A response to the comments posted here, by t.f.

God decides to make a universe (for whatever reason)

Actually, He says why He created it.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
~ Col. 1:16

God created everything – for Himself.

God decides to create free moral agents (ditto)

Well, that’s exlained as well: Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.
~ Isaiah 43:7

It’s to God’s own glory everything exists.

God decides to create some rules (to, supposedly, give them moral choices)

Well, I’d have to disagree with you, there. They aren’t rules He “created” – they are the essence of God’s own character. Things are, because God is. God is holy – thus, sin cannot be permitted – unholiness is, by definition, wrong.

It’s not arbitrary. It is in keeping with the character and person of God.

God arbitrarily decides to assign the punishment of “death” for ALL SIN, and specifically, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin”

First: Where is your backing for “arbitrarily”? Where is that said, implied, or mentioned?

Second: Why not? If every sin is a specific violation of the very character of God – His holiness, shouldn’t He set the penalty?

Since man, by virtue of his free will, chooses at *ANY* point to disobey, god must punish man with death/require blood, in order to be “just” or consistent

With Himself, correct.

However, since god is love/good, god decides to give man an “escape hatch” from this system of justice by offering mercy/grace

Correct.

god decides to pay the penalty of sin in the place of man
those men who “accept it” get to have grace

Correct.

(god is not “just” in this sense, since punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty is a tortured logical exercise in demonstrating “justice”)

By who’s standard? Yours, or God’s? God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, correct?

(Isaiah 55:8-9)

those men who do not believe it, for whatever reason, still get what is coming to them – death and hell

Well, it’s not believing *it*, per se – it’s believing *in* God as Savior – and your own need for such a Savior – and turning away from the sin that required you to need a Savior.

in summary:
god dies because god decided death was necessary to pay for what god determined was sin because man committed sin and god dies for man and if man accepts it he gets eternal bliss and if he doesn’t he gets eternal hellfire

…sound about right to you?

Eh. To some extent. Obviously, it’s more complex than that – but that’s a decent synopsis – aside from one thing. God doesn’t precisely “decide” that death was necessary. It *is* necessary, because of God’s holiness.

and do you really wonder why paul said the gospel was foolishness to people like myself?

No, I don’t. At all. It’s very clear it is, and there is a reson for that, which is grounded in what you mean by “foolishness” – and from what perspective that determination is made.

That series of verses has much more to it than just “the gospel is foolishness”.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:16

Basically, this passage says that God’s wisdom is totally different from our wisdom. We have only so much information to go on – and He has it all. God shows us what is right, directly. This is moral wisdom, as well – not just intellectual wisdom. When you try to filter God’s principle through your own, it won’t work. You have not been shown what is correct about the world around you, because you insist on insisting that your way is correct – and something which does not conform to your way of thinking must, (dare I say it?) for some reason, be inconsistent.

This is not logical. If there is a transcendent being – God – his ways, necessarily, as Isaiah mentions earlier, will be much higher than our ways – and different. We haven’t even got to the point of our intrinsic sinful nature, or our egocentricity. Basically, Paul is saying that regardless of what men *think* is wise – God will show us, like Paul does later in this letter to the Corinthians, “a more excellent way”. God’s way of doing things may not jive with our sensibilities. I think, before we rush to say “it isn’t logical”, we ask ourselves “how in the world am I qualified to judge that?” Are you eminently logical? Do you have the answer to everything? God asks Job that, in a serious of pointed questions.

Job’s answer is excellent.

Then Job answered the LORD and said, “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.’ “I have heard6 of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

When we encounter the Living God, we too, repent in dust and ashes – and we learn a new kind of wisdom. Not the wisdom which we thought was wisdom – the same wisdom anyone else deems themselves as possessing. This wisdom is the wisdom of God, which surpasses everything we thought we knew before. It’s a new way to look at things, because we have more of the information – and we have the Author to explain His book to us.

Wouldn’t that be the best way to go about understanding what an author meant, when He wrote a book?

That’s the kind of wisdom God shares with those who are His. It’s not “based on nothing”. It’s based on MORE. It’s a fundamental paradigm shift, which leaves you looking at things a completely different way. The “wisdom” people think they have looks foolish, in comparison to God’s. God’s “foolishness”, as they call it, looks like transcendent profundity. That is the meaning. God gives, and we receive. His wisdom, not ours. We’re not as smart, or as profound, as we think we are.

In light of the fact that Jesus was in effect, God, and therefore knew he was both immortal and utterly in control of his fate, or at the very least knew of God’s existence beyond any doubt and his place therein, why is his death considered such a magnificent sacrifice in comparison to we ordinary folks who have neither example of foreknowledge?

