Time Almanac 2013 Non-Exhaustive Review

Happy New Year 2013, and I hope the remainder of Christmas Season 2012 is a pleasant one.

I desired a blogging tool for Christmas and I received a reasonable one and so I shall review the 'Time Almanac 2013'.

As well, it provides an option for a different type of very short academic post which is worthy goal.

It is 'powered' by the Encyclopedia Britannica. In my undergrad I was told to never to use Encyclopedias as source for citations, but I found quite frankly with my MPhil and PhD theses writing that quite often, not that I used traditional Encyclopedias, but specialty dictionaries and academic encyclopedias, written by the top scholars were often the best sources for academic information. The sources as the academic books and journals.

Categories:
 
Year In Review
People Awards
Nature, Science, Medicine & Technology
World
United States
Business
Arts, Entertainment & Leisure
Sport

Sport

Examining the category of Sport, and something I have some knowledge about and what might be of interest of many Canadians and relatively speaking, philosophically, a minority of Americans, is 'Ice Hockey', and in particular, The National Hockey League. The text states the National Hockey was formed in 1917 in Canada with the first American team, the Boston Bruins arriving in 1924. Time (2012: 803). The text explains how the Stanley Cup is awarded in the National Hockey League and also mentions that the World Hockey Championships are sponsored by the International Ice Hockey Federation and have been since 1930. Time (2012: 803).

The text appears to do a fine presentation with the listed champions of the World Hockey Championships and also the history of Stanley Cup champions and the standings from the 2011-2012 season.

What is completely lacking is any mention or understanding philosophically of best versus best international tournaments such as the Canada versus Soviet Union 1972, the Canada Cup/World Cup of Hockey tournaments and Olympic hockey which now at this point alternates with the World Cup of Hockey for presenting best vs. best competition. 

As the World Hockey Championships are played simultaneously with the Stanley Cup playoffs, they are not a true best versus tournament.

This intellectual, philosophical oversight is a major flaw with the text. 

Another flaw is a failure to at all mention the National Hockey League lockout which may derail the entire season.

I personally hope it does as the League has philosophically been off the rails since the 1967 expansion and needs to be fixed in several areas...

I deduce from sports websites, such as TSN.CA that many fans of clubs are addicted to their teams playing on television, various computers, and live and just want to watch hockey but philosophically there needs to be a fix.

There needs to be significant relocation and expansion into primarily traditional hockey markets, even if this means shared profitable markets such as in Southern Ontario. As Canada is a small country compared to the United States (and the European Union as an entity) there many not be enough good markets in Canada and the United States for 30 or more teams.

Player's salaries need to be lower on average, all teams need to be profitable after potential revenue sharing and salary capping.

Overall in regard to Ice Hockey, the text is adequate but not very in-depth.

World

On page 505 is the Religion section there is a quite useful 'Chronological List of Popes' which includes the theological assumption made by the Roman Catholic Church and denied by Protestants, in general, that Peter was the first Pope. John Calvin in 'The Bondage and Liberation of the Will' viewed the Papacy of the 16th century as beyond reform.  Calvin (1543)(1996: 18). He called the Pope of that era an Antichrist, mainly because of doctrine. Calvin (1543)(1996: 19). Calvin warned of the dangers of idolatry, superstition, and ritual. Calvin (1543)(1996: 19). However, Peter as noted here is listed as the first Pope. Time (2012: 505). The theological explanation provided is that according to the Roman Catholic Church the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter who was the head of the Apostles. The Pope is therefore viewed to have supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church in matters of faith and morals as well as in regard to Church government and discipline. It is further explained that up until the 4th Century Popes were stated to be 'Bishops of Rome' and from 1309-1377 the seat of the papacy was at Avignon, France. Antipopes from this era are listed in the text in italics, but are recognized interestingly. Time (2012: 505).

Seemingly, not a bad academic summary and with a very useful listing of Popes. 

As a Reformed theologian I would be in agreement with much of John Calvin's theology in regard to the nature of God, sovereignty, salvation, free will and determinism. He made many reasonable critiques about the Roman Catholic Church of his era, and was more knowledgeable than I on the subject. That being stated, I view the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian church with like any church, some Christians within it today, because of orthodox views on the nature of God, the Trinity and the resurrection and the atonement, in its basics, although not holding to their sacramental views. There is a classic Roman Catholic/Protestant divide here on whether, although salvation is through grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2), and it could also be stated, faith through grace alone as God provides both, the sacraments, within legal justification can provide the believer with merit.

Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck believes so as he notes that although the sacraments are a gift from God and are not magic, that they are natural signs that when properly administered provide the follower with the merits of Jesus Christ. Schreck (1984: 150).

In contrast from my Reformed perspective in light of Ephesians 2 and other Biblical references I would view merit as something not earned in the sacraments at all, instead believers are judged for their works good or bad in Christ at judgment, 2 Corinthians 5: 10-12.

Another point to be made is that Paul seems a more likely head of the Apostles, if there was one, being a Biblical scholar and he wrote or had written via scribes more New Testament works than any other Apostle.

I also see no need for a Papacy.

But then again, those that read my blogs realize I have plenty of 'critiques' some negative for the evangelical church and also for the liberal church.

The Time text also has a 'World Religions' section within the 'World' section with descriptions of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and other typically considered major world religions.

It has listed in the world (Selective by author)

The first three are in order

Christians 2, 319, 839, 000
Muslims   1, 609, 200, 900
Hindus         967, 164, 000
Atheists       136, 327, 000
Jews             14, 993, 000

I would deduce not surprisingly this text would be a good preliminary source for what it presents.

It is not an in-depth academic source.

But it is a useful blogging tool for some preliminary level citations.

Additionally, the maps look fairly detailed.

It is good to have maps of each country, however, it would to good to have United States State and Canada Provincial flags, and some for British Isles flags, basically more detailed information.

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

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

TIME ALMANAC 2013 (2012) Chicago.

Thanks to the Jeff via Facebook

Seventy Times Seven: Matthew 18

Paris-Facebook

I was at good couple friend's Christmas party on the night of the 21st and although the party was an overall blast the subject of forgiveness, as in some now past friends not forgiving after apologies were made, and therefore not accepting the apology within forgiveness and continuing in the friendship, was discussed.

Not my friends, by the way...

Today after thinking about the discussion, Matthew 18 seems to be relevant:

Matthew 18: 21-35 New American Standard Version

21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven [a]may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him [b]ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he [c]did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.

English Standard Version 21

Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.[a] 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.[b] 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Matthew scholar R.T. France explains that the parable with the concept of seventy times seven demonstrates why forgiveness must be unlimited because the original debt is also unlimited. France (2001: 277). The idea being that the sinner can never pay his/her own debt to God. H.L. Ellison writes that Peter realized from the story that if Peter himself was to reconciled to God then by the same reasoning he had to be reconciled to his fellow disciples. Ellison (1986: 1140). Ellison suggests that some Hebrew commentaries documented that a person could be forgiven three times. Ellison (1986: 1140). But from the words of Jesus in Matthew 'seventy times seven' (four hundred and ninety) is not the plain literal intention as in the amount of times one should be forgiven.

As France alluded to, humanity being finite and sinful cannot atone for/cover sin against an infinite perfectly moral and holy God, therefore the debt is unlimited. God would therefore need to forgive humanity through the atoning work of Christ in an unlimited way, and that is what Christ meant when he stated seventy times seven for human to human forgiveness.

The Greek New Testament

Verses 21-22

petroV-Peter
ebdomhkontakiV- seventy times

Biblically, if a person repents of a sin, truly repents, one is obligated to provide forgiveness. I do realize this can be be extremely difficult if the offense is very difficult, but forgiveness can be a process, but a Christian should at least be willing to forgive with a forgiving mind-set.

If one does not repent of a sin against another, I reason the offended Christian should still be willing to forgive that person (or other entity) for at least a couple of key philosophical, theological reasons. I also provide a third practical theological reason.

Although technically, one may gather that sins should only be forgiven if they are repented of, on the other hand, God forgives all sins in Christ even the ones that his people do not necessarily consciously repent of. Therefore, a Christian should have a willingness to forgive all sins, and even the sins that are not technically repented of by a person.

However, sins that are not repented of may mean that there cannot be fellowship, because of personal fracture. The extreme cases of violent crime come to mind. A Christian may attempt to forgive a violent criminal that has repented or not, but for near certain in the case of non-repentance it is just common sense that no fellowship would be sought, desired or needed.

Another reason to forgive someone is to avoid having anger and potential sin build-up inside against the offender.

The third practical reason is to maintain friendships (family relationships as well)...

If one as a sinner is in disputes with friends and as a sinner will not be forgiven seventy times seven, and forgive, seventy times seven, one will soon find a life pattern of broken relationships and few friends.

