Beckham and Grey's Anatomy

Lake Wakatipu, New Zealand

Greetings,

Here are two of my recent philosophical comments from two other blogs. The first comment relates to Western materialism and professional sports. The original article discusses David Beckham's move from Real Madrid to Major League Soccer. The second comment relates to world-view and Grey's Anatomy, which I have never actually watched. The original article discusses what Isaiah Washington has been put through because of his negative comment.

http://redeemingthetime.blogspot.com/2007/01/beckhams-millions-jackpot-or-insanity.html

I have been a European soccer fan for several years and was fortunate enough when I lived in Manchester to have home membership for Manchester United and away membership for Arsenal. As a student I viewed a handful of games. At the time Beckham played for United he was a hard working above average player, but not the best on the team. Beckham coming to L.A. is seemingly largely about the MLS increasing media exposure. In a sense this move reflects the notion in our society that bigger is better and since the MLS is not a major sport in North America they will pay a player likely past his prime, a ridiculous amount of money. In my opinion the NHL in expanding to many non-hockey markets in the United States is as well suffering from the bigger is better mentality. To a point, I do not blame a business or organization for wanting to expand, but the MLS is not going to become a major league by throwing money at a player they are overrating, and the NHL is likely never going to be a major sport in much of the United States. This move by the MLS is largely a bunch of hype attempting to convince North Americans that soccer is becoming major league on this continent and I deny that soccer is becoming that popular here. Soccer may be growing in the United States but the top American athletes will largely continue to play football, baseball, basketball, golf and other sports at a high level rather than soccer. Kirk you mentioned the love of money, but when I think of how of the MLS and the NHL are making all these attempts to become very popular in the United States, I reason there is also a love of success going on here. In other words an attempt to eventually match the success of the NFL and European Soccer. As a Christian I think that there are much more worthy pursuits.

http://professor-howdy.blogspot.com/

Please see under Official Notice!!!

A thoughtful article. If I had made such a negative public remark I would apologize. It is one thing to disagree with a person's lifestyle but another to disrespect a person with a term. I would then refuse to succumb to any further pressure from groups that would think I needed counseling and such. An apology for a bad word is one thing, but an apology for a world-view is another. Any further discussion would require a debate on the world-view issue. With God's help I would aim not to offend anyone on my blogs or academic writing, but if I did offend and was wrong I would apologize. However, I would refuse to be pressured into acting as if my world-view was incorrect just because certain people in Hollywood and the media did not agree with it.

Russ

Five influential books on the problem of evil

Lake Superior, Ontario

Five influential books concerning the problem of evil:

This is not a top five list, but a short diverse review of books that have been influential in my writing on the problem of evil with my MPhil and PhD dissertations. I am not necessarily in agreement with these texts on several points. These explanations are brief but further information will be provided in my completed doctorate. God willing.

In alphabetical order:

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S. Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

Augustine was one of the first ancient writers to deal with the problem of evil. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger (1996: 231). Within On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine presents his free will theodicy, theodicy being an explanation for the problem of evil in a theistic universe. Augustine was somewhat influential on Alvin C. Plantinga’s free will defence in the 1970’s. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 26). Augustine reasons that God is not the cause of evil, but rather human beings create the problem when they choose to follow their own temporal ways rather than God’s. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). A possible problem with Augustine’s view is that he blames the problem of evil on human choice but at the same time places a heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in creation. Augustine’s view on human free will appears libertarian while, as John Feinberg points out, Augustine’s concept of God’s sovereignty would seemingly require some form of determinism. Feinberg (1994: 98).

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

Within this text Feinberg presents a defence which could be labeled a sovereignty theodicy. My personal sovereignty theodicy is embedded within my MPhil and more so my PhD and is somewhat similar to Feinberg’s work. As well as presenting his own perspective Feinberg does a thorough job of reviewing various theistic and atheistic concepts on the problem of evil. He reasons that God does not presently eliminate the problem of evil because to do so would violate divine plans and human development. Feinberg (1994: 130). I found Feinberg’s explanation of this a bit repetitive and it would perhaps be good for him to have speculated on God’s reasons for willingly allowing evil in more specific terms as I have to some degree in my work.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

Gebara is a Brazilian, feminist, Catholic sister. The back of the text notes that she is one of Latin America’s leading theologians. The book is interesting because, although no formal theodicy or defence is presented, she looks at the problem of evil from the perspective of the suffering of women. Gebara, Ivone (2002: 13-59) I can agree with Gebara that women within this corrupted creation have experienced much suffering, and some of it has not been thoroughly acknowledged. However, I disagree with her tendency to reinterpret the Christian faith, for example concerning the doctrine of physical resurrection which she reasons is idealistic theory. Gebara (2002: 122). She thinks it more valuable to look at resurrection in metaphorical terms today as lives are improved and evil resisted. Gebara (2002: 122).

