, just because science “works”. The answer is no, it is not. Since pragmatism does not provide a logical rationale for believing scientific conclusions are true, it does not provide a logical rationale for concluding that Biblical claims that contradict the claims of science must therefore be false.
Let me make a couple of points clear in closing that I should have stated already. First, I am not “anti-science”. Second, I am not claiming that science is *not* useful, or (even more to the point) that no claims of science are true! The only point I am making here is that the statement “because it works” is an insufficient answer as to why we should accept scientific conclusions over against Biblical ones.
Clear as mud? :)
As always, comments are welcome!
-- Brian
In present day apologetical encounters, one is sure to eventually come across an unbeliever who claims that we should not believe the Bible because science has proven it to be untrustworthy. After much back and forth, the apologist may feel a tad bit overwhelmed as the unbeliever responds to point after point with scientific proof and evidences that support their contention. If the apologist disagrees with the conclusions that these scientists have come to, then they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove that the conclusions these scientists have come to are wrong.
In addition, the unbeliever may stress that what the Christian has to offer is mere subjective opinion, whereas what science has to offer are “facts” which are “objective” and derived from “repeatable” observations. It is no surprise, then, that the apologist finds himself in a very precarious position. After all, how can the apologist become sufficiently educated in all the various areas of scientific study in order to come up with a meaningful rebuttal to each and every criticism that is raised? How can he or she keep track of all the latest discoveries and “revelations” that are occurring on a daily basis, and (furthermore) determine which are valid and which are not? A daunting task, if one chooses to take this approach.
To add to this frustration, consider what 1 Pet. 3:15 has to say -
“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” [ESV] (emphasis mine)
If you weren’t aware that there was Biblical warrant for *always* being “prepared”, well now you know!
As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry all you cat lovers), and this is definitely the case when it comes to apologetics. One approach is to attack the conclusions of science themselves, and demonstrate that they are incorrect. However, that is certainly not the *only* way, nor the most effective in my mind, and here is why.
All unbelievers, scientific in their criticisms or not, have to answer the same basic questions - just as believers do. Regardless of the criticisms being leveled against the claims of the Bible, those making the criticisms have foundational questions which must first be answered, before their claims can even be evaluated. For the unbeliever appealing to science to support their criticism of the Bible, the most foundational question is this - “why should we accept science as a method for determining truth?” When it comes to the trustworthiness of the Bible, *truth* is exactly what is being challenged, after all.
If an unbeliever says “this particular claim in the Bible is not true”, then they have taken upon themselves the burden of giving a *reason* why the claim in question is not true. If their reason is because science has concluded something to the contrary, then they now bear the burden of demonstrating why a scientific conclusion is to be accepted as true, as opposed to a conclusion drawn from the Bible.
If you happen to raise this challenge to the unbeliever, be prepared for all variety of backlash. (Please note, I am not saying *all* unbelievers are like this - or even *most* - only that I have encountered enough who respond in this way to confidently state that it is not unlikely for you to encounter similar responses). What types of responses might you get if you challenge science as a means for determining truth? There are a variety, actually, but a very common one is this - “we use science because it works.”
One must at this point ask the question “exactly what do you mean when you say science ‘works’”? It isn’t that you don’t necessarily understand what is meant by the word as it is being used, but rather that you want your unbelieving friend to stop and think about what they are really saying. “It works” implies that “it” (whatever it happens to be) facilitates our ability to accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.
Just look at all science has done for us, after all - it has healed disease, extended our lives, made those lives more comfortable, increased dramatically our ability to communicate and transport things across great distances, etc. So, when someone claims to have “scientific proof” that the Bible is not entirely true, it is only natural to sit up and take notice.
Herein lies the problem. The fact that we Christians are so easily taken in by such phrases as “scientific proof” should be bothersome to us. After all, what is it about the fact that science “works” that should lead us to so blindly accept that the conclusions it comes to are true? Just what kind of “reason” for accepting scientific conclusions is this, after all?
What the unbeliever is doing (whether they are aware or not) when they appeal to the claim that “science works”, is offering a pragmatic justification for accepting that scientific conclusions are true. The problem here is that there is no necessary correlation between something “working” and the purported “truth” of the foundational premises used to accomplish the goal in question.
