Friday night fun! Rush and Freewill

Rush: Freewill

Rush's song Freewill is noted for its sensational soloing in the middle of the track.

Chucky and I saw Rush for the seventh time on Thursday night. In my view for an electric band they are among the best artists ever. Within a secular band, a Christian should be able to listen to vocals/lyrics and filter out non-Christian or anti-Christian concepts if they are familiar enough with Christian philosophy and faith. Rush drummer Neil Peart is a sometimes noted critic of religion.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,800,Neil-Peart-cites-The-God-Delusion-in-new-albums-liner-notes,Rush

The liner notes to the forthcoming album "Snakes and Arrows" by the legendary rock band Rush mention The God Delusion. The author and lyricist Neil Peart writes the following:

I was also thinking, like Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, about how children are usually imprinted with a particular faith, along with their other early blessings and scars. People who actively choose their faith are vanishingly few; most simply receive it, with their mother's milk, language, and customs. Thinking also of people being shaped by early abuse of one kind or another, I felt a connection with friends who had adopted rescue dogs as puppies, and given them unlimited love, care, and security. If those puppies had been 'damaged' by their earlier treatment--made nervous, timid, or worse--they would always remain that way, no matter how smooth the rest of their life might be. It seemed the same for children.

Some of us are educated in our religious philosophy and faith, and do not simply follow the worldview of our parents. I reason that many non-religious adults grew up in non-religious homes. Children can also grow up conditioned with atheistic or agnostic views. The bottom line for whether a worldview is true or false is evidence. Sadly many persons in relative intellectual blindness do simply follow the worldview, religious or not, of their parents. If the evidence for the worldview of parents is good then it would not be blind for children to hold the same worldview. Evidence for Christianity includes historical revealed documentation. This documentation is a key to reasonable Christian philosophy.

My views on free will have been discussed on this blog, but here are two major positions I have dealt with in my MPhil and PhD theses. I hold to compatibilism, also know as soft determinism which is in line with Reform theology.

Compatibilism:

Compatibilism, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God or an outside force can simultaneously determine/will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains that within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). God would be the primary cause within Christian theism of a Reformed tradition.

In modern, but not Reformation era terms, John Calvin could be considered a compatibilist and he writes that those who committed wrong actions performed them willfully and deliberately. Calvin viewed God as working his good purposes through the evil conduct of people, but he pointed out that God’s motives in willing these deeds were pure while those who committed wrong had wicked motives. Calvin (1543)(1998: 37).

Incompatibilism:

Gregory A. Boyd explains that incompatibilism assumes since human beings are free, their wills and resulting actions are not, in any way, determined by any outside force. Boyd (2001: 52).

John Sanders writes that in incompatibilism it is believed genetic or environmental factors are not ignored in the process of human actions, but it is thought that a human being could always have done otherwise in any given situation. Sanders (1998: 221).

Hugh McCann (2001) explains there can be no independent determining conditions of human deeds, and human actions are committed voluntarily. McCann (2001: 115).

BOYD, GREGORY A. (2001) Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

MCCANN, HUGH J. (2001) ‘Sovereignty and Freedom: A Reply to Rowe’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 18, Number 1, January, pp. 110-116. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

SANDERS, JOHN (1998) The God Who Risks, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

The Son of Man

Chateau De Menthon, Annecy, France (photo from trekearth.com)

Son of Man

Luke 9:22 is a New Testament example where Jesus uses this phrase of himself. Here he describes his coming death and resurrection.

Strong describes the term for son, υἱὸς which is used widely in an immediate context and also in the remote or figurative context of kinship, child, foal, son. Strong (1986: 99). The word man, aνθρώποs, is defined as man-faced, human being, certain, man. Strong (1986: 12). Each usage of a Greek word needs to be understood individually in context, of course. The exact term aνθρώποu, is used in Luke 9:22. The Greek New Testament (1993: 237). The term is used in the genitive as the Son of Man. Anthropos is the anglicized version of the word defined by Strong and relates to the English word anthropology.

Browning notes the phrase Son of Man is common from Jesus and is in the gospels and in Acts 7 and Revelation 1:13. Browning (1996: 349). Browning reasons that an increasingly accepted view is that Jesus meant the term in an elusive, roundabout way of acknowledging his significance as ‘I, being the man I am’. Christ has dignity and will be enthroned. Browning (1996: 350).

Erickson writes that the resurrection established the fact that the Son of Man is Christ, and that he is both a man that walked on earth and a heavenly being who would come in the future in the clouds of heaven. Erickson (1994: 693). Erickson explains that Jesus used the term Son of Man of himself and that one person, Jesus Christ, was both earthly man and preexistent divine God who became incarnate man. Erickson (1994: 726).

