A Radical Problem In Brief

Lake Como-Travel+Leisure, Facebook

Lake Como, Italy, trekearth

Facebook on Friday night

Co-worker '(Radio) Mr. Russ, please come back'.

Co-worker 'This looks like fog on the screen'.

Me 'It is sunlight, the sun is beginning to go down (from our perspective of course). It is an effect'.

Co-worker 'Oh'.

Me 'And you have the science degrees'.

I am glad that the gate arm did not stay stuck earlier, only briefly...

A Radical Problem In Brief

With the media documented murderous acts of ISIS: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, notably against Muslims and Christians in Iraq and against at least two noted American journalists with beheadings; I am philosophically pondering on how to deal with a threat of radical Islam in the Western World.

Personally, as far back as the Crusades, I think it was likely a mistake for the Western World and the Christian Church (although politicized) to ever get heavily involved with the Islamic and Arab worlds.

Now there is a history, both good and bad, positive and negative for both sides to remember and rehash.

If there was no such negative history, would radical Islam be a threat to the West today?

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it would be as great.

Rather friendly relations at a distance while maintaining a strong Western military advantage would have been better.

As a corporate security officer working with Sikhs, Christians, a Latter-day Saint, a Muslim and other, there have been discussions on the issue.

With my Sikh co-workers and my Christian co-worker there is agreement that in general, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Secularists, Feminists, Atheists, Agnostics, Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and a variety of other persons with religious and non-religious philosophical views can co-exist within the Western World without one group wanting to kill or behead the other.

Even with some major religious and philosophical disagreements.

It is mainly it seems, the radical, militant Islamists that are very much opposed to toleration of others and democracy and have the theological concept of convert to Islam or die in regard to all other groups, including other Muslims that they find objectionable.

Other notable exceptions that would be opposed to toleration and democracy, not stating this is an exhaustive list, but these philosophical views are not prevalent in the West presently, would be those supporting Communism, certainly as in anything resembling that of the Marxist-Leninist, Soviet Union and those supporting Fascism as in anything resembling Nazism.

Lewis M. Hopfe admits that one of the most controversial aspects of Islam is 'Jihad' (Holy War). Hopfe (1987: 419).

Pagans he writes may have been forced to convert but Jews and Christians and others were free to worship and they chose. Hopfe (1987: 419).

It is admitted by Hopfe that there is a Muslim doctrine that one must do battle for God. Hopfe (1987: 419).

This is contrasted by Christ as the kingdom of God is not of this world.

New American Standard Bible

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18: 36).

Instead of Kingdom of God is eventually established as in fully culminated in Revelation 21-22 by God, and not by the military acts of the Church, Christians, Jews or people of God.

The Holy Roman Empire would be a politicized version of Christianity which I would not consider primarily Biblically based.

In addition to attempt to force any type of conversion is to miss the point that God converts persons as in God chooses (Ephesians 1-2) and molds one for works by faith through grace through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ. One is born again by an act of God in John 3, not by an act of the sword.

Doubtless there would be many documented cases found today where radical Islamists have attempted to coerce and force Christians, Jews and persons of all types of religions and views to their type of Islamic views. Some at the threat of death.

S.A. Nigosian states the goal of Jihad is not so much conversion but for Islam to gain 'political control over societies'. Nigosian (1994: 448). This is done in order to rule them under Islam. Nigosian (1994: 448).

Therefore

It seems reasonable that anyone holding to such radical views should be barred entrance into a Western nation. I am not stating that all Muslims should be barred from the West, but that radical Islamists that demonstrate in their public or discovered views opposition to toleration and democracy should not be allowed into Western nations. Anyone that prefers Sharia (Islamic law) to Western democracy should be barred entrance.

On a practical level I suppose a burqa ban would be a deterrent for entrance for many Islamists considering entrance into a Western nation.

Yes, this could be considered a decrease in liberty, but would such people if provided entry really desire to uphold Western liberty and democracy if there was a Muslim majority?

Doubtful if they prefer Sharia (Islamic law).

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company. 

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

New Martial Arts Equipment II

New Westminster-trekearth

Romans 13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Every [a]person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore [c]whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

1 Peter 2:13-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent [a]by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For [b]such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and [c]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [d]king.

Teleology

Costa Rica-Facebook

Teleology 

Teleology is a philosophical doctrine that all nature, 'or at least intentional agents, are goal-directed or functionally organised'. Hull (1996: 791). Plato suggested that the organised world/universe could be understood by comparing it to the behaviour of organised agents. Hull (1996: 791). This was known as 'external teleology'. Hull (1996: 791). Human beings could anticipate their future and plan accordingly. Hull (1996: 791).

Persons could calculate their own futures, so to speak.

Aristotle held to 'internal teleology' as in 'invested nature itself with goals'. Hull (1996: 791).

Each of these has their own final cause with the entities being constructed in a way that they tend to meet their directed goal. Hull (1996: 791).

Natural theology from theologians and philosophers took these concepts and supposed that the 'all-powerful God' was to fulfill his divine intentions. Hull (1996: 791).

