Matthew, Luke: Timing is everything/Discrimination: Unreasonable & Reasonable

Chateau Saint-Marie, France-trekearth

Matthew, Luke: Timing is everything

An interesting concept was discussed in this recent online sermon.

Isaiah 33-35 July 27

Matthew 11: 1-7

New American Standard Bible

11 When Jesus had finished [a]giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there to teach and [b]preach in their cities. 2 Now when John, [c]while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to Him, “Are You the [d]Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” 4 Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the [e]gospel preached to them. 6 And blessed is he [f]who does not [g]take offense at Me.”

Luke 7: 20-23

New American Standard Bible

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

Footnotes: Luke 7:22 The Greek word traditionally translated leprosy was used for various diseases affecting the skin.

In his commentary, from Matthew, Jon Courson opines:

'Look around guys' said Jesus. And look it up. See that Isaiah prophesied the very things you are seeing: the blind receiving their sight, the lame walking, lepers being cleansed, the deaf hearing, and the dead rising. Look around, look it up, and tell John that the prophecies are being fulfilled and the kingdom is being seen-although in a different way than was perhaps expected.' (78).

So John was rebuked here. (78).

R.T. France writes that Jesus is clearly alluding to Isaiah 29-35, here. (192).

From Luke:

'...it was as if Jesus' message to John was: 'You've been hearing about the about the things that are happening, and yet you're only concerned about what is not happening" And the same is true of us.' (334).

Pastor Courson noted (paraphrased) in the Isaiah sermon that John was citing verses in regard to captives being freed from prison, and yet here John the Baptist was in prison, and about to be executed for displeasing King Herod.

However, from the sermon, the captives being set free aspect of Scripture was not being dealt with in the context of John being in prison. But other aspects of Scripture were being honoured by the Messiah, Jesus Christ in his gospel ministry, in submission to God the Father and with God, the Holy Spirit.

Jesus' sayings:

Mark:

6 And blessed is he [f]who does not [g]take offense at Me.

Luke:

23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

Are relevant to me as well. Pastor Courson is correct in stating...'and yet you're only concerned about what is not happening" And the same is true of is,' (334).

A theological key here is that 'timing is everything'. In this story from two sources, it was not God's, divine time to free John the Baptist from prison, rather it was time for John to be a martyr.

But it was God's divine time to provide other healings, miracles and demonstrations of the Kingdom of God. This is relevant in light of the problem of evil and actual unmet human ontological (human existence and being) needs. It is a better theological approach to state that unmet needs are not being met by God, due to God's timing, as opposed to, in error the rather intellectual lazy approach to categorise all unmet needs as simply 'felt needs'.

There is a difference between being blind and needing sight, an ontological unmet need; as opposed to owning a red Toyota and 'needing' (desiring) a red Ferrari.

France states: 'It took spiritual discernment not to be 'put off' by Jesus...' (193).

In light of problems of evil and suffering, being 'put off' by Jesus Christ and by God is a very reasonable possibility. Spiritual discernment needs to work in conjunction with prayer and biblical study, which are the two most important factors in order to work through disappointment with God.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985)(2001) Matthew, IVP/Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Warwick Castle: 1995

Discrimination: unreasonable & reasonable

Discrimination Wikipedia

Quote:

'In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.'

Philosophically, I can reason that unreasonable discrimination is wrong.

There is no reasonable need for the 'White National Football Players Association', because the colour of the athlete is irrelevant in the context of playing in the National Football League and protecting a player's rights. The individual merit of all players, in context, is the same, regardless of colour.

The 'White National Football Players Association' would be an example of unreasonable discrimination.

When I decided to attempt to join the Evangelical Philosophy Society and the Evangelical Theological Society, a notable requirement was that I had to agree with brief evangelical doctrinal statements with each society. I also had to have earned at least a Master's degree in each discipline as per application.

If I could not meet either one of those two noted criteria, I would be denied membership. I would not merit membership into either society.

In regard to these two societies, this would be reasonable discrimination. It is fine to discriminate as in to recognize relevant distinction in context.

If one cools down and puts rationality above socially-charged, cultural, reaction, a person will find cases of reasonable and unreasonable discrimination extant. Some discrimination exists to protect the integrity of organizations within the Western democratic political system, just as, at times, forbidding unreasonable discrimination also protects the integrity of organizations within the Western political system.