~ DarkSyde

This is the question I’d like to interact with.

Basically, it seems to me, this is a question dealing specifically with the necessity and centrality of the Atonement, and several other doctrines as well. This doctrine – and doctrine it is – is the central, keynote theme of the entire Bible. It is central to the entire message it gives, and part and parcel of just about every story in it.

The Atonement is key. Second, however, is the doctrine of Propitiation. Third, the Hypostatic Union, then the Holiness of God, and the Divinity of Christ.

All of these subjects (and most likely more) are touched on by this question! It’s an interesting one, and needs a (Biblical and doctrinal) response.

The importance of the Atonement:

That’s because Jesus made much of it, I think. He said it Himself: “…but for this purpose I have come to this hour.” This was not Christ’s only purpose – but it was chief. In Matthew 5:17, He says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” The Atonement is the purpose the whole Bible is pointed toward. The means, however, is called Propitiation.

The importance of Propitiation:

Correct, Jesus is God, the ruler of the Universe. You are correct, though – it isn’t the same type of sacrifice. It is a propitiatory sacrifice. From theopedia: “Propitiation is not the placating of a vengeful God but, rather, it is the satisfying the righteousness of a holy God, thereby making it possible for Him to show mercy without compromising His righteousness or justice.”

This concept is what makes the forgiveness (mercy) of God compatible with the moral perfection (holiness) of God, when God offers us salvation.

It is not the “same sense” of sacrifice. It is a sacrifice only God could make. Humanity is awash in their own wrongdoing – their own sin. There is not one perfectly righteous man who could stand in our stead as a sacrifice. Furthermore, a mere man could not withstand the full wrath of God out upon them. God, however, could. This is the reason for Christ – fully God, fully man – and clothed in flesh specifically to “to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

This is correct – Christ’s sacrificial death is, indeed, not a sacrifice how we typically view human sacrifices on behalf of others. It is a sacrifice that only God could make, in the person of Jesus, the Christ – and it is a sacrifice required by God, of God, that He may save us from ourselves.

The Law’s position (and thus, God’s position) is that the penalty for sin is death – blood.

The death and suffering of Christ is a substitionary payment for the sins of all. The price for that sin is the death of Jesus – the perfect, sinless man. He was separated from God, was inundated by the Wrath of God, took upon himself all of the sins of the world – past, present, and future – and by that payment, has satisfied the wrath of God for mankind and enabled God to forgive men who accept that payment for their sin, repent of their sin, and acknowledge Christ as Lord and God.

The comparison is not between foreknowledge and lack of foreknowledge. It’s a red herring to the central focus on sin. The difference lies in who Jesus is. First, Jesus is a hypostatic union of God and man. This means that Jesus was both man AND God – and that He was both God and man fully – two natures in one person. God cannot sin, thus the human nature of Jesus was sinless as well. He was the perfect man, and God to boot – thus, His sacrificial death was sufficient to pay the penalty of sin – even though He had committed none Himself. This is the reason why Christ’s death is important. The perfect man – the man who was also God – died in our place, took the wrath of God upon Himself, and now offers us salvation from the penalty for our sins. We have only to accept His offer, once we are empowered to by the Spirit, and once it is given. We must repent of our sins, acknowledge Jesus as Lord and God, and follow Him.

So, I think you’re asking the wrong question. Since Jesus is God – of course He knew His death was not permanent. However, that is not the operative factor in why it was important – nor does it matter. The importance of His death lies in His identity and His perfection – not in His knowledge.

Is up, at Kingdom of Heathen.

Go check it out.

Are you a Christian? Do you blog?

Visit this site, and submit your info.

I think it’s an excellent idea. A Christian blogger’s annotated bibliography!

I’m listed! 😀

I think it important to remember that the internet is a medium which propogates a special kind of wave quite well–ideas. It is also a medium which does not propogate another kind of wave at all (like a sound wave in a vacuum)–emotional appeals.

Even arguments which attempt to present an emotional appeal do not find the sort of resonance that *personal* emotional appeals find (eg face-to-face). That is one interesting thing I’ve noted about theist versus atheist websites, and the apparently disproportionate representation of atheism on the web in general. I am not claiming that the speaker’s emotions do not come through in their writing. What I am claiming is that the power of eliciting an emotional response in your reader is rendered virtually null via writing compared to personal proselytizing, sermons, and evangelism in general.

