More common sense from Dalrock

Tonight: Forty minute round trip walk to and from Christmas party.

Dalrock blog

Devouring a lifetime of courtship. Posted on December 8, 2017

Cited

'I’ve written in the past about women’s complaints that men aren’t meeting their expectations for courtship, and why it is entirely rational for men to either withdraw from traditional courtship altogether or limit and carefully target their courtship expenditure. Women have (as a group) greatly expanded the period of time they expect men to court them.'

I would reason that many Christian men are not dating or courting Christian women, because it is not considered rationally a good deal. This even while considering the Biblical theology from 1 Corinthians 7 and 2 Corinthians 6, as examples, if one is so theologically inclined.

Cited

'But what about her imagined future husband? Will it be worth the wait for him? If she’s 53 and still hasn’t found him yet, he’ll probably be in his 50s or early 60s by the time they marry. Will 30-40 years of courtship all be worth it to marry a woman who is too old to have children, a woman who spent her youth building her career while forming and dissolving romantic attachments with a parade of other men? Was it really God’s plan for him to spend 40 years wandering in a sexual desert, buying an endless string of unserious and ever more demanding women dinner (and more), to ultimately marry a woman in her 50s?'

Many Christian men may have not given up on dating and marriage by this time, but they will be significantly discouraged by the philosophical fusion of feminism and evangelical Christian culture with a little bible (maybe) in the typical female romantic relationship philosophy.

Cited

'As a sign of our age, not one of the 98 reviews currently on Amazon.com points out how ridiculous it is for a never married woman in her fifties to offer herself as a husband hunting role model.'

Agreed.

Marriage strike paradox. Posted on November 8, 2017

Cited

'What we are seeing instead is women continuing to push out the age of marriage. As they are doing this, they are changing the signal young men receive regarding how to be sexually successful. Beta Bucks (BB) used to be a very effective strategy for an 18 year old young man. He might have to wait a few years, but he could see the plan working for his 3-5 year older bother and his friend’s older brother. Now a young man would have to look to men 10-15 years older to see examples of the BB model finally paying off. Meanwhile, they see the Alpha F**** (AF) model working all around them. AF gets rewarded, and BB is not only not rewarded for a decade or more, but our whole society (especially Christians) despises husbands and fathers, the epitome of the BB model. This is a very powerful message, and an unmistakable one.'

I do not view husbands and fathers as being despised in the Metropolitan Vancouver and Fraser Valley evangelical Christian culture.

But, yes, the extroverted men would tend to do better in the dating and marriage department. Sadly, whether someone is an extrovert or introvert has nothing to do with Biblical character.

Personality over character, in many Western, Christian romantic relationships, as I have mentioned previously. This shows how little depth many evangelicals have today in the romantic choices they make.

Cited

'Not surprisingly, we are starting to see fewer men working hard to signal BB status in their late teens and early 20s. When the party girls suddenly decide they aren’t that kind of girl, they still find nearly all of the would be BB men are willing to marry, but many of these men haven’t done the preparation needed to really fulfill the role. They can no more go back and spend their teens and 20s on education and career advancement than the 30 ish career gal can go back and dedicate her most attractive and fertile years to her husband. Many of the men they find have instead been working like women. Also, the men who did well in the AF paradigm and are eventually inclined (and prepared) to marry aren’t going to prefer aging career gals. They are the ones with options, and the prettiest marriage seekers have the best shot with them. This means the women who waited too long to marry are stuck with terrible prospects. Choosing last always sucks, but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.'

'When the party girls suddenly decide they aren’t that kind of girl, they still find nearly all of the would be BB men are willing to marry, but many of these men haven’t done the preparation needed to really fulfill the role. '

Yes, many of these men would lack dating and romantic relationship experience.

'They can no more go back and spend their teens and 20s on education and career advancement than the 30 ish career gal can go back and dedicate her most attractive and fertile years to her husband.'

 I spent my twenties on career advancement in academia, but the second point is problematic and true.

'Also, the men who did well in the AF paradigm and are eventually inclined (and prepared) to marry aren’t going to prefer aging career gals. They are the ones with options, and the prettiest marriage seekers have the best shot with them. This means the women who waited too long to marry are stuck with terrible prospects. Choosing last always sucks, but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.'