This is would be fixable if Matthew 18 would be practically obeyed.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Inscrutable evils, Unexplainable evils (Brief)

An Allegorical Painting of the Tomb of Lord Somers 1722-29 Canaletto

Atheistic philosopher William Rowe concluded that there is no good state of affairs where an omnipotent, omniscient being would be justified in allowing evils where no possible good can arise from them taking place; he also calls these inscrutable evils, which are evils that cannot be understood. Rowe (1990: 3).

I disagree with his first conclusion as from my Reformed position I reason God wills all things with good motives for the greater good as a primary cause with good motives in moral perfection, although secondary causes that are rational beings, may have sinful motives, and therefore disagree in writing with the concept of gratuitous evil, and this is presented in my Wales, PhD 'Theodicy and Practical Theology' and in two posts on this blog, one the top ranked in pageviews as of December 2012, 'Gratuitous Evil Revisited' and also 'Gratuitous Evil'.

I reason my view would be in line with Romans 8: 28-30 in the life of a Christian believer.

Rowe with his second point does present a concept that many evils from a human perspective, not God's perspective I must make clear in my view, would be inscrutable and therefore would be very difficult if not virtually impossible to understand for humanity. I would also further state that these would be very difficult if not virtually impossible to explain.

Two major problems humanity has in trying to understand certain great evils:

Finite human nature

Human beings simply do not understand with limited minds and knowledge all the reasonings of other human beings, and all the potentials for great amounts of evil.

Human beings do not understand fully the infinite reasonings of God.

Human beings do not understand, apart from little stated in Scripture about them, the reasonings of angelic and demonic beings, and the workings these beings could do in God's will. Angels would work with good motives, demonic beings with sinful motives (Job). The concept of angelic beings performing evils, as in human experienced evils, with good motives may be controversial but 2 Kings 19: 35 for example reads:

New American Standard Version

³⁵ Then it happened that night that the angel of the Lord went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when ^[a]men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were ^[b]dead.

It appears an angel is performing the work of God. I do realize some Evangelicals will take as a possible interpretation that 'the angel of the Lord' is the pre-incarnate God the Son, but that is speculative theology not clear from the Hebrew Bible.

Human beings do not understand all the reasonings, not rational as in a human or angelic sense, but still reasoning within the intuitive nature of the animal world and all potential evils.

Human beings cannot anticipate all potential Natural Evils.

Sinful human nature

Romans 3:21-26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

21 But now apart [a]from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [b]who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all [c]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a [d]propitiation [e]in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, [f]because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who [g]has faith in Jesus.

Romans 6:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²³ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is now legal justification and an on going work of justification (1 Corinthians 6: 11) for those in Christ.

Even so, until the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) and the culminated Kingdom there is human corruption and imperfection that will damage human perception to various degrees including in regard to evil.

I therefore agree with a concept humanly speaking of inscrutable evils as well as unexplainable evils.

Further:

A combination of human finitude and sinfulness makes understanding evil as in knowledge of it, and predicting it, inadequate, including evil in great amounts.

The Bible is of assistance of course, in particular the Book of Job, as is good solid, sound academic work on the problem of evil and theodicy. Fellowship and prayer are also essential.

But certain questions in reality lead to the need for a remedy and that is connected to the historical work of the atonement of Christ on the cross found in the Gospels, and also the documented resurrection of Jesus Christ and the promised resurrection of believers tied into the Second Coming (Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2).

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.) The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bayern, Germany-Google Images

Hortes, France-trekearth

Campo, Spain-trekearth 

The Danger Of Presumption And God

Obidos, Vila Natal, Portugal-trekearth

Continuing on from the last post..

13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence which we have [a]before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. New American Standard Version I John 5: 13-15

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. English Standard Version I John 5: 13-15

R.W. Orr reasons that this section of Scripture should provide assurance of eternal life (technically theologically and philosophically everlasting life according to the explanations on this blog, please see related posts in archives or on popular posts lists), as there is human fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and this should bring about a 'childlike frankness and assurance' while praying. Orr (1986: 1584).

Observing my life and other (s), although of course from more of a distance, I can philosophically see that there is the potential for 'The Danger Of Presumption And God'. I was discussing my career with my brother last night and I noted as I have with friends over the years, that I reasoned the Lord has primarily led me over a twenty year academic degree period to be a Theologian and eventually more clearly Theologian/Philosopher, but there was never a clear leading that I should be necessarily a professor.

