Canary Wharf, London (photo from trekearth.com)
The previous post for January was actually done in December. I realize I discuss the problem of evil and theodicy much on this blog and so here is a bit of a break, but only a bit.
Previous post:
Does God Evolve?
Part One:
The issue of career women has been on my mind blogging as I run into to various types of Christian women. Some are the classic fundamentalist Christian present or former 'maidens', as in stay-at-home types while others seemingly want or already have a career, marriage and family.
Biblically In GENERAL terms (therefore I acknowledge exceptions), women are to marry and have children. In Genesis 3:16 it explains after the fall that Eve shall bear children and this concept is applied to her female decedents that marry also via the command to multiply in Genesis 1: 28. I Timothy 2: 9:15 suggests according to Roger Nicole that a major part of wives' church life is in child bearing. Nicole (1996: 1179).
It is not dictated how many children a wife should have within a marriage.
There are examples of women Biblically serving God in ways other than being Mothers or Mothers alone. Phoebe is a good example of this in the New Testament. Browning suggests she is a deacon that worked with the Apostle Paul. Browning (1997: 295).
Priscilla and Aquila, a married couple served with the Apostle Paul (Acts).
I deduce Biblically a woman can rightly have a career and a wife/Mother can be a career woman.
Personally, career women can be interesting. I like their dedication to various intellectual pursuits, both academic and professional and I would be willing to learn from them in ways, even with a significant age difference, if it existed.
I have tremendous respect for good Mothers whether they are stay-at-home permanently or not and especially Christian Mothers that bring their children up with the gospel.
Yes, I realize that some stay-at-home Moms are intellectual so I am remaining open-minded on the issue. I am not dogmatic here. Someone into theology at least a bit, could interest me, stay-at-home or not.
I would prefer to have children (no set amount) in the future, but not necessarily any time soon.
If via the web, the United States, Eastern Europe or wherever, I met someone in person that I would potentially, eventually have a relationship with, I would adjust my objectives depending on what the woman needs when required.
Quite a concept eh? Especially for a kingpin? I am no pushover, but I think it is part of loving one's neigbour as one loves self (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10).
Would not a potential relationship be as important neighbour as any?
So, if my potential relationship was roughly 31-35+ years old, for example, and would like children within a few years and would like to stay at home, I could support that concept. I could also support her with any career endeavors in life.
If my potential relationship would be roughly 20-29 years of age, for example, I would be willing to wait for children several years and would fully support her in her academic and career objectives.
In other words, I find a career woman worth considering partly because of her goals and dreams, if she is on the younger side or older side, within my age range, I am not going to do anything to work against her hopefully God-given goals, but will be fully supportive.
I am not go to work against what I find at least somewhat interesting in the woman in the first place.
Common sense.
I exercise a lot and am in generally good shape and could still live for a very long time and so no, I am not in a rush to be a Dad...far from it.
My openness with career women concerning children and timing is intellectually consistent with the large age range I am considering.
This range exists largely because although I am meeting women I need to find one that can relate significantly with my Reformed Christian background. No not an academic necessarily.
Sacrifice? Quite a concept in today's Western world.
And yes, if needed, I am willing to look after the little kiddies as Mr. Mom at times. I am the 'Big Love Monsta.'
I am also in no rush to be married as I am looking to finalize my PhD and then look for work.
Pursuing a potential friendship and perhaps relationship does not equal wanting to be married immediately, as in soon.
I realize many young Christian women assume that it does though.
I think there often needs to be a lot more dialogue and a lot less assumption. Let us consider that I need to get my final pass from Wales, look for work for months, get legal permission to move, unless I work in Canada or the UK where I am citizen, find a place to work and to live and then start working. I do not see where I would have the time to marry someone soon. But, I could dialogue with someone online or meet someone that is an actual prospect (and not virtual) in person.
That sounds like a few years until marriage in a reasonable best case scenario to me IF and WHEN I get to know an actual prospect in person. And yet another reason to consider a younger woman...
I like how Christian counselor Henry Cloud suggests on these types of issues that sometimes questions just need to be asked.
I do not however, believe that marriage is near as difficult to work on in conjunction with a career as is bearing and bringing up children. I do not however, believe in living together as it is unBiblical (Romans 1: 29), not to mention could ruin my career.
And trust me, God willing, I would not let any woman assist me with that.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible Oxford, Oxford University Press.
NICOLE, ROGER. (1996) ‘Woman, Biblical Concept of' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Part Two:
This was published previously but when I had fewer readers:
Five important 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 possess 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.
No, not my dream at all.
I like how Christian counselor Henry Cloud suggests on these types of issues that sometimes questions just need to be asked.
I do not however, believe that marriage is near as difficult to work on in conjunction with a career as is bearing and bringing up children. I do not however, believe in living together as it is unBiblical (Romans 1: 29), not to mention could ruin my career.
And trust me, God willing, I would not let any woman assist me with that.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible Oxford, Oxford University Press.
NICOLE, ROGER. (1996) ‘Woman, Biblical Concept of' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Part Two:
This was published previously but when I had fewer readers:
Five important 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 possess 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.
No, not my dream at all.