Evolution & Infinite Universe: Doubtful

Burnaby, Monday

Revised today

Presented from a theological and philosophical perspective while citing scientific sources.

Yesterday, I received another short and informative newsletter from Reasons to Believe, a scientific, non-Darwinian Evolution, Biblical ministry.

I am going to briefly discuss 'Did the Universe Have a Beginning'? By Jeff Zweerink.

I am not a scientist and do not have any science degrees. I did have to complete some limited scientific work for my British Doctoral work, such as researching scientific journals with articles on consciousness. These findings were part of the finished thesis.

The article author states that he was challenged by a published scientific paper, showed to him, 'indicating that the universe did not have a beginning'. (1). The idea presented is that 'scientists need a quantum theory of gravity to know with total certainty whether or not the universe had a beginning (a non-controversial and correct statement) and yet the sufficiently developed theories of quantum gravity point to a universe with no beginning!' (1).

The author then notes that 'none of the current models is yet established'. (1).

As well, 'the experimental data to test the validity of those models still resides in the far distant future, at best.' (2).

The author further explains that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2). But eventually the scientific community, had models that included a beginning. (2).

Wikipedia

'In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.'.

Michigan State University

'What is quantum physics? '

'Quantum physics is necessary to understand the properties of solids, atoms, nuclei, subnuclear particles and light. In order to understand these natural phenomena, quantum principles have required fundamental changes in how humans view nature. To many philosophers (Einstein included), the conflict between the fundamental probabilistic features of quantum mechanics and older assumptions about determinism provided a cognitive shock that was even more unsettling that the revised views of space and time brought by special relativity.

The word quantum refers to discreteness, i.e., the existence of individual "lumps" as opposed to a continuum. In Newtonian physics, all quantities are allowed to be continuous. For instance, particles can have any momentum and light can have any frequency. A quantum is a discrete packet of energy, charge, or any other quantity. '

Oxford Dictionary of Science

Quantum gravity is

'An aspect of quantum theory that attempts to incorporate the gravitational field as described by the general theory of relativity; no such theory has yet been accepted...there is some evidence that superstring theory can provide a quantum theory of gravity free of infinities.'  (679).

Free of infinities...

The text further states that it is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).

It is then explained that black holes can also be investigated in regard to quantum gravity theory. (679).

I cannot comment as a scientist, but as a theologian and philosopher:

In regard to the idea that the past hundred years is littered with theoretical models that attempted to explain away the beginning of the universe. (2)  This may be a case of philosophy within science or philosophizing within science, in other words, starting with the premise that the universe has no beginning and is infinite and setting out to find reasonable scientific proof.

This therefore could be an approach based in philosophy and not just empirical science. This allows me at least some room to comment.

It is necessary to consider quantum gravity in the very early universe, just after the big bang...(679).

From the Oxford source, this reasonably recent 2010 citation clearly indicates that within this scientific field of study, the current default conclusion based on premises is to consider quantum gravity within the very early universe that began after the big bang.

The Oxford text defines evolution as 'the gradual process by which by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms...' (304). The text reasons this is at least for the last 300 million years.

Evolution (including microevolution; change within a species or group) by definition implies finite.

The infinite is limitless and does not evolve or expand. It simply is....

Therefore any type of (including evolutionary) scientific model is doubtful to empirically prove an infinite universe.

Further...

The idea of infinite is compatible with God described in Genesis 1, as in the beginning creating the heaven and the earth. God existing before the material universe, time and matter. Universe defined as ' All the matter, energy, and space that exists.' (847).

Even if the Biblical Scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and New Testaments could be academically discredited as historical, religious history, which is not my academic position; an infinite cause behind the material universe is still the most reasonable philosophical and theological explanation for finitude.

Burnaby, Sunday

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Reasons To Believe Newsletter, July/August, 2016, Covina, California.

Demonic faith (non-exhaustive)

Buenos Aires: Waterfront Cities of the World

At Northview Community Church this morning, the sermon was in regard to three signs of true Christian belief.

This was reasonably presented as:

Profession

Practice

Perseverance

As with this article and my website posts in general, these three points are non-exhaustive.

A person could state rightly that love and a concern for goodness, justice and truth are also signs of a legitimate, Biblical, Christian walk. One could state that a person needs to demonstrate good 'fruit'.

Galatians 5:22-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 English Standard Version (ESV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Galatians 5:22-23 King James Version (KJV) 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

But for the purposes of a sermon, less than one hour in length, the three 'p' 's sufficed.