That is, the amount of intellectual material on *individual* websites (versus orgs and groups) representing atheism seems overrepresented in proportion to the % of people who espouse atheism. Conversely, the amount of intellectual (versus evangelizing, emotional appeals, etc) material on Christianity (again, among individual sites) is underrepresented by stats.

You’ll find all kinds of Xian “apologists” (yes those are sneer quotes), but you’ll also find that they are nearly all united in “defending the faith” from skeptics and the arguments of atheism *to minister to other Xians!* Nearly all the articles on sites that address creationism, atheist logic, etc., are explicitly addressing an audience of Xians.

Admittedly, a few amateur Xian apologists have taken their best arguments to the WWW for the purpose of evangelism, but I would put forth my observation that they are beset on all sides by the ideas of the godless, a chorus composed of ever more voices. I think the web has helped more atheists to “come out” and to realize they *are* atheists than *anything* positive it has done for religion, because religions are stripped of their most powerful tool–the emotional, personal appeal to repent and join the fold. The web helped me to address the things that kept me quagmired in liberal Xianity for years, and then deism, and then agnosticism. I could’ve gone to libraries, sure, and still could, to find books and arguments (i have a bookshelf that is now stocked with and growing with atheist literature). But the WWW has provided a “crystallization” effect for atheists–with a seeded center like the RA site, more and more doubters and freethinkers find what they need: not companionship and comfort, but food for thought.

People who are critical of *any* ideas may come across as unhappy…but I would rather be *perceived* as unhappy than *be* gullible.

Thinking Freely, on the Raving Atheist’s comment section

I find it interesting that emotional appeals are thought to be the centerpiece of evangelism. I was always taught that an emotional “conversion” was not likely to be real, or lasting.

They make some good points about the differing signal-to-noise ratios between atheist and Christian apologists, however. I’ve found the same myself. Even with internet apologetics, the roster seems awfully small – the ones who cater to skeptics smaller still.

Am I wrong?

Vox Symposium, Edition XXI, will be posted on March 11th. The topic is The Fear of The Lord. It will be hosted at Vox Apologia’s blog.

Vox Apologia, Edition I, will be posted March 6th, hosted by CADRE Comments. The topic is Why is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice? submitted by DarkSyde, who blogs on science and politics at Daily Kos and at the atheist and skeptic blog Unscrewing the Inscrutable.

Entries for either must be received by midnight of March 10th and 5th, respectively.

Look to your right for the submissions email address, in the Vox sidebar section.

Coming Soon: Vox Schedule Page, code to include Vox info on your site or blog, and several other features.

Thanks, and start writing.

This post was written for the Carnival.

The largest objections I’ve seen to the concept of faith revolve around these three issues.

First, that faith is somehow inherently unwarranted – that it flies in the face of logic.

Second, that faith, warranted or no, is inherently unbelievable – that it is not trustworthy.

Third, that faith, warranted, believable, or not, is even comprehensible – that we can’t know anything about it.

I’ll start with some statements that say this, and go on from there.

Warranted:

“Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
– Dan Barker, “Losing Faith in Faith”, 1992

“Faith is surprisingly difficult to define, but in a religious context, I think we can agree that it refers to one’s confidence in a belief for which their is no evidence. Thus, when someone refers to his or her faith, we generally interpret this as reflecting a body of religious dogma in which the speaker believes without empirical basis.”
– vjack, Atheist Revolution

“I reject this sort of faith as a destructive departure from reason that has dire consequences for humanity (see Sam Harris’ The End of Faith). To suspend reason by embracing superstition is to delude oneself into a blissful but counterfeit state of idiocy, one which history has taught us repeatedly leads to bloodshed.”
– vjack, Atheist Revolution

“All religions have flaws. They all can be argued to the point where logic forces the proponent to claim “well, you just have to have faith”.”
– Dave Silverman, NoGodBlog

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not out to bash these folks. I just selected a few quotes, to give an example of the general opinion towards faith from the skeptical community. I am, however, going to answer them. See, the general consensus is that faith, because of it’s second dictionary definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence is some sort of belief made out of whole cloth – a faith which simply rests on nothing.

While that definition does, indeed, exist, there is more than one definition of it. #4, if you’ll notice, says this: “The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.” This, when you interact with a Christian, is what is meant by faith – in one sense. In another sense, it is dictionary definitions 5 and 6. “The body of dogma of a religion“, and “A set of principles or beliefs.”

You’ll see some confused Christians say that they really have no reason to believe what they do – but, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, they really don’t. They don’t even know what they believe, in many instances. Part of faith is knowledge of the object of your faith. If you know the object of your faith, there is sufficient justification for that belief.