Please leave comments. I do not expect them to be overly intellectual and I appreciate feedback and the continual knowledge that people are reading the articles. My philosophy is that comments build blog interest and so I appreciate comments on the articles, images/cartoons, and even interesting Biblical, theological, and philosophical rants that are not necessarily related to articles. But, I do not appreciate weirdness from persons that want to dump their bizarre views on this site and then take off. This is kind of like my former German Shepherd Husky that would escape from the backyard, leave a parcel on a neighbour's front yard and then split.

Thanks.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.







http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-25-grossing-
films-worldwide-theatre.html

Einstein was an atheist? Who cares

Benbulbin, Northern Ireland (photo from trekearth.com)

From

http://www.some-guy.com/quotes/stupid.html

'The word 'genius' isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.'--Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/05/einstein_god is_human_weakness.html

Einstein: ‘god is human weakness’ - May 14, 2008

Einstein’s often-debated views on religion look to have been made clearer by a document up for auction tomorrow.

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish,” he writes in the 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind.

Bloomsbury Auctions, which is selling the letter, expects it to go for between £6000 and £8000 (press release). If you don’t have that much spare change, you can always read Einstein’s 1940 Nature article ‘Science and Religion’ (subscription required).

In that piece he notes:

During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will, were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. ... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods.

The Guardian has more extracts of the letter than the press release, and its coverage quotes John Brooke of Oxford University thus:

Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion.

Are we the only people who expect Richard Dawkins to bid?

A brilliant scientist that one can learn from does not necessarily make a brilliant philosopher or theologian to learn from. Academic religious education is another complex discipline on its own. Atheism versus Christianity is a discussion where scientists on both sides can agree on actual empirical science and disagree on issues concerning theology and first cause.

A strictly empirical philosophical approach to life can rule out God from being a possible consideration. This is where divine revelation/theology and philosophy of religion come into play.

Science finds empirical truth and is extremely valuable, but science cannot provide information concerning the deepest purposes of life and why a first cause would create human beings. This must be revealed by an infinite, eternal, first cause. A common mistake made by some today is to make science the ultimate source for knowledge, and science has limitations as do all other important academic disciplines, which add to human knowledge.

The problem of evil and theodicy is an issue that arises in the discussion between Christians and critics:

Without the philosophical concept of God existing and delivering humanity from sin, death, and evil, there is no reasonable ultimate purpose for human beings other than to non-exist (death). Human relative goodness is simply a lack of maximization of evil. God willingly allows the problem of evil and human nature and the resulting choices fuel it. This is a reason why with all the human progress in knowledge, including scientific knowledge, over the millennia, persons are as capable as ever of committing much evil. Only God can change the nature of persons and in Christ there is a plan for this with the atoning work, resurrection and culminated Kingdom.

Science and Religion:

For scientists a key issue is that they must have autonomy and science cannot be subjected to some external authority on what has to be believed. Science cannot as well be subjected to the idea of God which cannot be subjected to normal scientific scrutiny. Habgood (1999: 526).

Science should not be subjected to outside rules which govern inquiry and results. The immaterial God of spirit cannot be discovered scientifically. God does not consist of matter, and is not made up of measurable energy which makes matter work.

From:

http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/definition.html

Energy is a property or characteristic (or trait or aspect?) of matter that makes things happen, or, in the case of stored or potential energy, has the "potential" to make things happen.

Scientism:

A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

Theodicy:

The aspect of theology concerned with defending God and his goodness and omnipotence, in a world where suffering and evil exist. Blackburn (1996: 375).

Robert M. Adams notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794).

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

HABGOOD, JOHN (1999) ‘Science and Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.


Eagle vs. Swan (thanks Mom)

This scene reminds me of a 1970s Marvel Comics type cover where two superheroes battle.


I received these two kittens for free for some reason. I am not sure if they come from same litter. The one on the left sure eats a lot.

Polytheism, henotheism, environmentalism and morality

Tuscany, Italy (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/05/formation-of-
biblical-canon.html

These are some of my recent comments on other blogs that I wish to share with my blog readers.

Comments appreciated:

http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2008/05/book-of-
mormon-guide-for-old-testament.html

That is a long article which I scan read, and I am not an expert on LDS Scripture. However...Certainly the Book of Mormon, being a much later text can borrow concepts from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It can also attempt to amend concepts of the earlier books. I could begin writing a book today that would amend the Book of Mormon. But both Biblical Testaments state that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43, 44,45, Mark 12). Christians and Jewish persons disagree on the deity of Christ, but any belief in polytheism and henotheism is strictly not a part of orthodox Judaeo-Christian tradition. The LDS scholar is therefore left with trying to find lost (non-existent) Biblical manuscripts which completely counter the tradition and explain that there is more than one God. Most orthodox/traditional Jewish and Christian scholars can pretty much agree on the original meanings of Old Testament texts, but the Christian scholar can see how the New Testament revelation sheds light on the older text without completely contradicting essential concepts concerning the ontology (nature) of God and soteriology (salvation).There is good reason why LDS scholarship has not been largely embraced on religious matters concerning the nature of God and salvation.