Today philosophers may acknowledge apparent 'functional organization' in reality, but attempt to not reference the supernatural. Hull (1996: 791).

In other words to not reference, God or angelic beings. Naturalistic references and preferences would be used.

The views of Plato and Aristotle seem over-speculative, as in a finite being cannot safely and fully accurately predict the teleological pattern for self, or teleology for self because of lack of knowledge and because human beings are a secondary cause of thoughts, acts and actions. God would be the first and primary cause of all things being the infinite, first cause.

Only God could determine teleology in a full sense.

In regard to the related teleological argument, it is not the purpose of this article.

But when reviewing various arguments over the years under the headings of 'natural theology' some of the premises do at times seem to be over-speculative and views that could be easily endlessly challenged by theists and non-theists.

I therefore have not used them online or offline.

In other words, how provable are the premises and conclusions philosophically and theologically?

I instead do hold to the concept of first cause and reason it is consistent, although not identical to the concept of the creator Biblical God. First cause being primarily of philosophy and philosophy of religion; God, primarily being of theology and Bible.

As I studied Alvin C. Plantinga's book 'God, Freedom and Evil' very thoroughly for my theses work, there was a section on Natural Theology and he largely dismissed concepts related to the teleological argument as not having evidence with points 2 to 6. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 84). In contrast, R. Douglas Geivett was much more positive in regard to natural theology in 'Evil and the Evidence for God'. Plantinga's views and his dismissal assuredly largely debatable and controversial.

I lean more towards the views of Geivett in favour of at least some significant usefulness for natural theology, philosophical theology and philosophy of religion from a Christian perspective, but again acknowledge the speculative nature.

In the Scripture from the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament to Revelation it can be seen and understood though that God does have teleology in play. God has a teleological purpose in creating angelic beings, human beings, in the fall, problem evil, the gospel and in the restoration of the universe.

From a finite human perspective while admitting that all truth is God's truth, in regard to God, it is more reliable depending on revelation and reason than philosophical speculation and reason.

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

HULL, DAVID, L (1996) ‘Teleology’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

II John

Greece, Travel+Leisure-Facebook

The III John post has done better than most articles for pageviews but more importantly I am truly glad if it can assist others as well as provide learning for me.

As I noted on my Facebook page, perhaps that new page does help with marketing my blogs.

The Facebook page may be providing what some had hoped Twitter would provide for me.

Documentation from the previous III John post which is also relevant for this II John article: 

Authorship and Date

R.W. Orr holds to the once universal belief that I John, II John and III John and the works of the Gospel of John and Revelation, are written by the Apostle John. Orr (1986: 1571).

He reasons that the evidence from I-III is not based on a definite in-text claim but from 'the ancient testimony of the Church'. Orr (1986: 1571). There is another view that the books could be from a 'Johannine School' as presented by New Testament scholar, Donald Guthrie in New Testament Introduction of 1962. Orr (1986: 1571).

After the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, John departed for residence in Ephesus (1571); the island of Patmos being nearby. Orr (1986: 1571). Orr reasons these works were written within the about thirty years after the AD 70 events.

Robert Gundry, dates II John late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

Text

The letter is addressed to 'the chosen lady' (and her children). The views are expressed this could be a lady that hosted a house church or it could be the 'personification of a particular church'. Encountering (2013: 352).

Encountering notes that the message is the same regardless (352).

As in I John, the necessity of those in the Church walking in love is heavily emphasized. (352). This is a command Christians were to follow from the beginning (verses 5-6). This being entirely theologically and intellectually consistent with the Gospel of John, Chapter 15.

The author warns of those who deny both the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ (352) and that they were many. They are known as 'deceiver and antichrist' (352).

There were many in the New Testament era and many today. Some working within the Church I reason, some outside of the Church.

New American Standard Bible

II John

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 [a]Anyone who [b]goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

Those who reject the true Gospel are themselves to be rejected. (352).

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

I take this is a spiritual and theological separation.

This would not, in a 21st century context, exclude Christian evangelism and theological discussion to those with a false gospel but would exclude any private or public acceptance of that gospel from the Biblical Christian.

Orr writes that love will prevent schism in the Church, in verse 5 (1587), and that the Church fellowship will be maintained only if the original Biblical gospel is held (1587).

Heretical teachers existed that challenged the true Gospel (1587), verses 7-11.

So called 'advanced' (1587) teaching that leaves the original gospel is definitely of the antichrist and is 'antichristian' (1587).

Note that I will use philosophical theology to better assist in gospel understanding and in Biblical teaching. I reason that all truth is God's truth.

However, I will not leave the original gospel for any kind of so called advanced theology or philosophy. The idea being that as the Scripture is true religious history, revealed from God through persons, it reveals accurate theology. To seek understandings supposedly more advanced than this is in reality to ignore God and trust in finite, human speculation. Humanity also tainted by sin in nature and choice.

I am not opposed to philosophy of religion, obviously from my academic background and writings, but I use it with contextual Biblical Studies, not instead of.

Orr, notes, that fellowship and 'appearance of approval' of heresy is to be avoided in verses 10-11 (1587).

The author, states that he wishes to visit in person to further discuss matters.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

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

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