Spurgeon says, as I’ve mentioned previously, “What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.” The first component is what addresses this. This portion is addressed by theology – the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions. This portion is addressed by philosophy – the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. This portion is addressed by a host of other systematic studies – which all delve into the nature, the object, and the veracity of knowledge.

Christianity has a 2,000-year history of studying these subjects, and the wealth of that study is incalculable. It is not embarked upon lightly, should not be considered lightly, and is undertaken with trepidation. The subject matter of faith is God – who tells us we should rightly fear Him. The same sort of fear which strikes awe into our very soul, which blinds us with it’s brightness, and forces us to our knees in reverent wonder. The study of God is no academic matter. It is a matter of grave importance. This study is what we are called to do, as Christians, and Theists – or, even skeptics. If your God is unknowable, your faith is worthless, because you have no basis for it. The very bedrock of Christianity is that God is knowable, and that He wants us to know Him.

The study of knowledge, the study of Creation, the study of mathematics, the study of… anything; they are all the basis for a Faith which is grounded not in “blind” acceptance – but in reasoned, knowledgeable, and studied acceptance of something (someone) proven trustworthy. I believe, because I “know Whom I have believèd, And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed Unto Him against that day.” – as the old hymn goes.

Trustworthy:

Uhhhhhhhhhh . . . isn’t Passover about the slaughter of innocent children? Didn’t God use all sorts of horrible plagues just to tease the virtuous Job? It wasn’t just blasphemous deposing rebels who felt God’s wrath. For Chrisstake, He killed Himself and his perfectly innocent own Son. So He’s used that “technique” over and over; but even if it were only “once” I don’t see why any spiritually sensitive person would trust Him.
– The Raving Atheist

This is the sticky one. Trust is something experientially determined. It can be given, without prior experience, but it’s veracity is determined by experience. So, the question remains, how can we trust God? Well, the answer lies in knowledge. Theology, as we’ve already discussed, is the knowledge of God. If you’ve studied theology, you learn what God is, and what He isn’t. God is good, but he is not evil, and etc. This, perhaps, is something I may have to get into later. I may use this for a topic when it’s my turn to host. I’d like to explore it more. For me? I trust God because I know Him, and I’ve learned about Him. I’ve studied Him, I’ve experienced Him, and I’ve read what He has to say about life. I trust His judgement. This is not a trust based on “hey, why don’t I just trust God” – although, in it’s defense, I’ll say that this is acceptable. God is, by definition, trustworthy. At least a inherently good God would be. My God is.

Comprehensible:

One good reason to not believe that God exists is that the concept of God is incoherent. The concept of God is like a round square or the largest number.
– Michael Martin

“Is Christianity absurd in the dictionary sense of being ridiculously incongruous and unreasonable? It seems to me that the answer is “yes.” Given standard criticisms of Christianity and certain plausible interpretations of it, Christianity is filled with ridiculous incongruities and unreasonable beliefs and practices.”
– Michael Martin

As Michael Martin, the premier “Christianity is incoherent/absurd/incongruous” debater exemplifies, there is a point where the objection is not that there can be no knowledge of, or trust in, Christianity (or Theism), but that the very concept makes no sense. There is a laundry lista mile long of the supposed “incoherencies” he’s listed, but, it essence, it’s a very old objection. Our brains aren’t functioning right, or we’re being deceived.

Plantinga has a comment on rationality to answer this: “What you properly take to be rational, at least in the sense of warranted depends on what sort of religious and metaphysical stance you adopt. It depends on what kinds of beings you think human beings are, what sorts of belief you think their noetic faculties will produce when they are functioning properly, and which of their faculties or cognitive mechanisms are aimed at truth.”

Basically, there’s a subtle truth that you learn when studying theology. God’s ways are not our ways. By this, I mean that what seem incongruous to us, may not necessarily be so, to God. We just might be wrong about our sense of coherence. God’s plan doesn’t involve our input, frankly. A lot of theological concepts only “work” when you look at them from a certain perspective. Things like Atonement, Sin, and Sacrifice only make sense when you grasp the concept of Holiness. Coherence, as shown above, depends on what you’re aimed at.

Faith requires knowledge of the object of faith – it requires trust in the object of faith, and it requires the object of faith to be understandable, to a certain point. No human knows everything with certainty – few know more than a few things with certainty. What we need to know, we need to know well enough to consider that belief warranted. What we need to trust, we need to trust well enough to make that trust warranted. What we need to understand, we need to understand well enough to make our belief that we understand it warranted.