Romans 10: 9-10 was referenced:

Romans 10:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 [a]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [b]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [c]resulting in salvation.

Romans 10:9 English Standard Version (ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Biblical keys from this section that demonstrate true Christian belief for salvation, are therefore confession, belief in the Biblical, historical Jesus Christ (belief in the Biblical God and the atoning work of Christ, implied), belief in the resurrection of Christ.

The sermon touched upon the books of James and Hebrews. From James 2, the pastor correctly noted that demonic faith was not sufficient as demons cannot be saved. It is a trusting, faith-based belief, not a mere intellectual belief that saves any person.

From Hebrews the concept mentioned was that some have confessed Christ but now deny him.

Doubtless this is Biblically and historical true as the pastor also referenced the false teachers from Jude. See also 2 Peter 2 (my add).

Hebrews 6 New American Standard Bible

Therefore leaving the [a]elementary teaching about the [b]Christ, let us press on to [c]maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, [d]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned. 

This passage is debated.

I gather from the sermon the pastor would view these as people that have never had a saving faith in Christ, but rather had demonic faith, like the demons. An intellectual, matter of fact, faith.

This is a reasonable biblical position.

As counter: The following

7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned. 'worthless and close to being cursed'.

Reads very much like: (1 Corinthians considered by many Biblical scholars to have been written by Paul and Hebrews, perhaps so, or a Pauline associate).

1 Corinthians 3:15

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This same pastor, I heard on an online sermon stated that the 1 Corinthians judgement was in regard to church leaders/leadership.

I reason, it is also reasonable that Biblically, those discussed in Hebrews 6 are non-repentant believers.

I mentioned to another pastor, in agreement, that a true Christian always confesses biblical belief. So called former Christians that now deny Jesus Christ, in my mind never had biblical, trusting, faith-based belief.  Mental illness, perhaps could change the thinking process of a person, but in spirit at least, trusting, faith-based, belief would exist.

As the sermon pastor admitted, none of us are perfect. That means none of us are perfect in repentance.

I therefore reason that in biblical, Christian belief, general repentance to God is an essential sign of salvation. Confessing self as sinner, implies repentance.

However, specific repentance of each and every sin is not essential for trusting, faith-based belief, although to be clear, it is a command.

Acts 3: 19-21 New American Standard Bible

19“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

Repentance is an aspect of biblical salvation as turning from sin, and accepting the atoning and resurrection work of Christ applied to a person. The salvific work is done by God, not by human acts of faith. Technically speaking we are regenerated through the Holy Spirit (John 3) and saved by the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to us. Repentance is via a regenerated human nature and will.

On a practical theological basis we can realize that due to universal sinful natures and sinful choices, human beings will not 'catch' every sin to repent of, and as well sometimes because of spiritual blindness, persons will not always specifically repent of sinful choices via sinful nature. The atoning and resurrection work of Christ covers a regenerated person that therefore demonstrates general repentance within trusting, faith-based, belief.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Things happen in threes?

You Tube

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy assumes that events which occur together are casually related. It leaves no room for coincidence or for an outside factor which separately influences those events. (72).

A classic example is (my add):

Things happen in threes.

Good things happen in threes.

From a Reformed, Biblical perspective, God causes all things as the first cause (implied from Genesis, Romans, as examples), but this would not make three events which occur near the same time, all specifically and directly causally related.

What happens when there are four or more events that occur that are possibly on a surface level, related, for example, four celebrities die within a certain time?

It is simply more likely that celebrities die and will continue to do so, in this present reality.

Events are linked because they occur simultaneously. (72). It is unwarranted because it is assumed any of the events could not have occurred without the other event. (72).

There is a presumed, assumed connection and not a rationally demonstrated one.

Pirie reasons statistics can be used for Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (74).

This is done when selective information is used. (74).

Therefore, a key for the sake of fact when using statistics is to present all relevant statistical information and not just what supports one's case and agenda.

The negative use of statistics is highlighted by the classic statement:

Cited

Wikipedia

'"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The term was popularised in United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]'

In my mind, this is another documented fallacy which fits into the excessive use of assumption and lazy thinking categories.