Let me state this a bit differently, and then follow up by way of example.
There is a distinction between “reason” in the sense of a motivation, and “reason” in the sense of logical justification. Many times in this type of discussion, definitions are blurred and equivocation occurs, making it difficult to see this difference.
For instance, when the question is asked “why trust scientific conclusions?” and the answer comes back “because science works”, the “reason” here is really just an explanation of the motivation behind the decision to trust science in this way. The “reason”, as stated, is not a logical justification for believing that the associated premises are true.
Let’s look at an example in the realm of moral justification to make this easier to see. Let’s say a husband abuses his wife. When you ask this man what the reason is for this abuse, he may answer “because it makes me feel good” - in other words, for this man “it works”. This “reason” is simply an expression of his motivation, it is *not* a moral justification for his actions (unless he has a very warped moral standard).
In the same sense, one can offer pragmatism as a motivation for accepting scientific conclusions as truthful, but that is a far cry [i.e. categorically distinct] from offering a logical justification for accepting them as truthful. Pragmatism as a logical reason fails miserably.
The problem with offering the justification “we use science because it works” is that one must also justify that which “works”. In other words, if science allows us to accomplish some particular goal, then one must justify that this particular goal is what we should logically be pursuing.
Even then, using pragmatism as a justification still fails because it is possible to accomplish the same goal by following distinct sets of beliefs which are contradictory to one another. Since there is no logical way for sets of contradictory beliefs to both be true, the fact that either or both allows us to accomplish what we want cannot logically entail that they are representative of reality (i.e. what they claim to be true is in fact true.)
Take the goal of being a moral individual. Since both Judaism and Christianity hold to a belief that one should do this, one could accomplish that goal while accepting either the entire belief system of Judiasm *or* of Christianity. These two belief systems, however, contain contradictory beliefs (especially as regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ).
If you ask a member of either belief system “why do accept the tenets of your faith as true?” they could both honestly answer “because it facilitates me being a moral individual” - in other words, “because it works”. The only thing different between this line of questioning and the line of questioning above is what the “it” is (i.e. the goal) that “works”. In this example, it is being a moral individual, whereas in the example above pertaining to scientific conclusions, it is being able to predict with a good degree of accuracy, the outcome of future events.
Pragmatic justification, therefore, can only provide a motivation for accepting something as true, but can never provide a logical justification for accepting something is true.
This has direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not it is rational to accept claims from science as “gospel” when it comes to the question of evaluating claims in the Bible to be true, just because science “works”. The answer is no, it is not. Since pragmatism does not provide a logical rationale for believing scientific conclusions are true, it does not provide a logical rationale for concluding that Biblical claims that contradict the claims of science must therefore be false.
Let me make a couple of points clear in closing that I should have stated already. First, I am not “anti-science”. Second, I am not claiming that science is *not* useful, or (even more to the point) that no claims of science are true! The only point I am making here is that the statement “because it works” is an insufficient answer as to why we should accept scientific conclusions over against Biblical ones.
Clear as mud? :)
As always, comments are welcome!
-- Brian
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Busted!
So I spent the last hour trying to clean shards of glass out of my 28-70mm lens.
Here's the short story: I was at church taking pictures of my daughter winning a book award at AWANA (they told me in advance she would be getting a trophy). I brought two lenses with me - my 85mm f/1.4 (for low light) and my 28-70mm f/2.8 (for low light and zoom). As I was trying out both lenses to see which would give me the most flexibility, I placed the 28-70mm lens on the table behind me; well (or so I thought) away from the edge.
As I was taking some test shots with the 85mm lens, I turned and my jacket must have somehow caught the lens behind me on the counter. It came crashing down (about 4 feet) to the floor, and I heard a sickening cracking sound. I picked up the lens and could here the bits and pieces of my filter bouncing around inside the lens cap - at least I hoped it was the filter and not the lens itself.
In this case, I am not quite sure what part of the lens struck the floor. There are no visible marks on the lens or the casing - this thing is a workhorse and very durable. The filter itself is not quite as durable, and so I imagine it was simply the shock of the lens falling 4 feet that caused it to shatter as it did.
My challenge for tomorrow? Trying to figure out how to clean off the tiny shards of glass from the filter that are still stuck to the surface of the lens. Word to the wise: NEVER take a cloth (even a microfiber) and simply run it across the lens to clean off things like this, as you will without a doubt leave small surface scratches on the lens.