So, let’s put it all together. Faith is warranted, because faith is based on knowledge. Faith is trustworthy if the object of that faith is trustworthy. Faith is comprehensible because you cannot have faith in something you do not understand enough to justify your faith in it. Faith without justification is simply that blind faith we’re accused of having. That sort of faith, however, is not the faith we have.

Faith, as a noun, means something else – and can be used in this instance as well. allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person

A Christian must have faith in His God – that faith involves allegiance, it involves loyalty, and it involves duty. Christians are citizens of heaven, first and foremost. Our allegiance is to God, and only then to others. We must be loyal to what God is, and what we are asked by Him to be. We have to be loyal followers. We have a duty to do what He has told us, and to do things His way.

The first important issue, however, is truth. If a thing is true, it is therefore worthy of our faith in it. That’s the meat of the issue. So many times, we simply say “that doesn’t make sense” – and assume that this means something isn’t true. This isn’t the case, in many instances. Truth is the major determining factor in determining whether or not something should be believed.

If you say you have no faith in anything – you’re not being very truthful. You have faith that you if you step out in the crosswalk, a truck won’t come barreling in and run you over. You have faith in the good intentions and skills of the drivers on the road, whenever you drive. You can say you don’t have faith in God – but if you don’t know Him, how could you? Well, you don’t know the drivers around you. By that standard, you’d have no reason to trust them, either.

I can say this: Until you know God, you cannot have faith in Him. After knowledge comes understanding. If you lack the knowledge, you will ever lack understanding of the concept, in my view.

What it boils down to, to rephrase it, is whether the knowledge that faith claims to have is justified. Be it a priori or a posteriori, knowledge comes from somewhere. However, the important questions are, is that belief true, is it justified? Of course, I’m a foundationalist, so that would make perfect sense to me 😀

If something is justified, the core issue is “what justifies it?” As I’ve already said, in so many words, I believe that the nature of God, the knowledge of God, and the coherence of the whole “enchilada” do so. Inductively, along with my own personal (emotive and spiritual) experiential relationship with God, I can say that my belief in God is a justified, true belief.

That’s what you need to have faith. A belief, a justifier. That’s it. If you’d like to discuss exactly what those would be, and advance defeaters for my justification, you’re welcome to do so. I’d love the chance to talk with you.

I’m not going to list all of the components which undergird my faith in this post. If you’d really like to know, comment. Then, we’ll talk. Discussion is much better for unearthing things anyway. It makes the topic more lively. So, feel free.

God or Not needs submissions.

The topic is Faith, is hosted at Cadmusings, will be up on February 13th, and you are encouraged to submit a post.

Submissions must be in by Sunday at midnight.

I have been beating my head on a wall for days now, trying to get a server-side aggregator and parser/reader combination together.

I finally got it. I won’t go into all the details – I’ll drib and drab it out as I get it into fully working status, but here’s a look at it.

I also have the feed reader working in the sidebar over at Vox, as well.

If you’re bored, you can check out the aggregator software itself.

It’s some pretty cool stuff. I’ve been trying to get away from server.com and blogdigger for quite a while. I think I have the right combo now.

Technology is cool. Teaching yourself things can be a real pain in the posterior, though.

Anyway, I’m also working on getting the first Vox editions set up, so stand by for news/updates about that.

Latah.

Firstly:

Alright – here’s the deal.

Those of you who have submitted Vox posts in the past: You’re about to get an email. Every requested member of the Aggregator (ie: those of you who asked to join, instead of me just adding you) – you’re also about to get an email.

I’m going to explain how it works, and what I need.

Also, I’m going to ask a few bloggers from the skeptic side of the fence to submit some questions for us to answer, to the best of our abilities. They’ll be screened, but I’ll put them all somewhere to pick from, and look at.

Vox Symposium: Monthly essay/post compendium, topical (like before, but monthly) – Will stay on the Vox Apologia site.

Vox Apologia: Weekly apologetic response to questions from the skeptics. Will move from blog to blog, as we originally did it.

Secondly:

I’m revamping the Aggregator into something more manageable, and more representative.

There will be Aggregator 1, which contains all of the hobbyist apologists that are currently on the Aggregator.

There will be Aggregator 2, which will contain the feeds from the major apologetics organizations, including some already on the Aggregator.

There will be Aggregator 3, which will contain feeds from any other apologist I run into.

I’m also in the process of setting up our own aggregator on the Vox Apologia server, to handle the member blogs’ post feeds.

Thirdly:

I’m asking for volunteers who will help me. I know, I slacked off big time. I’m back now, though – and I’m ready to kickstart Vox back to where it was – and onward.

Like I said, expect an email.