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Plantinga successfully demonstrates that a free will defence is logical and reasonable. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 28). He speculates that the price of God creating a universe with significantly free creatures is that wrong actions will inevitably occur leading to the problem of evil. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30). Plantinga’s free will approach is not primarily theological as is Augustine’s and therefore offers a different but somewhat related perspective. A question arises if Plantinga has really successfully answered the objection of theistic critics such as Feinberg, and atheists such as J.L. Mackie on why God could not simply create human beings who were significantly free and never committed wrong actions. I believe that God could have created significantly free human beings, or at least human-like creatures that only committed right actions. Perhaps God desired to create human beings that would ultimately posses a greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve prior to the fall because those restored in Christ would have experienced sin, the problem of evil, death and the atoning work and resurrection of Christ. Quite possibly restored human beings would ultimately be more spiritually mature and valuable to God than persons that never knew what it was like to disobey God and experience evil. I would also point out that Biblically speaking the angels that did not fall would seemingly be significantly free and have not committed wrong actions.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

Hick rejects Augustinian and Calvinistic views on theodicy, and instead supports what he views as the Irenean position. Hick (1970: 221). Ramsay (2004: 2). Hick also rejects conservative Christian doctrines and instead favours the idea of universalism. Hick (1970: 172). Hick (1970: 381). He reasons that human beings were made immature and capable of committing wrong human actions in order that God eventually can bring all persons to the creator through soul-making. Hick (1970: 292). I can accept that some type of soul-making is used by God in the development of believers, but without the atoning work of Christ and resurrection within a Christian tradition we do not have a revealed divine means of salvation and are left to speculate on how God should or could save persons, as Hick speculates.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, and DAVID BASINGER (1996) (eds.), ‘Introduction: Saint Augustine: Evil is Privation of Good’, in Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN, C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

RAMSAY, MEGHAN (2004) ‘John Hick: ‘Evil and Soul Making’, Philosophy of Religion, (ed.) Philip A. Pecorino, Web Surfers Caveat, Suffolk, Virginia, Philosophy of Religion.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/

A philosophy of singleness: part 2

Golcuk, Turkey

Thanks to everyone via both my blogs that has asked to fill out a problem of evil questionnaire when it is ready. One of my pastors suggested I mention the questionnaire in my blog headings and I may do so eventually. My three philosophical theodicy chapters are currently under review and I am working on revising the practical theology chapter. Once these are accepted I shall be ready to issue the questionnaire.

In part of one of this series, which may only have two parts, I related my research of theodicy (the problem of evil in a theistic universe) with being single. At this point I wish to bring more of the human element into the discussion.

Some other observations:

I reason that God is sovereign and human beings have by my definition a limited free will (see the Edwards article if interested). Whether or not a person believes in the Biblical Christ is between God and that individual. The fact there are only a minority of Christians in Western society and in Canada is a negative that I can do nothing about. I have a small pool of potential women to choose from but I acknowledge that God can work through this difficulty if he so wishes.

I have been on two Christian websites, part-time for 7 years. I would estimate that of the female profiles I have reviewed, well over 25%, perhaps as high as 50% list the previous romantic relationship as being with a non-Christian or nominal Christian. Now thankfully despite our very liberal marriage laws here in Canada, I am only looking at female profiles, so perhaps the Christian men are not much different, but I do not know because I am not looking at their profiles! I am not criticizing the women in particular here. However, I would deduce that the already small number of Christians available for dating is made considerably less when Christians date non-Christians and nominal Christians. Again I believe that God can work through this problem if he wishes. It should be reasoned though that it will often be difficult for women who have dated non-Christians and nominal Christians to relate to committed theological Christians such as myself. I am not being arrogant here, but realistic.

With few available women this would make it unlikely for me to spiritually, intellectually, and physically relate with the Christians I meet. They may have one or two of the three things I mentioned, but all three is not likely. I do believe that physical attraction is essential for most in romantic relationships, but I would rate it less important than spiritual and intellectual compatibility. I have prayed to the Lord that I would accept the least possible as far as looks are concerned within the group of women that I am naturally physically attracted too. This means I am not holding out for a supermodel! However, I do have standards and I view them as natural although I must be aware that I am a corrupt being. God must be sought in prayer on this issue. I shall be blunt here, I think that a lot of Christians are not looking primarily at the spirituality or intellect of a potential mate, but are putting too much emphasize on looks and social status. I have written hundreds of letters to women on the internet and I deduce that the lack of overall Biblical and theological knowledge and understanding within Christians is playing a major part in me not finding someone. My deduction is that many Christians have only a basic understanding of the gospel and are saved, but would tend to relate better in romantic relationships with non-Christians and nominal Christians.

Basically on the positive side the internet, Facebook and Blogger does open up possibilities to meet persons of the opposite sex where in Christ there could be spiritual, intellectual and potentially romantic attraction. And despite what anyone would state with me personally looking for a younger woman of potential child-bearing age, the most important thing is someone to dialogue with.