-- BK
So I spent the last hour trying to clean shards of glass out of my 28-70mm lens.
Here's the short story: I was at church taking pictures of my daughter winning a book award at AWANA (they told me in advance she would be getting a trophy). I brought two lenses with me - my 85mm f/1.4 (for low light) and my 28-70mm f/2.8 (for low light and zoom). As I was trying out both lenses to see which would give me the most flexibility, I placed the 28-70mm lens on the table behind me; well (or so I thought) away from the edge.
As I was taking some test shots with the 85mm lens, I turned and my jacket must have somehow caught the lens behind me on the counter. It came crashing down (about 4 feet) to the floor, and I heard a sickening cracking sound. I picked up the lens and could here the bits and pieces of my filter bouncing around inside the lens cap - at least I hoped it was the filter and not the lens itself.
In this case, I am not quite sure what part of the lens struck the floor. There are no visible marks on the lens or the casing - this thing is a workhorse and very durable. The filter itself is not quite as durable, and so I imagine it was simply the shock of the lens falling 4 feet that caused it to shatter as it did.
My challenge for tomorrow? Trying to figure out how to clean off the tiny shards of glass from the filter that are still stuck to the surface of the lens. Word to the wise: NEVER take a cloth (even a microfiber) and simply run it across the lens to clean off things like this, as you will without a doubt leave small surface scratches on the lens.
-- BK
Seeing the Light
I attended a course in photographic lighting techniques yesterday, and had a wonderful time. For me it was more of a review than anything else, as I had already attended the same course (at a different location) back in the spring/summer of this year. Because of this, I took a little more time to take photos while the hands-on portion of the class was going on. It was that, or just sit around and wait for the next lecture segment :)
Although the class was on how to best make use of on-camera flash, the first room we shot in had this terrific quality of light that I have not seen before. While the rest of the class was taking turns photographing a model by the window, I was taking pictures of the rest of the class photographing a model by the window. As I did not wish to intrude or impact their photos, I took all the pictures making use of available light only. It wasn't until I looked at the photos after the fact that I noticed how great the lighting was.
One of my favorite photos was of Neil (the instructor) watching over the shoulder of one of the students
I think the amazing quality of light came from the fact that the sky was mostly overcast (think "diffused, soft light") and that there was a bank of large windows letting this light stream in and bounce around on the brick walls and off the hardwood floor. We don't often stop to think about this, but all of that bouncing off those warm-toned surfaces definitely introduces a warm color-cast to the light. So what I had was warm, soft light bathing my subjects.
The rest of the pictures can be found here.
-- BK
I attended a course in photographic lighting techniques yesterday, and had a wonderful time. For me it was more of a review than anything else, as I had already attended the same course (at a different location) back in the spring/summer of this year. Because of this, I took a little more time to take photos while the hands-on portion of the class was going on. It was that, or just sit around and wait for the next lecture segment :)
Although the class was on how to best make use of on-camera flash, the first room we shot in had this terrific quality of light that I have not seen before. While the rest of the class was taking turns photographing a model by the window, I was taking pictures of the rest of the class photographing a model by the window. As I did not wish to intrude or impact their photos, I took all the pictures making use of available light only. It wasn't until I looked at the photos after the fact that I noticed how great the lighting was.
One of my favorite photos was of Neil (the instructor) watching over the shoulder of one of the students
I think the amazing quality of light came from the fact that the sky was mostly overcast (think "diffused, soft light") and that there was a bank of large windows letting this light stream in and bounce around on the brick walls and off the hardwood floor. We don't often stop to think about this, but all of that bouncing off those warm-toned surfaces definitely introduces a warm color-cast to the light. So what I had was warm, soft light bathing my subjects.
The rest of the pictures can be found here.
-- BK
Monday, November 12, 2007
What's on the Table for Tomorrow
Tomorrow I am attending a lighting/exposure seminar put on by Neil van Neikerk. I attended this same seminar back in the Spring (at least I think that's when it was), and got so much out of it I am going to attend it again! Neil has a great web site where he explains much of the magic behind the great photos he takes. He is of the mindset that trying to shoot using available light (i.e. without a flash/strobe) is rarely the best choice; that it is always possible to improve upon the quality of your photo by intelligent use of flash. Given the power/portability/smarts of today's flash units, it only makes sense to make use of them as often as ... well ... as often as it makes sense :)
I highly recommend this course (and web site) to anyone who wants to get consistent and good looking photos.