Daily Mail

Demeter Clarc

Briefly Defined: Lord of Hosts

Portovenre, Parma: Cheap hotel:added colour

In sermons the terms 'Lord of Hosts' are mentioned fairly often, but rarely defined. There is more to the definition than a basic idea of the Lord hosting his creation.

I think the terms need to be defined more often, for clarity.

Jon Courson.com

In his July 21, 2016 sermon that I listened to today online, Reverend Jon Courson stated (paraphrased) that the Lord of Hosts, is the Lord and his armies.

Explains, T.E. McComiskey:

Yahweh Sĕbāʾôt (Lord of Host) is in translation: 'He creates the heavenly hosts' has been suggested. as a reasonable possibility. (465). In basic agreement with the Pastor Courson statement from the sermon, the word sĕbāʾôt means armies or hosts. (465). The name Yahweh is understood as a proper name in association with the word 'armies'. (465).

God and his armies

The Lord and his armies

These would seem to be reasonable translations into English.

Therefore, as Revered Courson was preaching on eschatology and end times events, it is not out of context to mention the Lord in a militaristic, biblical context.

Explains, W.R.F. Browning:

In regard to Lord of Hosts:

The God of Israel as commander of armed forces, both Israel and in heaven. God is the general of the armies of Israel...but God also has angels (1 Kings 22: 19) and the forces of nature. (178).

The terms 'Lord of Hosts' and related terms are a friendly, written, biblical reminder that God is a God of justice. God demonstrates love, especially to his people in both Old and New Testaments (Psalm 136, John 3, John 15 as examples). However, there is not only divine judgement for humanity (2 Corinthians 5, Revelation 20); there is also when deemed divinely necessary, lethal force used by God. This should be no surprise in light of Genesis 3 and the death sentence for human disobedience.

This is lethal force above that granted to governments for the maintenance of law and order in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.

The two concepts should not be theologically and philosophically confused, lest a state, overstep its power of governance, biblically mandated by God. Or a state-religion attempt to govern and rule on behalf of God. Rather, the state is to maintain law and order and no state or state-religion should attempt to exercise God's eschatological mission in presumption. Each state is finite in understanding and tainted in sin. Politics within both government and state-religion makes overly-politicized reasoning and actions, over the sake of truth and biblical truth, ever so possible at key points.

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

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

MCCOMISKEY, T.E. (1996) 'God, Name of' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Parma: travel wiki

When a relation fails

Burnaby: Burrard Inlet

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

A review of the Langer text continued with a brief entry...

Philosopher Langer states that combined with 'nt' there are sixteen propositions. I would gather A nt A, B nt B, C nt C, D nt D are included (71). I put together the possible propositions A nt B, B nt A, etcetera and arrived at twelve, thankfully before seeing that Langer also had twelve. (77). She points out that the four all fail as not true. Something cannot be north of itself.

Cited

'To express the fact that a relation fails, i.e. that the proposition in which it functions is not true, it is customary to enclose the proposition in parentheses and prefix this whole expression by the sign ~. (72).

~ (A nt A) means fails. House 'A' is not north of house 'A'. (72).

Langer therefore presents...

A nt B

~(B nt A)

(73).

'The falsity of the latter follows from the truth of the former...' (73). The author points out that it is possible that neither is north of the other (same latitude north, my add), but both cannot be north of each other.
---

N (North Pole)
S (South Pole)

N nt S

~(S nt N)

My add.

In mathematics (the tilde) ~ means approximately or equivalence relation, in logic ~ means not, or as Langer presented, false/fails. I know from experience that some social research methods/statistical terms have slightly different meanings than in a philosophy context. I have mentioned on this website that while I was completing my PhD, I was working in both academic disciplines. This was particularly tricky in preparing for the PhD viva.

I can reason that ~ could be used rather often today, especially online...

Burnaby: Burrard Inlet

Money is a measure of rightness?

Fraser River

Preface

Thanks for friends that came out from far and wide for my birthday party. Special thanks to Darren (Bobby Buff) for making that special sacrifice of getting over the Pitt River Bridge (He stated that he was 'uncomfortable'). Ryan (Cousin Buff), in attendance with his wife, stated three times that he was surprised Darren made it out, because it was past his bedtime. Cactus Club Coquitlam did a fine job making sure my disabled Mother got in and out smoothly, on a night when they were very busy.

The party featured, besides the default comedy, a group political discussion in regard to Donald Trump and the United States Presidential race; as well as a discussion of HALT and the need for Vancouver real estate reform.