http://plainlutheran.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/environmental-cya/

I tell you what, if the auto manufacturers produce vehicles in conjunction with the oil companies that have emissions standards better for the environment, excellent. People will start buying these vehicles that would soon be the only ones available at dealerships, if fossil fuel vehicles were no longer primarily manufactured. Gasoline could be available for those with older vehicles for several years and for those who are classic car collectors on a permanent basis.
I oppose liberal tax grabs and guilt trips against the common person who just has to get to work! The Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver where I live takes approximately 2 hours to drive across and people within it should not be punished or chastised because there are insufficient rapid transit options.

http://trinitariandon.blogspot.com/2008/04/civility-in-decline.html

I lived in England from 99-01 and there is a general lack of Christian belief in the UK of course, and often lack of respect for family and authority. There is also at times, a questionable understanding of morality. Japan comes to mind as a non-Christian nation that still honours family and authority and has a notable idea of morality, and so the UK seems worse off than many first world countries.

I have sleep apnea and I listen to BBC Five radio via the web in bed at times. One night a few months ago they had a call in show concerning abortions and married women were calling in explaining how they used abortion as birth control because they had all the children they wanted.

Additional:

Ronald Clements writes the henotheism is a term describing the exclusive worship of one God, while at the same time the existence of many Gods is held to. Clements (1999: 248). Clements provides the opinion that the study of ancient religion does the not produce the concept that polytheism and monotheism present distinct stages in a progression and development. Instead they indicate a contrast of emphasis in complex patterns of religious traditions. Clements (1999: 249).

CLEMENTS, RONALD (1999) ‘Henotheism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.


Thanks, Professor Howdy


Thanks, Mom

Is there a meaningful threat involved here? Society should be encouraging men to drink less.


Thanks, Mom and Happy Mother's Day.

More FAQs: Do I want to become the next Ernest Angley?

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)



http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-
with-site-meter.html

My PhD work is ready to be sent to Wales and so I have some free time.

All prayers for me are appreciated!

Here are some more hypothetical FAQs. Please see previous posting.

Question: Do I want to be the next Ernest Angley? From Dad.

No, I do not. I am interested in academic philosophical theology and practical theology, and not televangelism. Besides, I do not think I could willingly wear a rug that looks like his hairdo. What would be worse, the Bob Ross afro, or the Ernest Angley ‘holy healin’ rug? Reverend Angley is looking older and within my satire and theology blog comments in the past my good friend Chucky has suggested that Angley point his hand at himself and yell ‘Be healed’!

Is there a demon of the crumpled face?

Question: Can you recommend reading on the problem of evil?

Sure, there is this blog of course and here are thirteen varied sources on theodicy/the problem of evil and the related subject of free will and determinism.

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.

BASINGER, DAVID AND RANDALL BASINGER (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id
=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1.

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

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM.

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

IRENAEUS. (c 175-185)(2005) Against Heresies, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103/htm.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’ in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

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

VERMEER, PAUL (1999) Learning Theodicy, Leiden, Brill.

According to Jurgen Moltmann, it is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about through his crucifixion and resurrection the promise of a better future which includes hope. Moltmann (1993: 256). The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history. Moltmann (1993: 263).

Question: You seem very intense with blogging; what is your philosophy of blogging?

I have written on this issue previously. I have had struggles with sleep apnea my entire life and it was only diagnosed in 2004. I have been fatigued and unable to work as a part-time professor somewhere and work on very difficult MPhil and PhD theses at the same time. As well, I am not a preacher or pastor and have no calling in that area. Blogging allows me to provide a form of ministry to persons within and outside of the Church and provides me with public exposure. Additionally, the work I have done blogging has greatly contributed to my academic knowledge, despite the fact I have almost four degrees. Make no mistake, even the research and discussions that take place on satire and theology significantly assist me in my learning and knowledge. I hope and pray I grow closer to God through learning.

I am intense in working with these blogs, but I fully realize that the success of thekingpin68 and satire and theology is not primarily measured by traffic, links, readers, and comments; but the blogs are successful if they are pleasing to God. Lord willing, I will try to grow my blogs, and will continue to comment on other blogs, to support friendly Christian bloggers and those who are kind towards Christianity. I am becoming more busy and I will need to prioritise commenting on certain blogs, and so if you would like me to continue commenting on your blog in the long run, please link with me. Once I am working full-time, God willing, as a professor, most of my thekingpin68 articles will be based on work research, and I will not have near the time to comment on other blogs, or search for new links via BlogRush, Blogger Next Blog and Christian groups on the web.