Another favorite site of mine is Strobist. This is actually a blog that goes into a great degree of detail with examples and such. These two sites are philosophically very close - the only difference I have been able to find is that the Strobist recommends that "off camera" flash be used most if not all the time, whereas Neil is more into "on camera" flash that is bounced. Both have their place, depending on the event and venue.
With that said, perhaps I will report back (with examples) on some of my own experiments that have come out of this class and this blog!
-- BK
Tomorrow I am attending a lighting/exposure seminar put on by Neil van Neikerk. I attended this same seminar back in the Spring (at least I think that's when it was), and got so much out of it I am going to attend it again! Neil has a great web site where he explains much of the magic behind the great photos he takes. He is of the mindset that trying to shoot using available light (i.e. without a flash/strobe) is rarely the best choice; that it is always possible to improve upon the quality of your photo by intelligent use of flash. Given the power/portability/smarts of today's flash units, it only makes sense to make use of them as often as ... well ... as often as it makes sense :)
I highly recommend this course (and web site) to anyone who wants to get consistent and good looking photos.
Another favorite site of mine is Strobist. This is actually a blog that goes into a great degree of detail with examples and such. These two sites are philosophically very close - the only difference I have been able to find is that the Strobist recommends that "off camera" flash be used most if not all the time, whereas Neil is more into "on camera" flash that is bounced. Both have their place, depending on the event and venue.
With that said, perhaps I will report back (with examples) on some of my own experiments that have come out of this class and this blog!
-- BK
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Image New Facility Preview
Well, the day came and went ... the weather was cold, but the fellowship was warm!
We had our first worship service at our new (and currently under construction) meeting place. Good food, good fellowship, and a great vision to look forward to.
Pictures can be found at:
http://www.knappimaging.com/gallery/3812022
-- BK
Well, the day came and went ... the weather was cold, but the fellowship was warm!
We had our first worship service at our new (and currently under construction) meeting place. Good food, good fellowship, and a great vision to look forward to.
Pictures can be found at:
http://www.knappimaging.com/gallery/3812022
-- BK
Friday, November 09, 2007
A fantastic thing happened this past Saturday (almost a week ago now), and I got to have a part in it. Our church sponsored a 5k run, which I was told by some who ran in it was actually a tad more than 5k, and was more like a trail run.
Whatever you want to call it, it was an amazing site to see upwards of 50 runners (this is the first such event, mind you) come out in force to support this most excellent ministry known as Manna Worldwide.
-- BK
Is The Bible True? (Part II)
So here we are again, over a year later, trying to answer the question of whether or not the Bible is true. I hope there aren’t too many of you out there who I left hanging. Yes, I know, this assumes people are actually reading this blog. Quite honestly, there are too many things that have happened over the past year in my life to begin to get into details - suffice it to say, I am just *now* finding the time to resume blogging, and so I felt it was only appropriate to pick up where I left off.
So, without further delay ...
We have already seen that we cannot simply ask “is the Bible true?” because doing so means considering the claims that the Bible makes (that is, after all, what we are trying to determine the truth of - the claims that the Bible makes). The problem we find is that the Bible says we must assume the Bible is true in order to know whether or not the Bible is true, but as most first-year students in logic know, that is circular reasoning; simply assuming the thing you are trying to demonstrate.
I suppose this might bother some of you who either:
a) don’t believe that the Bible says we must start with the assumption the Bible is true in order to know it is true ... or
b) believe that I am contradicting the Bible when I say we cannot rationally assume the Bible is true in order to know if it is true
All I can say is this ... bear with me!
So if we cannot start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then what is the alternative? Well, the unbelieving world would have us take a route that does not assume the truth of the Bible. After all, if we cannot start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then the only other alternative is to not start with the assumption that it is true. But is that any more rational an approach to take?
Let’s play hypotheticals here ... let’s say for the sake of argument that the Bible is true - all of it - even the part that says we must assume it is true in order to know whether it is true. Do you see the problem yet?
