Restoration Why Later? (PhD Edit)

Lake Wakatipu, New Zealand (trekearth.com)

I am going to try to write one post per month per blog (thekingpin68 and satire and theology) and I will attempt to place more than one section/article in each post. So two posts per month overall, with always the possibility of more.

I am not personally interested in a 'Twitter' like short blog approach with several monthly posts. Although I admit some have success with it.

Thank you to you loyal readers including the anonymous ones. Commenters, followers and links also appreciated of course. Cheers.

A. Restoration Why Later? (PhD Edit)

Sovereignty approaches such as those of John Feinberg, state that God was just and perfect in how he dealt with creation.[1] These claim that a good God created a good world and that human rebellion and the problem of evil existed for a good reason.[2] Yet sovereignty approaches believe that God would ultimately culminate his Kingdom of God[3] and eliminate the problem of evil.[4] As D.Z. Phillips notes, ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’[5] Feinberg admits the difficulty with his approach because it defends God allowing the problem of evil in his creation for a time period that is unknown to human beings,[6] and at the same time claims that God would eventually restore his creation.[7] He notes that free will and evolutionary theistic approaches to the problem of evil also assume that God would restore his creation, and so this was a common theistic assumption.[8] The fact that his sovereignty approach accepts restoration of the creation within it in no way makes his presentation internally inconsistent.[9] Phillips explains that this general type of approach views God as compensating persons for the sufferings in life.[10] Evil and suffering is therefore redeemed in some way.[11] Evil and suffering would be worthwhile within a Christian world view where Christ prevails. Phillips warns that at its worst Christianity can push one to back the right supernatural force,[12] as in not backing Satan.[13] Phillips suggests that no one wants to back a loser and so Christians should logically, within their worldview, back God and not Satan.[14] God becomes a means and not an end within this type of Christian approach.[15] It should be interjected that Christianity should not be primarily about being on the winning side, rather it should be concerned, for the most part, with doing God’s will obediently in love.[16] Phillips views it as problematic that Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world and yet in the Second Coming establishes his Kingdom on this earth.[17]

Feinberg thought it was not his objective to answer why God allowed the problem of evil and would eventually bring restoration, and I view this as a weakness.[18] Rather, Feinberg believes he was successful in presenting an approach that showed God was good,[19] as was his creation.[20] Calvin writes that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state.[21] God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin,[22] thus bringing a new humanity which was a new creation.[23] This human restoration and rebirth, Calvin (1552)(1995) notes,[24] would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality.[25]

Within a sovereignty approach, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and allowed human beings to rebel against him.[26] My theory is that human beings that are saved through Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God. If the idea of a literal Adam and Eve is rejected, as was mentioned by Jackson and Fretheim[27] it can be reasoned that those within the culminated Kingdom of God will surpass those first persons in spiritual maturity as well. This would be so because those God saves will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God.[28] Persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity.[29] Those within the culminated Kingdom of God would not possess the initial inexperience and immaturity of the first persons. It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature,[30] not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature[31] but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God.[32] It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world[33] and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope.[34] The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history.[35]

[1] Feinberg (1994: 136).

[2] Feinberg (1994: 136). Phillips questions this type of reasoning as there is often a lack of correlation between suffering and virtue. Phillips (2005: 81-82). Humanly speaking this can be granted, but God, traditionally understood at least, could make these correlations.

[3] Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[4] Feinberg (1994: 141). These theories are often viewed with ideas of optimism and progress. Phillips (2005: 82).

[5] Phillips (2005: 247).

[6] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[7] Feinberg (1994: 141). Phillips doubts a notion of life after death makes sense. He uses as example comparing death to being asleep or unconscious. Phillips (2005: 85).

[8] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[9] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[10] Phillips (2005: 81).

[11] Phillips (2005: 81).

[12] Phillips (2005: 247).

[13] Phillips (2005: 247).

[14] Phillips (2005: 247). A decent point is made, however, in light of Reformed views on compatibilism, Christians are not going to primarily choose God, but are chosen by God.

[15] Phillips (2005: 247).

[16] For example, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 has Christ instructing the reader to love God first and foremost, and others as much as self. Jesus in John 15 tells his disciples to love one another just as he loved them.

[17] Phillips (2005: 247). Jesus’ Kingdom is not of this temporal world, not of this present realm. The world shall be changed and restored. Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[18] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[19] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[20] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[21] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[22] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[23] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[24] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[25] Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

[26] This is logical and reasonable and also open to refinement in the future. But I reason this explanation is a superior approach to Feinberg’s non-explanation.

[27] Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152).

[28] Moltmann (1993: 256). Calvin (1552)(1995: 415).

[29] God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same.

[30] Finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness.

[31] Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements. The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 816-821).

[32] By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[33] Moltmann (1993: 256).

[34] Moltmann (1993: 256).

[35] Moltmann (1993: 263).

---------

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

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

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co.

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

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Lake Superior, Ontario (trekearth.com)

B. Philosophy of Sport

This is posted on my Facebook page:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=364902

This was the comment I found amusing

'"I would be personally interested in seeing if we could do a deal with (Research in Motion president Jim) Balsillie," added Lieberman. "I think the best thing we could do is to get him to buy it and keep it here for 10 years and then I don't give a damn what he does with it."'