I will not very likely join a group to link with a blog. I do not ask someone to join a group to link with me, and I do not expect to be asked to join a group to link with someone else. I also will not very likely sign up with a group that has rules on theological matters, or with how many times I post an article. If someone wants to know what my views are please do a search on this blog, or ask me. I am quite traditional and orthodox on Christian essentials. I will tend to shy away from blogs where the blog owner appears to be on an ego trip and is at all dictatorial and controlling on the blog. I want persons to think freely on this blog, and that is how I would like to be treated on other blogs.

Thanks

Russ:)

The number one FAQ

Cerphilly Castle, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/05/evangelize-while-in-
fight-for-your-life.html

Here is a hypothetical Frequently Asked Question and I really appreciate all my readers, commenters and links.

Question:

You state you hold to Believer’s baptism/credobaptism, although infant baptism/paedobaptism has some merit. If that is so, why are you a member of a Presbyterian Church in America?

I am not intending to debate the baptism issue in this article, but please feel free to review my article and link below. I have attended Baptist churches. I have earned a MTS degree at a Baptist seminary and have interacted with Baptist theology on the subject of baptism.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2007/08/some-thoughts-on-
infant-baptism.html

I am sure there are many godly Baptists out there, and I wish to have fellowship with many, but I have not found definitive Baptists, in particular, very supportive of me as a Christian. No one has ever reached out to me over a prolonged period within a Baptist church to guide me in my Christian walk and academic pursuits. As well, a Baptist pastor and theologian did a poor job in guiding and advising me at seminary and basically implied I was not good enough to write a thesis. The truth was although he was and is a very good theologian, he did a poor job advising his first thesis student. On that issue, he was not supported by the administration that pulled his negative letter concerning my thesis work off my record, when I strongly complained of the critique. He had taken a position at another institution.

With no additional training, and a new advisor at Wales, I went on to write a much more difficult 40, 000 word MPhil dissertation thesis by distance learning, without any local advisor and passed without revisions. I am in the process of completing a more difficult yet, distance learning PhD dissertation with Wales, which is from what I have read, by some standards, the second largest University in the United Kingdom. The Presbyterian church that I am a member of has very educated pastoral leadership that has assisted me with my PhD thesis and two of my pastors have commented on my blogs. My one pastor reads my blogs weekly.

As much as I have tried on-line, no definitive Baptist blogger has linked with me. I have contacted several, but they seem to show no interest in continually reading, commenting or linking with my blogs. I have, for example, links that are definitive Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and persons that attend the Church of Christ.

Now, I must admit, I am not aware of the denomination of every one of my links and so some of you may be Baptists. But, from what I am aware, the definitive Baptists I have attempted to contact do not want to support my work. I have heard Baptist theologian Albert Mohler state on-line that those that hold to Baptist theology on the issue of baptism should attend a Baptist church. I reason that is too narrow of a perspective, particularly in the rather secular, unchurched Greater Vancouver area. The subject of Baptism would be one area of theological agreement, but as my pastor pointed out, there are more Presbyterians that hold to Reformed, Calvinist doctrines than there are Baptists.

I reason there are more important theological issues than the important issue of baptism. I hold to compatibilism and not incompatibilism. Some Reformed, Calvinist Baptist churches would agree with me on the issue of compatibilism and some non-Reformed Baptist churches would not. This is a crucial issue in regard to the problem of evil and how persons are saved or not saved by Christ. I reason God without the use of force or coercion predestines those who believe in Christ. God chooses to regenerate a person by God’s will alone. Some reason God chooses to regenerate everyone, but cannot because of human free will, but I reason the since all human beings have a corrupt nature, no one could or would choose Christ without being regenerated by God and his divine choice. God regenerates the elect and simultaneously gives persons the ability to freely believe and trust in Christ. Romans 1-3, Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 are important Chapters in regard to this topic.

Baptists are not providing me with compelling reasons to attend and join a Baptist church. I really would like to be linked with many Baptists, both Reformed and non-Reformed. But, I know from experience with two Baptist theology professors that they were skeptical concerning conservative philosophical theologians that were not pastors. If this is a common view with the Baptist movement, this is a tremendous negative.

Definitions and Bibliography

Incompatibilism:

Gregory A. Boyd explains that incompatibilism assumes since human beings are free, their wills and resulting actions are not, in any way, determined by any outside force. Boyd (2001: 52).

Compatibilism:

Compatibilism, would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, but contrary to incompatibilism thinks that God or an outside force can simultaneously determine/will significantly free human actions. Feinberg (1994: 60).

Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains that within determinism or hard determinism, an outside force causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although an outside force causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Within hard determinism an outside force would be the only cause of human actions, while with soft determinism an outside force would be the primary cause of human actions and persons the secondary cause. Pojman (1996: 596). God would be the primary cause within Christian theism.

BOYD, GREGORY A. (2001) Satan and the Problem of Evil, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Thanks Mom, a bad day...