--I--Professor Warren E Carroll of Oxford University has a review of Professor Lawrence Krauss's poorly titled A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing. Here is the opening paragraph of Professor Carroll's review:
"Why is it so important for believers to affirm that in creating all that is God does not work with or use anything at all—nothing, that is, other than his own omnipotence? When the doctrine of creation out-of-nothing was being formulated in the early Church, it seemed obvious to the Church Fathers that the opening of Genesis stood out in stark contrast to the prevailing philosophical and scientific view that the universe is eternal. A Platonic Demiurge, for example, or an Aristotelian Unmoved Mover, would work with already existing stuff to bring order and/or motion to the world. Such a god would not be the complete cause of all that is, would not be the sovereign Lord of the universe. To emphasize that God, revealed in the Bible, was such a complete cause of existence meant that creation had to be “out of nothing.” What this meant was that God did not use anything at all—no pre-existent matter, no primal chaos—in his creative act."He does a good job of emphasizing that creation means causing things to exist, not merely changing things from one state to another, as is apparently claimed by Professor Krauss. (Tip of the cap to Mr Carl Olson)
--II--Father Robert Barron takes on Mr Andrew Sullivan's latest round of "Follow Jesus, not the Church." Sullivan and those of his ilk (including the two hundred years' worth or so predecessors to this line of thinking) are misguided on this point at best:
"The solution Sullivan proposes is a repristinizing of Christianity, a return to its roots and essential teachings. And here he invokes, as a sort of patron saint, Thomas Jefferson, who as a young man literally took a straight razor to the pages of the New Testament and cut out any passages dealing with the miraculous, the supernatural, or the resurrection and divinity of Jesus....
As the reference to Jefferson should make clear, there is nothing particularly new in Sullivan's proposal. The liberation of Jesus the wisdom figure from the shackles of supernatural doctrine has been a preoccupation of much of the liberal theology of the last 200 years."
Sullivan's philosophy more of the "I'm spiritual but not religious" rubbish that we've been subjected to on again, off again in this age; or perhaps it's closer to morality without spirituality. It is, in any case, obvious that Sullivan (and others) are not much interested in returning to the roots or essential teachings of Christianity, since the most important of the Church's doctrines all pertain to miracles and the supernatural (e.g. the doctrines of the Trinity, or of the Resurrection).
--III--Speaking of core teachings of Christianity (and specifically of the Resurrection), Monsignor Charles Pope has a post which outlines a (possible) chronological order of the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ to His disciples.
.In further celebration of Easter, Mr Matthew Archbold has a post about Christmas and Easter Catholics.