A philosophy of singleness: part 1

Schwetzingen, Germany

I am not attempting to be controversial here or offend anyone in this series. I reason that God will bless me with a potential wife if it his will, and I am open-minded concerning the issue.

Some of my observations:

In Genesis 2:18, Scripture states that it is not good for man to be alone, and in 1 Corinthians 7:7 it describes a gift of contentment while being single. Based on these verses it is too simplistic to assume that each Christian will either be blessed with a mate, or be content. In my view this is where studying theodicy (the problem of evil in a theistic universe) is useful. If a person leans towards accepting a free will theodicy, knowingly or unknowingly, he/she may tend to blame an unhappy unfulfilled Christian for either not getting married to someone God has supposedly provided or for not being content and struggling with singleness related issues. It may also be assumed that God will eventually either provide a Christian with a mate or contentment. This approach makes assumptions about how God works within creation. This presupposes that God meets every Christians true needs in life if there is a level of faith and obedience, and I believe that this is only true in a sense.

Theologically, I deduce that God will primarily meet a Christians needs in order that the divine will and purposes are completed. However, we must reason that there are Christians that are blind that need to see, amputees that need limbs, cripples that need healing, and so on. These people have natural needs that are not being met within God's will, and it is also reasonable to assume that singleness in some Christians is a lack of needs being met. This does not make God an evil being, as he is under no obligation to meet the needs of sinners, since Christians are saved by grace and do not have any human righteousness, as described in Romans 1:17, and 4-5. Without our own righteousness Christians have no moral standing before God and therefore existence and any blessings from God come from his grace, and not because God is morally obligated to meet our needs. A Christian is justified in Christ alone as in Romans 5:1.

To say that all we need as Christians is a relationship with God and Christ is again only true in a sense. If I was to die this moment and be in the spirit paradise described in Luke 16, and 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, I have absolutely no doubt that all my needs would be met, except for the need for a physical body, which God ultimately promises believers in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58. In contrast even though God is with me currently, being with Christ now in a corrupted creation does not mean all my needs are presently being met and that is an aspect of the problem of evil. Having unmet needs while an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, holy God exists is an aspect of theodicy, and I believe a sovereignty theodicy can deal with the issue better than a free will approach, because for one, sovereignty theodicy, and my sovereignty theodicy generally better recognizes that God can will evil for the greater good while his motives remain pure. As John Calvin states in The Institutes:

We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. Calvin, (1539)(1998) Book II, Chapter 4, Section 2.

It is ultimately true that all of a Christian's needs are met in God and Christ. Every blessing I have in this life and I will have in the next is in Christ, but that does not mean that in this current temporal, sinful environment, if all of my needs are not being met it is because I am not trusting in God sufficiently, or does it mean that all my true needs will be met in this life. Ultimately because of Christ's atoning work and resurrection I will have all my needs met as God culminates his Kingdom as described in Revelation 21-22.

In the meantime, faith and philosophy means I should be open to opportunities, positive change and progression...

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

A philosophy of blogging

Gwbert, Wales

Happy New Year for 2007.

A philosophy of blogging

Some non-exhaustive thoughts on the topic:

1. I am thankful for those who support my blogs through reading, posting, and emailing. I am also thankful for those that read my blogs and although they do not support me, do not send me abusive negative comments or email. I can handle constructive criticism, whether I agree or disagree with it, but since I began blogging in 2004 I have only received one comment that I would consider a personal attack, and I published it for the sake of example in the Incarnation article. From now on I will simply delete any abusive comments or email and so it would be a waste of time sending it to me anyway. Blogger comment moderation is useful.

2. In my opinion those who want to have blogs where comments are only from people that agree with them, or are known personally, should set their sites up as private blogs that require a password to enter, or have a private web page. I dislike it when I comment on a blog only to receive some type of negative or intimidating message back like I did yesterday. For those who leave me that type of message, I say goodbye forever. I was not challenging the material on the blog, but because I was not one of them I was deemed as a potential threat perhaps. People are welcome to disagree with me on my blogs, but of course it feels better to have people agree with me, but I am not going to intimidate people that write comments I do not like, or are not one of my known supporters. I will not put up with abuse or someone that is not open-minded for a prolonged period, but with having two public blogs on the internet I should expect different opinions than my own, and if I do not want that occuring I should create a blog that needs a password to enter or should set up a private website. A few people that do not want contrary opinions, or different perspective on their blogs seemingly use the internet to attract people and then want to shut up dissenters or possible dissenters.

3. I have no problem with people commenting on my blogs that promote their own blogs, as long as they contribute when they comment. I comment on other blogs with valid comments and at the same time promote my own blogs. I will also accept blog compliments and give them, which is fair.

Russ;>

Sample

Las Vegas

Ron Niebrugge is an excellent photographer. I have not been to Las Vegas as of yet.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! An issue came up through an email today which I had thought previously could arise. A person suggested in regard to the problem of evil questionnaire that I should not exclude persons that do not attend Christian churches, and that it would be useful to sample those who have different views other than Christian. My reply was that my University requires that I sample a certain group. My advisors have concluded that since I am writing within a Christian tradition I am to sample people that attend Christian churches. These churches would be defined as conservative and liberal, including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. I do not doubt that if non-Christians are included that the survey results will be beneficial in a general sense. If I include for example those of other religions in my sample, along with atheists, agnostics, and deists, I will be sampling persons presumed to be outside of the influence of concepts reviewed within the theoretical work which covers theodicy (the problem of evil) from conservative and liberal Christian traditions. Therefore if I include sampled data from people that do not attend Christian churches, I cannot test my theoretical theodicy in regard to Christian practical theology and my dissertation will fail. An assumption being made is that people within Christian churches are being taught at least minimal aspects concerning concepts within theodicy I write about, and therefore I can test the philosophical, theological theory with the practical findings from the questionnaire. The same assumption cannot be made if I include persons that do not attend Christian churches, as it cannot be assumed that they are at least being taught minimal Christian theology by attending church.

Alan Bryman in his text Social Research Methods explains that a sample is a segment of the population that is selected for research. It is a subset of the population. Bryman (2004: 543). My subset for this PhD will be those that attend Christian churches.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, University Press.

Russ:)

The problem of evil, questionnaire

Siegen, Germany

Greetings, and thanks for reading.

I have two PhD chapters revised with two more to follow. Once these are accepted by my new advisor I will be sampling the questionnaire which he basically approves. The topic is the problem of evil.

If anyone is interested in receiving this confidential questionnaire by email when it is ready, please let me know by leaving a comment with this post or with the post Questionnaire Assistance in previous posts. Most of my surveys will be collected locally, but I will accept email ones from people that attend Christian churches.

If you do not wish to leave a comment but would like to fill out the survey, you can email me at:

rnmwales@shaw.ca

Thanks again,

Russ:)