Glendale looking to renew contract to keep Coyotes

'The City of Glendale wants to reach into its pocket to guarantee at least one more season of NHL hockey in Arizona. City council is set to vote on a propsal on Tuesday to renew the existing contract with the NHL for another year and cover up to $25 million in potential losses.'

As I was stating/texting to Big Bro in AZ last night, the NHL will do almost anything to keep the team in AZ. It has the dream of a huge national t.v. deal in the US and does not want to give up PHX. If it was just about money and having a ...team make a profit the team would be in Canada, but not WPG or QUE but S. ONT. A problem is even though the game is growing in the US it will be in many cities the number 4 or 5 sport.

End

Note Balsillie had his potential purchase of the Phoenix Coyotes blocked in court via the NHL as he wanted to move the team to Hamilton, Ontario with a court process. He offered far more than the team was worth and in court the NHL admitted the team in Southern Ontario would have eventually been a very valuable franchise in the League.

Further in the news, the potential buyer of the Coyotes from the NHL is rumoured to be backing out and interested in another more profitable team which means the city will cover losses for another year while the NHL owns the team for another year while also taking losses.

I am sympathetic to hockey fans in Arizona like my brother and others in my family that just want to attend games.

I am sympathetic to the city of Glendale which needs to have a tenant for its suburban arena for which it has invested millions of dollars. But in reality they could have a minor league team. I realize that is not as profitable, perhaps, but it would still help pay the bills, taking longer.

I am not sympathetic to the NHL which in my mind seems to be using Winnipeg as a pawn with possible relocation for the Coyotes for the last two seasons, and then the NHL simply owns the team for another year in Phoenix. There are the rumours about the Atlanta Thrashers being available for Winnipeg and I expect the League to use the Manitoba city once again as a pawn. As a good friend of my mine notes, news about teams possibly coming to Canada helps generate more interest in hockey. The team moved to Phoenix from Winnipeg in 1996.

Philosophically, I do not think a league should operate this way. As an individual club, break even and/or make a profit in a city as a business in partnership with the other clubs or fold or move on.

C. Philosophy of Sport

The NHL reasons hockey eventually can be sold successfully in non-traditional southern US markets known as the sunbelt because hockey is 'exciting'. In other words, if persons not very culturally familiar with it can see it, they will find it 'exciting'.

My take as a philosopher is that is 'exciting' as they use is a rather subjective term. Hockey may be fast and quick, but 'exciting' is largely tied into cultural connections and cultural appreciation for a sport. So, someone from Glasgow is more likely to typically find 'football' exciting, someone from Alabama is more likely to typically find 'football' exciting, but a different kind of 'football', and someone from the Bronx, more likely to typically find baseball exciting.

It is difficult to establish a sport as substantially culturally relevant when there are already several sports in front of it in a given market already considered more subjectively 'exciting'.

Therefore, the League's approach to marketing is largely flawed on that point.

D. Eye Surgery Update

May 17, 2011

I fully admit here that I have a Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy of Religion and not Ophthalmology, but as I have discussed my vitreous floater issues on this blog previously (see archives via search and also my satire and theology blog) I thought I would update. I received a few emails and comments on the issue. Some people are really suffering with vitreous floaters and related and they are concerned about the issue. I wish to help where I can.

I do have a myopic eye which is also amblyopic. My other is normal. I had a posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) in my one eye and a massive floater and the eye was filled with floaters. In 2007 I went down to Fort Myers, Florida (Dr. Geller) and the massive floater was destroyed but his laser could not destroy the smaller floaters as they could not be seen. In 2009 I went to Los Angeles and had more of the smaller floaters destroyed by an another laser (Dr. Johnson). But the eye still remained flooded with floaters. Both are fine Doctors, by the way. So, I gave in and received a vitrectomy from the fine Doctors at UBC (2010) that I had been in discussion with on the issue for four years. I was warned that there was a significant chance of complications at 5-15% by one Doctor, these included chances of infection, blindness, retinal detachment with 90% chance of reattachment and the possibility my eye could end being tossed in a jar after the surgery. So, one can see why I took the Florida and Los Angeles laser surgery options first, even though UBC did not think them a good idea.

Well, as it turns out, just prior to the vitrectomy, UBC found two retinal tears which my surgeon kindly and quickly fixed with a laser. With investigation I found out from an Ophthalmologist and from reading that the remnants of the PVD and the vitreous can cause such tears. The remaining vitreous may have been tearing away at my retina which is thinner in a larger eye. Now all that remains is the tiny retinal scars. My vision is not damaged.

So, I conclude here if I would have had the vitrectomy very soon after the PVD I would have quite possibly avoided the retinal tears which if left untreated could have led to retinal detachment and blindness in that eye.

This may have been a case of 'Damned if you do and damned if you don't', philosophically speaking. Sorry if I offend a fundamentalist for using the word damned, but that is the saying.;)

Further, having recovered from the vitrectomy I have had a lens replacement in the same eye and vision is now significantly better although still amblyopic. I may need a prescription lens.


Lake Bohara, BC (trekearth.com)


Lake Tahoe, California (Ron Niebrugge)


My 'Estate': May 18, 2011 at a prayer time (thekingpin68)