If the Bible is true (hypothetically), then we cannot start without the assumption of the truth of the Bible and ever know that it is true, as the Bible says we cannot do this. If the Bible says we cannot do this, and the Bible is true, then it is true that we cannot do this (and all God’s people said ‘duh!’).
So now what? Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true makes us guilty of circular reasoning. But, starting without the assumption that the Bible is true leaves us (by virtue of what the Bible says) in the position of never being able to know whether or not the Bible is true.
And so we come to the point of this exercise, to conclude that asking “is the Bible true” is entirely the wrong question to be asking! The question we should be asking, if we are going to ask it, is “what if the Bible is not true?” This is an entirely different question - it is, in fact, an entirely different way of looking at the problem. It is a perspective that is indirect in its nature. It says “imagine, for a moment, that what the Bible says is true is not true.”
Let’s return for a moment to Proverbs 1:7a
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."
This passage is key! Recall that God tells us we must start with a reverent fear for him (one which comes by knowing who he is through his word, implying that his word is true) or else we cannot know anything. Notice it isn’t just that we cannot know whether the Bible is true, but (according to the Bible) this well-informed-via-scripture-fear-of-God is the very foundation for knowledge of anything at all!
So here we have the key to answering this question - If the Bible is true, then if the Bible is not true then we cannot know anything at all.
Wow, was that ever confusing?
OK, let me put it a different way. If the Bible is true, then if we do not start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then we cannot know anything at all. Stated different, a belief in the truth of the Bible is necessary in order to know anything. Or put even differently, the Biblical argument for the truth of the Bible is that without it being true we can’t know anything at all.
This is HUGE! No, seriously, this is really, really HUGE!
It is also entirely appropriate, if you think about it. If God is who the Bible claims him to be, then wouldn’t we expect this very thing? If God created the universe, including not only the beings (that is, of course, us) who he intends on knowing things, as well as those things he desires us to know, then it should be no surprise that God himself plays a central role in this process of knowing! We should not be shocked to find Proverbs 1:7 in the Bible, given the rest of what the Bible has to say.
And so we have it ... we have found the way in which we can determine whether or not the Bible is true!
We cannot assume the Bible is true in order to see if the Bible is true, as that would be circular reasoning. We cannot not assume the Bible is true, as that would be assuming it is possible to know whether the Bible is true, without assuming it is true, which would be to assume that its claims to necessarily assume it is true are ... not true!
You might want to read that again ... perhaps a couple of times, in order to ensure you get what I am saying. If you still don’t get it, don’t worry. The point is this, neither simply assuming or not assuming the truth of the Bible is logically going to get us any closer to knowing whether or not it is true. What is required is an entirely different approach.
We must hypothetically assume that the claims (all of them) in the Bible are not true, and then see whether or not it is possible for us to know anything at all. Does this sound odd? Does it sound strange? Perhaps, but realize that most people never stop to think about how they know what they think they know in the first place. Most people just ... assume ... that they are able to know things, without considering whether they really do, in fact, know what they think they know.
Let me state this differently before closing this installment. If the claims of the Bible (about knowledge) are true, then a denial of any part of the Bible would ultimately lead us into an inability to know anything at all. This is so simple, and yet so amazingly difficult to grasp, which is why I am going to turn what was going to be 2 posts into many more.
Next time, we will take a brief look at how it is we know things. More appropriately, we will consider some different theories as to how knowledge is possible. The result will be (hopefully) that you will see there is not very much consensus on this subject, and (also hopefully) that the Bible has what is the only logically possible answer to this question.
So here we are again, over a year later, trying to answer the question of whether or not the Bible is true. I hope there aren’t too many of you out there who I left hanging. Yes, I know, this assumes people are actually reading this blog. Quite honestly, there are too many things that have happened over the past year in my life to begin to get into details - suffice it to say, I am just *now* finding the time to resume blogging, and so I felt it was only appropriate to pick up where I left off.
So, without further delay ...
We have already seen that we cannot simply ask “is the Bible true?” because doing so means considering the claims that the Bible makes (that is, after all, what we are trying to determine the truth of - the claims that the Bible makes). The problem we find is that the Bible says we must assume the Bible is true in order to know whether or not the Bible is true, but as most first-year students in logic know, that is circular reasoning; simply assuming the thing you are trying to demonstrate.