Globe and Mail July 15

My friend Jennifer Lloyd is quoted within...
---

Last week

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'The argumentum ad crumenam assumes that money is a measure of rightness, and that those with money are more likely to be correct.' (70). In other words, if you are so right, why cannot you be rich? (70).

Immediately, Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice television program from a few years ago comes to mind. Often mandatory tasks were won by the contestant that could raise the most money. Many of these finds came from corporate and celebrity donations.

The philosophical question that arises is:

'Does a larger fundraiser equate with a right apprentice?'

F=Fundraiser
A=Apprentice

F=A or A=F Does not appear true, at least in many contexts. It is possibly true, I admit. One could be a fundraiser in training.

An apprentice is a junior employee learning a trade and skill from a more experienced employer/employee. A fundraiser, at least a successful one, is someone skilled with raising funds. I would reason that a senior skilled employer/employee would reasonably more often perform fundraising better than an apprentice.

Does gaining the most money in a competition, make one the right apprentice? The Celebrity Apprentice, featuring celebrities was funnier than the Apprentice, but the celebrity version lacked authenticity as truly seeking an apprentice. A pseudo celebrity apprentice may very well make a good fundraiser.

The author then rightly states:

'There have been branches of Christianity which held that worldly success could be taken as a mark of divine favour.' (70).

Prosperity theology,  prosperity gospel and health and wealth gospel, comes to mind. Often associated with certain televangelists.

These theologies create a drive and quite possibly in many cases, a love for money and yet in 1 Timothy 6: 10...

English Standard Version

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

New American Standard Bible

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

King James Bible

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

'Money' is not a measure of rightness, it is a measure of the accumulation of money in the context discussed.

Rightness is determined by reason, in this realm primarily revealed in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, inspired by God through writers.

Pirie from his secular perspective writes that in regard to rightness 'of course money has nothing to do with it.' (70).

Freedom, Rights, Judgement

Abbotsford: Recently

A work related colleague, recently inquired, in regard to my views and understanding on religious studies. I stated the following, edited for this website.

My views are Biblical, Reformed and moderately conservative. My work is primarily gospel focused, as opposed to primarily or even largely culturally focused in attempts through legal and societal means to maintain the power and influence of the Christian Church in British Columbia, Canada and Western society. I am significantly, on occasions only, politically involved, but it is not a ministry focus. I have at times written letters to politicians and signed petitions.

Philosophically, I hold to the view that within Western democracy, as long as in obedience to the law of the land, people have the freedom and rights to do as they please. I will not always agree with each law, and I will not always be in agreement with ethics, morality, acts and actions. I attempt to demonstrate love for others and as well, equally important, are concerns for justice and truth.

At the same time, I maintain within the Western democratic system, the freedom and rights, for me as an individual, to reason that God is infinite, eternal and revelatory in Scripture. God will definitely, as the only entity that exists by necessity, maintain his freedom and rights to judge humanity, his creation, accordingly.

Additional for this website:

In my newly acquired commentary series, Reverend Courson states Christians will be judged in Christ in 2 Corinthians 5: '...the judgement seat of Christ, where everything we've done will be judged.' (1119). Revered Courson, correctly in my opinion also appeals to 1 Corinthians 3 where he explains that 'some will make it to heaven'  (1030), but will have not committed work deemed valuable to Jesus Christ and therefore to God. This person's work is burned up as useless, although he/she is saved in Christ. This is the judgement seat of Christ. The Bema seat.

Courson opines that Christians will not be judged at the Great White Throne judgement of Revelation 20. (1784). In contrast to Courson, Mounce considers this a general judgement for all of humankind. (365). He reasons that because the 'book of life' (Naming those in Christ, including Old Testament believers, my add) is mentioned, a general judgement is meant here in Chapter 20: 11-15. Those not in the book of life are lake of fire, bound. (Revelation 20). Likely figurative literal language for the everlasting hell described.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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

Genesis 4: 17 & Historical Evidence: Non-exhaustive

trekearth

I am reading through the Courson commentary series, that I just received and mentioned in a recent article. I found a short entry particularly interesting. The commentary mentions Genesis 4:17. I will cite the New American Standard Bible.

17 Cain [j]had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.

[j] Genesis 4:17 Lit knew

The use of 'knew' is in the King James Version quoted by Courson.

Revered Courson states:

'Where did Cain get his wife? This is one of the questions that has been asked of me more than any other single question.' (21).