I can agree than many extroverted men are not going to be prefer aging women. The same for many introverted men. I do reason that many men will still prefer romantic relationships with a close age difference. But this will be the men that will tend not to desire children.

That is not me.

'but men’s rational response to women’s anti-BB signal means it sucks much more now than it did in the past.'

The rational response being non-participation, unless a suitable Christian young woman is met. I am not stating that many rational Christian men will be anti-social (nor should they be), but the reasonable Christian male will not invest in what does not seem rational to do.

Shariah

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The book review continues...

Chapter Two: The Appeasers

Shariah Courts In The UK

Mr. Wallace explains that these courts began in the United Kingdom in September, 2008. (16). The author writes that the British appeased Islam by adding Shariah to the British legal code. (16). The courts are limited to family civil law for now, but Mr. Wallace opines that inevitably with the rise of Islam this will lead to being expanded to criminal cases. (16).

I will agree with Mr. Wallace that in principal, I do not philosophically support the concept of a group of people in a Western nation being ruled by their own laws. (16). In my opinion, religious rules and law should not be sanctioned by the state, but should be administered internally within the state support of freedom of religion in Western democracies.

For example

I am a member of Northview Community Church and its second church plant, TriCity Church. If I break a rule required for membership, it is my view that for a reasonable separation of church-state, any church discipline with me should be administered via the church and not in any way by a state government. But again, I support freedom of religion via the state.

For Islam, I am opposed to state sanctioned Shariah Law, but support the right of Islam to rule internally. The modern West, unlike traditional Islam, does not have the religion-state unity and this should be maintained within Western society and law.

I am consistent, I would not support the sanctioning of Reformed, Christian law and courts by Maple Ridge, British Columbia or Canada either...

If that would occur in some fantasy alternative world!

Why, you ask?

I do not trust politicians and bureaucrats, or religious leaders, within a sinful, fallen realm, to accurately and reasonably administer theonomy (Biblical and/or religious law) within theocracy. (Religion-State rule).

Jesus Christ stated his Kingdom was not of this world (John 18), and I support theocracy when ruled by the perfect and holy God.

This demonstrates a consistent religious philosophy as opposed to an axe to grind with Islam.

The UK's Independent Fact Checking Charity

Quote

'Are there 'Sharia courts' in Britain?

While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law. Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.

Sharia councils

Getting married for the purposes of your religion doesn't necessarily mean you are married in the eyes of the state.

Equally, the paperwork required for a civil divorce needn't be recognised by your religion. For this reason, many Sharia councils exist to issue Islamic divorce certificates, and give advice on other aspects of religious law. They're often attached to mosques.'
---

As noted, principally, I do not support separate religious courts...

'But none can overrule the regular courts.'

This demonstrates a limitation to these courts.

An argument that inevitably this will expand to cover criminal law, or all laws of a nation, if there is an Islamic majority (or significant minority) in population, depends on one reasoning that Westernized Muslims in Western countries will embrace Shariah, as opposed to secularism and secular law.

Shariah law and Islam is definitely and definitively very religious and Western secularism is (of course) definitely and definitively secular. At this point, I do not see the West in any form becoming anything other than more secular, but I am open-minded....

Again, as noted in previous reviews, time will tell.

A Vicious Regress V: Intelligences

Facebook/Google+

A Vicious Regress V: Intelligences

The second video is long, but very informative.

The first video is shorter.  Latter-day Saint theology, in his scholarly and informed opinion holds that intelligences and matter are alone eternal.

However, nearer to the end of the first video, Dr. White states (paraphrased) that some Mormon apologists postulate that an infinite number of gods, exist. Based on the implication earlier in the video of the law of eternal progression, this law does connect to a concept of infinite gods.

I am not expert on The Church of Jesus-Christ Latter-day Saints, but having studied the nature of God within my United Kingdom MPhil/PhD studies (1999-2010 and prior in British Columbia) with theodicy, the problem of evil, free will and determinism, I do have some significant expertise in regard to the nature of God, philosophically and theologically.