One hundred years ago and earlier the Western world was more Christianized and one could go to church on Sunday and perhaps find someone to relate to.  Now in many places in the West that is very difficult, especially for the intellectual. So perhaps there needs to be a paradigm shift in thinking and social and cultural rules relating to geography and age need to be reconsidered and sites such as Facebook and Blogger may serve as initial meeting places for future personal meetings.

A philosophy of singleness: part 1

Schwetzingen, Germany

I am not attempting to be controversial here or offend anyone in this series. I reason that God will bless me with a potential wife if it his will, and I am open-minded concerning the issue.

Some of my observations:

In Genesis 2:18, Scripture states that it is not good for man to be alone, and in 1 Corinthians 7:7 it describes a gift of contentment while being single. Based on these verses it is too simplistic to assume that each Christian will either be blessed with a mate, or be content. In my view this is where studying theodicy (the problem of evil in a theistic universe) is useful. If a person leans towards accepting a free will theodicy, knowingly or unknowingly, he/she may tend to blame an unhappy unfulfilled Christian for either not getting married to someone God has supposedly provided or for not being content and struggling with singleness related issues. It may also be assumed that God will eventually either provide a Christian with a mate or contentment. This approach makes assumptions about how God works within creation. This presupposes that God meets every Christians true needs in life if there is a level of faith and obedience, and I believe that this is only true in a sense.

Theologically, I deduce that God will primarily meet a Christians needs in order that the divine will and purposes are completed. However, we must reason that there are Christians that are blind that need to see, amputees that need limbs, cripples that need healing, and so on. These people have natural needs that are not being met within God's will, and it is also reasonable to assume that singleness in some Christians is a lack of needs being met. This does not make God an evil being, as he is under no obligation to meet the needs of sinners, since Christians are saved by grace and do not have any human righteousness, as described in Romans 1:17, and 4-5. Without our own righteousness Christians have no moral standing before God and therefore existence and any blessings from God come from his grace, and not because God is morally obligated to meet our needs. A Christian is justified in Christ alone as in Romans 5:1.

To say that all we need as Christians is a relationship with God and Christ is again only true in a sense. If I was to die this moment and be in the spirit paradise described in Luke 16, and 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, I have absolutely no doubt that all my needs would be met, except for the need for a physical body, which God ultimately promises believers in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58. In contrast even though God is with me currently, being with Christ now in a corrupted creation does not mean all my needs are presently being met and that is an aspect of the problem of evil. Having unmet needs while an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, holy God exists is an aspect of theodicy, and I believe a sovereignty theodicy can deal with the issue better than a free will approach, because for one, sovereignty theodicy, and my sovereignty theodicy generally better recognizes that God can will evil for the greater good while his motives remain pure. As John Calvin states in The Institutes:

We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. Calvin, (1539)(1998) Book II, Chapter 4, Section 2.

It is ultimately true that all of a Christian's needs are met in God and Christ. Every blessing I have in this life and I will have in the next is in Christ, but that does not mean that in this current temporal, sinful environment, if all of my needs are not being met it is because I am not trusting in God sufficiently, or does it mean that all my true needs will be met in this life. Ultimately because of Christ's atoning work and resurrection I will have all my needs met as God culminates his Kingdom as described in Revelation 21-22.

In the meantime, faith and philosophy means I should be open to opportunities, positive change and progression...

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Grand Rapids, Wheaton College.

A philosophy of blogging

Gwbert, Wales

Happy New Year for 2007.

A philosophy of blogging

Some non-exhaustive thoughts on the topic:

1. I am thankful for those who support my blogs through reading, posting, and emailing. I am also thankful for those that read my blogs and although they do not support me, do not send me abusive negative comments or email. I can handle constructive criticism, whether I agree or disagree with it, but since I began blogging in 2004 I have only received one comment that I would consider a personal attack, and I published it for the sake of example in the Incarnation article. From now on I will simply delete any abusive comments or email and so it would be a waste of time sending it to me anyway. Blogger comment moderation is useful.

2. In my opinion those who want to have blogs where comments are only from people that agree with them, or are known personally, should set their sites up as private blogs that require a password to enter, or have a private web page. I dislike it when I comment on a blog only to receive some type of negative or intimidating message back like I did yesterday. For those who leave me that type of message, I say goodbye forever. I was not challenging the material on the blog, but because I was not one of them I was deemed as a potential threat perhaps. People are welcome to disagree with me on my blogs, but of course it feels better to have people agree with me, but I am not going to intimidate people that write comments I do not like, or are not one of my known supporters. I will not put up with abuse or someone that is not open-minded for a prolonged period, but with having two public blogs on the internet I should expect different opinions than my own, and if I do not want that occuring I should create a blog that needs a password to enter or should set up a private website. A few people that do not want contrary opinions, or different perspective on their blogs seemingly use the internet to attract people and then want to shut up dissenters or possible dissenters.

3. I have no problem with people commenting on my blogs that promote their own blogs, as long as they contribute when they comment. I comment on other blogs with valid comments and at the same time promote my own blogs. I will also accept blog compliments and give them, which is fair.

Russ;>