Cited

'Because Adam lived to be 800 years old, he and Eve had many, many children. Therefore, Cain married one of his own relatives, because mankind had not yet gone down the road of depravity long enough chronologically to cause the kinds of problems now present in intermarriage'. (21).

Reasonable answer.

H. L. Ellison opines on this verse '...there is no reason for questioning the traditional explanation that she was his sister (cf. 5: 4). (119).

New American Standard Bible

4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

The two commentary texts are in basic agreement.

My short term academic tutor, that was very knowledgeable in regard to philosophy of religion, Manchester University, Professor David Pailin, once basically told me that there was no historical documentation for the existence of Adam and Eve, whatsoever.

I replied basically, not quoting myself exactly, that the Hebrew Bible and related historical and Biblical scholarship would serve as legitimate religious history. Modern history, by its definition, did not exist in ancient Biblical times. For example, we do not have photographic, audio and video evidences of the first human beings. Common sense informs that the first human beings existed at some point in time, and these would be ancestors of present humanity.

ELLISON, H. L (1986) 'Genesis' in The New International Bible Commentary, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan, Grand Rapids.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

Brief on random, meaningless philosophy

Today, on foot after a work related meeting

Please note: Blogger changed some normal font to small, without my permission. Will attempt fix...

Another friendly reminder of who really owns this site...

Langer explains: 'Obviously one cannot introduce any relation, at random, into any universe whatever; for instance once cannot say that 2 is older than 3, or that one house is wiser than another. Such statements would be neither true no false; they would simply be meaningless.' (69-70). 

Meaningless philosophy. A logical and reasonable, universe of discourse is a means of preventing philosophical error. This can of course be translated into religious studies and theology work.

'to the North of' (70). This is symbolized by 'nt2''. (70).  But a small font 2 is used. Langer adds this one dyadic (mathematical) relation to a previously presented example in the text. This I reason is why a small 2 is added to 'nt'.

We need to be careful not to read anything into the 'nt2' not intended in this context of universal discourse. The use of numbers to letters complicates matters, but then again it serves as a lesson that with propositions and conclusions, terms and terminology must be understood and evaluated in context to avoid error.

'This is the only relation admitted to the formal context; all propositions must be made solely out of elements A, B, C, D and the relation 'nt'. (70).

She calls 'a relation which belongs to the formal context', a 'constituent relation of discourse'. (70)

Basically the propositions in this constituent relation of discourse are considered legitimate. (70).

'K=int 'houses'' (69).

int=identified with

Logicians generally denote the universe of discourse with the letter K. (69).

Cited: 'K (A, B, C, D,)' (69).

'K (A, B, C, D,) nt2' (70-71).

The four houses are north of...

My add:

K (A, B, C, D,) st2

The four houses are south of...

I am a trained philosopher of religion and not a major in mathematics. I did work with statistics with United Kingdom, academic surveys.  But this review is as much about my learning as my teaching.

The equations are becoming more complex and I will work through them to make sure I have a correct understanding and then share where relevant.

I put together the possible propositions A nt B, B nt A, etcetera and arrived at twelve, thankfully before seeing that Langer also had twelve. (77). She states that combined with 'nt' there are sixteen propositions. This is not in my opinion adequately explained, but I would gather A nt A, B nt B, C nt C, D nt D  are included (71). She points out that these four all fail as not true. Something cannot be north of itself.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Short Video: Supporting biblical teaching ministry, even without complete agreement

Facebook

Revised today

I am not stating in the video for biblical Christians to support everyone claiming to teach the Bible accurately. I am quite aware there is false teaching, 2 Peter 2, I John, Jude, Galatians, Deuteronomy as non-exhaustive examples. A biblical Christian should not support those that biblically would be considered false teachers.

A non-exhaustive argument:

The biblical gospel is taught by a teaching ministry.

The central theology is sound from the teaching ministry.

The secondary theology is significantly sound from the teaching ministry.

There is significant learning received from the teaching ministry.

There is significant concern for God's love from the teaching ministry.

There is significant concern for God's truth and justice from the teaching ministry.

Therefore:

Support for such a teaching ministry should be considered, not necessarily financial support.
The support may be prayerful support or online support; even when there is some significant theological and philosophical disagreements with that teaching ministry.