I simply secondarily assumed/presumed that becoming a professor was the most likely career move after obtaining BA and MTS degrees and British MPhil/PhD theses only degrees. I am still willing to work as a professor but that is not necessarily my only option. There are other options with my degrees such as academic publishing and media. But work is difficult to find presently in academia, publishing and in media. I am presently working with my family in a network marketing business.

Therefore I conclude, that there was a reason why my directive was to obtain a PhD in Theology/Philosophy primarily and any more than this would have risked a dangerous presumption of God.

Further...

To arrive at a point to realize what should actually be a directive, from God required years of prayer, trial and error, careful theology and philosophy. It was not primarily based on social rules, Church views, family pressures, world philosophies, peer pressure and other factors that often have some benefits but too must be subjected to the will of God within Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Millard Erickson writes that God’s perfect will, will 1 as he calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most. Erickson (1994: 361). God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in every given situation and what God actually decides will occur. Erickson (1994: 361). This is permissible will. Erickson explains that there are many times when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these events to take place, but permits them. Erickson (1994: 361). He explains that with will 2, since God does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it. Erickson (1994: 361).

It is also stated that certain things and events occur within God's will 2, the permissible will that God causes and wills that are not his perfect will. In my mind as God has both a perfect and permissible will and it again highlights 'The Danger of Presumption And God'.

So, to further explain...

A person may assume/presume God may grant an aspect and blessing of life within God's perfect will, or as the person's sees it, but in reality God is willing and planning something permissible.

The person with his/her own perhaps less than optimally open-minded agenda due to non-Biblical and non-Spirit led factors (social rules, family pressures, world philosophies, peer pressure), could miss out on greater blessings because of such thinking and life approach.

God, hypothetically could teach or at least effect someone through a loss of God's perfect will, or something close to it, possibly due to sin and perhaps dangerous presumptions and end up with God's permissible will taking place that is distant from God's perfect will.

I see this as legitimate within a limited free will, non-libertarian free will perspective as although God causes and wills all things as God knows the human spirit and therefore 'heart' of a person, God knows in the case of a believer how that person is going to be effected and taught in life.

Therefore, even within a compatibilistic framework where God causes and wills all things, a person should still take limited free will and moral responsibility seriously as a Christian and seek to be guided by The Holy Spirit (John 20, Acts 2) through prayer, study, and fellowship in order to avoid dangerous presumptions in regard to God.

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

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

I John 5: 13-15 Brief

Vienna-Via email

¹³ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴ This is the confidence which we have ^[a]before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

New American Standard Version  I John 5: 13-15

¹³ I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. ¹⁴ And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. ¹⁵ And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.

English Standard Version I John 5: 13-15

R.W. Orr reasons that this section of Scripture should provide assurance of eternal life (technically theologically and philosophically everlasting life according to the explanations on this blog, please see related posts in archives or on popular posts lists), as there is human fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and this should bring about a 'childlike frankness and assurance' while praying. Orr (1986: 1584).

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Basically God will answer prayer according to his divine will.

Theologically and philosophically I see some hypothetical issues in regard to this concept: This is a brief and admittedly non-exhaustive list. 

One is a person praying may be in a state of non-repentance and/or lacking faith in a certain area or areas of life, and so although heard by God may have some blessings withheld until repentance takes place. If it does.

Consider James 1: 5-8 from the New American Standard Version:

⁵ But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and ^[a]without reproach, and it will be given to him. ⁶ But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. ⁷ For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, ⁸ being a ^[b]double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Another possibility is a Job like scenario where a person, although sinful (Romans 1-6), has basically repented, and continually repents of sins in life and in the particular area in life prayed about, but is still not being blessed. In regards to human free will, this person has within in my compatibilistic view made the limited free will decision within God's will and grace to be blessed in certain areas, but for whatever reason (s) God has not yet sanctioned certain blessings in this temporal life.

There is another related possibility and that is other secondary causes, as in human beings could either be sinning or not, and need be to blessed in a way that would influence and bless the first person involved in the sense on I John 5: 13-15.  In other words, a secondary person or persons may need to repent in order for God to change the life of the first person involved or if not the case, God may need to influence and bless the secondary person to influence and bless the primary person involved in our discussion.

My theology is worth considering when one really ponders on it in regard to the web of life that is always relationship orientated whether it involves, work, family, health issues, romantic relationships or other. It is a complex answer to the problem of evil, especially when one really ponders on the many webs of life and suffering and also a Biblical one.