I suppose this might bother some of you who either:
a) don’t believe that the Bible says we must start with the assumption the Bible is true in order to know it is true ... or
b) believe that I am contradicting the Bible when I say we cannot rationally assume the Bible is true in order to know if it is true
All I can say is this ... bear with me!
So if we cannot start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then what is the alternative? Well, the unbelieving world would have us take a route that does not assume the truth of the Bible. After all, if we cannot start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then the only other alternative is to not start with the assumption that it is true. But is that any more rational an approach to take?
Let’s play hypotheticals here ... let’s say for the sake of argument that the Bible is true - all of it - even the part that says we must assume it is true in order to know whether it is true. Do you see the problem yet?
If the Bible is true (hypothetically), then we cannot start without the assumption of the truth of the Bible and ever know that it is true, as the Bible says we cannot do this. If the Bible says we cannot do this, and the Bible is true, then it is true that we cannot do this (and all God’s people said ‘duh!’).
So now what? Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true makes us guilty of circular reasoning. But, starting without the assumption that the Bible is true leaves us (by virtue of what the Bible says) in the position of never being able to know whether or not the Bible is true.
And so we come to the point of this exercise, to conclude that asking “is the Bible true” is entirely the wrong question to be asking! The question we should be asking, if we are going to ask it, is “what if the Bible is not true?” This is an entirely different question - it is, in fact, an entirely different way of looking at the problem. It is a perspective that is indirect in its nature. It says “imagine, for a moment, that what the Bible says is true is not true.”
Let’s return for a moment to Proverbs 1:7a
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."
This passage is key! Recall that God tells us we must start with a reverent fear for him (one which comes by knowing who he is through his word, implying that his word is true) or else we cannot know anything. Notice it isn’t just that we cannot know whether the Bible is true, but (according to the Bible) this well-informed-via-scripture-fear-of-God is the very foundation for knowledge of anything at all!
So here we have the key to answering this question - If the Bible is true, then if the Bible is not true then we cannot know anything at all.
Wow, was that ever confusing?
OK, let me put it a different way. If the Bible is true, then if we do not start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then we cannot know anything at all. Stated different, a belief in the truth of the Bible is necessary in order to know anything. Or put even differently, the Biblical argument for the truth of the Bible is that without it being true we can’t know anything at all.
This is HUGE! No, seriously, this is really, really HUGE!
It is also entirely appropriate, if you think about it. If God is who the Bible claims him to be, then wouldn’t we expect this very thing? If God created the universe, including not only the beings (that is, of course, us) who he intends on knowing things, as well as those things he desires us to know, then it should be no surprise that God himself plays a central role in this process of knowing! We should not be shocked to find Proverbs 1:7 in the Bible, given the rest of what the Bible has to say.
And so we have it ... we have found the way in which we can determine whether or not the Bible is true!
We cannot assume the Bible is true in order to see if the Bible is true, as that would be circular reasoning. We cannot not assume the Bible is true, as that would be assuming it is possible to know whether the Bible is true, without assuming it is true, which would be to assume that its claims to necessarily assume it is true are ... not true!
You might want to read that again ... perhaps a couple of times, in order to ensure you get what I am saying. If you still don’t get it, don’t worry. The point is this, neither simply assuming or not assuming the truth of the Bible is logically going to get us any closer to knowing whether or not it is true. What is required is an entirely different approach.
We must hypothetically assume that the claims (all of them) in the Bible are not true, and then see whether or not it is possible for us to know anything at all. Does this sound odd? Does it sound strange? Perhaps, but realize that most people never stop to think about how they know what they think they know in the first place. Most people just ... assume ... that they are able to know things, without considering whether they really do, in fact, know what they think they know.
Let me state this differently before closing this installment. If the claims of the Bible (about knowledge) are true, then a denial of any part of the Bible would ultimately lead us into an inability to know anything at all. This is so simple, and yet so amazingly difficult to grasp, which is why I am going to turn what was going to be 2 posts into many more.
Next time, we will take a brief look at how it is we know things. More appropriately, we will consider some different theories as to how knowledge is possible. The result will be (hopefully) that you will see there is not very much consensus on this subject, and (also hopefully) that the Bible has what is the only logically possible answer to this question.
--BK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