This shows significant humility in Christ, in that one is not insisting on agreement with his/her own views in virtually every area, before considering public support for a teaching ministry.

I mention 'Catholic' in the video. I could support a Roman Catholic ministry in a limited way only, due to my Reformed faith and philosophical views. Particularly, in regard to salvation by grace through faith alone, scripture being primary over any church tradition, the sacraments and church governance. Roman Catholic theologian Alan Schreck writes: '...justification and salvation are free gifts or graces of God that are not earned by any work of man, even faith. (26). There is a disagreement on what grace through faith, alone means between Reformed and Roman Catholic views, but I can grant that his Roman Catholic position, at least, is not, works righteousness. In the past, I have linked with very few Roman Catholic bloggers based on limited agreement, yet in Christ. However, the linking era with websites now seems rather obsolete.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

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

Conclusion which denies premises & fallacy of inconsistency

Last week

Conclusion which denies premises & fallacy of inconsistency

Edited for an entry on academia.edu on February 4, 2023

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

This is the conclusion that denies its own premises. (66).

Pire writes that this type of argument maintains one thing in the premises and then denies that same thing in the conclusion. (66).

This is a fallacy of inconsistency. (67).

From Elements of Reasoning:

Validity in deductive arguments is a technical term in logic. Elements (1997: 33).

The concept of true premises and false conclusion would be 'inconceivable in a valid argument'. Elements (1997: 33).

Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33). Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These also have true conclusions.

Pirie explains that a conclusion must be consistent with the arguments present in support of it. (66).

A conclusion must be reasonably and legitimately supported by propositions/premises.

Based on certain religious argumentation presented in history, Pirie then states: 'But if everything must have a cause, how can there be such a thing as an uncaused cause?' (67). The author opines that throughout history, 'first cause' is an example of this fallacy. (67). To avoid this problem. he reasons, attempts have usually led to examples that  'beg the question' and 'subvert the argument', being used.

'Everything' is a key term in his example.

I do not see fallacious means as being required, such as circular reasoning or unreasonable assumption, or unreasonable avoidance.

A key here is to eliminate the term 'everything' when discussing 'first cause'. To differ from the author's sceptical perspective, one could state with various propositions that the universe, time, space and matter are finite. The finite has origin. Therefore there is an infinite first cause.

This is not a fallacious or illogical argument.

A new concept is being introduced into the conclusion that is not 'everything' noted in Pirie's example. Of course the concepts are related as the propositions are supposed to support and prove the conclusion.

Further, hypothetically, based on the same propositions, the conclusion for example, could assume vicious regress, or that there is no cause and we have mystery.

Pirie does not mention and avoids the issue of vicious regress in this entry. If there is not a first cause and instead there is a supposedly an implied, infinite regress of causes, it is a vicious regress (an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem). As I have noted in a recent post, there is debate on whether or not a vicious regress is illogical, but I state that it is certainly unreasonable, in this context, because it does not solve its own problem.

Appealing to mystery, may occur because of lack of significant cumulative evidences. It is often an intellectual cop-out as pointed out to me by Dr. William Kay, Wales, one of my United Kingdom, academic tutors. Mystery too, does not solve its own problem. I am not stating therefore that it is always error to state 'I do not know'.

I have discussed vicious regress on this site with the assistance of the work of Simon Blackburn and others. I reason this miss on this entry in the Pirie text, is a much larger philosophical problem than the misuse of the term 'everything' Pirie raised, although I appreciate this entry and the text, therefore the review.

Pirie seems critical that a divine being would be the exception to the rule, but 'everything' other than God in existence would be finite and God would be infinite, therefore to make a separation and distinction is not fallacious. I disagree with Pirie (67) and reason it is obviously true that an infinite, first cause, God, would be categorically different than everything finite in context. Even a non-theist could reason this theoretically without belief. I agree with the author that the universe is the universe (67), but it is finite. In significant contrast, God is infinite and eternal as transcendent as well as being immanent while being in sovereign control over finite creation.

From this entry I can appreciate Pirie for making it apparent that in regard to this issue theists need to use clear and concise premises and arguments. These type of critiques are a reason secular philosophy and philosophy of religion are intellectually valuable academic disciplines. This type of reading was consistently required in my British MPhil and PhD research theses.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) 'First Cause Argument', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BRADLEY, RAYMOND D. (1996) ‘Infinite Regress Argument’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

CRAIG, WILLIAM LANE, (1991)(2006) ‘The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe’,Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991) 85-96. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html pp. 1-18. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas.http://www.jonathanedwards.com 

GIJSBERS, VICTOR, (2006) ‘Theistic Arguments: First Cause’http://positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm pp. 1-2. 

KREEFT, PETER, (2006) ‘The First Cause Argument’ excerpted from Fundamentals of Faith.http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0168.html pp. 1-5.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SKLAR, LAWRENCE, (1996) ‘Philosophy of Science’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

TOLHURST, TOLHURST, WILLIAM (1996) 'Vicious Regress', in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Brief on superhumans solving the problem of evil (PhD Edit)

Vancouver: Instagram

Brief on superhumans solving the problem of evil

Edited for an entry on academia.edu, June 22, 2022

PhD Edit

Feinberg states that human beings are intended to always be finite and would not have the potential to become gods, superhuman, or subhuman. Feinberg (2001: 788).  

I would state that it is logically impossible for the finite to become infinite and vice-versa. This does not prohibit the infinite, God the Son, God the Word, from taking a finite human body within the incarnation.

To Feinberg, God would not eliminate  problems of evil by contradicting any of his plans just described, because it was a greater good for God to follow through with his original intent for humanity. Feinberg (1994: 126).

Feinberg’s approach is highly speculative as he attempts to reason out a divine plan. He theorized that for God to create human beings with no possibility of moral evil due to desires, they would have to quite likely be superhuman possessing great moral and intellectual ability to limit themselves to desires within God’s will, or God would have to supernaturally prevent immoral desires from taking place. Feinberg (1994: 132-133). If God created superhumans they would not be the same human beings in existence and it would contradict God’s plans. 

It seems apparent that if God would somehow create superhuman beings with greater intellectual and moral ability, one would think they would need at least the degree of freedom that human beings currently have, and it appears, with Feinberg’s scenario to prohibit the problem of evil, they would need to be limited by God and would have less freedom than human beings as we know them. Feinberg (1994: 132-133).

Also, if these superhuman beings were given significant freedom, and they did rebel against God, perhaps their potential for evil could be even more severe than the potential for evil in our current situation because of the greater intellect. Feinberg (1994: 132).

---

July 1, 2016 

A thought I have dealt with recently is considering present human apprehension with God as direct ruler, in the future culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 20-22).

According to Scripture and the New Testament, the triune God through Jesus Christ will directly deal and rule in human affairs. At that future point in that future realm, these citizens would be resurrected perfected human beings (1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation). Human beings would be translated into imperishable form (1 Corinthians 15: 42: New American Standard Version) and would be in a sense superhuman, in comparison to presently.

I state this not as a significant disagreement with what I presented from Feinberg. Feinberg, I reason was writing mainly in the context of this present fallen realm and I am pondering in this additional section on the finalized state.

Minus God’s direct rule in human affairs within this universe in what I reason is a compatibilistic (significant and limited human free will is compatible with God’s sovereignty and providence), I view the capacity for evil within future immortal humanity as far greater. This is prohibited by God’s Scriptural, eternal plans for humanity in Christ. If it was not prohibited by God's nature, plans, grace and love, I reason the potential greater problem of evil would be a far greater problem than potential lack of human autonomy because of God's divine rule.

In pop culture the problem of superhumans and the problem of evil can be seen in Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice and Captain America: Civil War.

This article also serves as friendly warning against views that reject the infinite and holy, biblical God in favour of supposed advanced alien beings that may 'save' humanity. These aliens would be finite and corruptible, if not already corrupted.

---

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 (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

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. 

BARNHART, J.E. (1977) ‘Theodicy and the Free Will Defence: Response to Plantinga and Flew’, Abstract in Religious Studies, 13, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

BEEBE, JAMES R. (2006) ‘The Logical Problem of Evil’, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Buffalo, University at Buffalo. 

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) ‘Revelation’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ESHLEMAN, ANDREW (1997) ‘Alternative Possibilities and the Free Will Defence’, in Religious Studies, Volume 33, pp. 267-286. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

HOWARD-SNYDER, DANIEL AND JOHN O’LEARY-HAWTHORNE (1998) ‘Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga’s Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Volume 44, Number 1, August, Springer, Netherlands, Publisher International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 

LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers. 

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. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

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

PETERSON, MICHAEL (1982) Evil and the Christian God, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

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

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

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

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