In my opinion, an infinite number of gods, would reasonably require an infinity to eternally progress. How could there be an eternal progression of gods in a finite amount of time (Not necessarily solar time, but the point stands)?

Therefore, for those Latter-day Saints apologists that hold to the existence of an infinite number of gods, it is more reasonable that this an aspect of the infinite and eternal, as opposed to the finite.

But, if this occurred in an infinite timeless state, in my view this would rule out any concept of progression; these infinite gods would simply be infinite gods. There is no progression from point a to point b.

There is the problem of more than one infinite entity. Reasonably, only one infinite, limitless being could exist.

Further

This would fall into the category of vicious regress. Contrasted with a reasonable view of the Trinitarian God which as infinite and eternal 'Is'. There is no progression and no regress or progress.

Cited from my archives

LDS Temple April 2010

Vicious Regress October 2006

Matthew J. Slick notes that the Latter-day Saints' idea of Gods, which originated with Joseph Smith, teaches an infinite regression of causes. Slick (2006: 1). Each God came into existence from a previous God, and this has gone on in an infinite past. Slick (2006: 1). There cannot be an infinite regression of Gods because this would require an infinite amount of time which would not allow us to arrive at the present.

In contrast the idea of the Christian Trinity is that God has always existed and existed prior to time and therefore God has not lived for an infinite amount of time. God created time, but existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of time, space and matter.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324).

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, William Tolhurst writes that a vicious regress is in some way unacceptable as it would include an infinite series of items dependent on prior items. A vicious regress may be impossible to hold to philosophically, or it may be inconsistent. Tolhurst (1996: 835). 

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

SLICK, MATTHEW J. (2006) 'A logical proof that Mormonism is false', Meridian, Idaho, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, http://www.carm.org/lds/infinity.htm

SMITH, JOSEPH (1844)(2006) ‘Sermon by the Prophet-The Christian Godhead-Plurality of Gods’, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. http://www.utlm.org TOLHURST,

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

Greg Welty on sinless humanity II (PhD Edit)

Versaille: Destinationlomond.com

Greg Welty on sinless humanity II (PhD Edit)

PhD text and original Blogger article

Theodicy and Practical Theology (2010), The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.

Welty March 2014

Welty rejects Plantinga’s idea that God cannot create a world containing moral good and no moral evil,^[1] and raises the objection that God brought Christ into the world as a sinless human being.^[2] Welty’s point here is that every human being could have therefore been sinless^[3] and the world could contain good and no evil with significantly free human beings that would not commit wrong actions.[4] I have a similar objection to Welty’s,^[5] which was discussed in Chapters Two and Three of my PhD thesis.  Within my theodicy, I reason that God could have, if he wished, made significantly free human beings, or human like beings who would have been perfectly morally good and would not commit wrong actions.^[6] God’s choice not to create such beings, in my mind is not a sign of a lack of power, or moral failure, but rather the use of his own perfect and significantly free will for good purposes.  

December 4, 2017

I reason that Welty's argument is very strong for compatibilism versus incompatibilism. Jesus Christ as incarnate was both infinite God and finite man. As finite man he lived in sinless life and yet had significant freedom. Christ completed his atoning and resurrection work for those in Christ, via a divine gospel plan with persons as is within this present realm.

Further

The angels that did not fall (Revelation 12) are non-physical beings reasoned to have remained sinless and yet have significant freedom, as they are judged (1 Corinthians 6, fallen angels in Revelation 20). The divine judgement for thoughts and actions of a secondary cause requires moral accountability, otherwise this is hard determinism, where only God the primary cause would be morally responsible, although with perfect and holy motives. This is not soft-determinism/compatibilism.

God, as infinite and eternal has never contradicted his divine nature (logically cannot) and sinned and yet has significant freedom.

In the cases of the human nature of Jesus Christ, the finite nature of angels that stayed true to God and the infinite nature of God, there is a significant, reasonable understanding of evil (God's being infinite) but not an ontological/nature requirement of embracing evil and sin as an option. If one's nature is perfectly good, finitely or infinitely, it is logically possible and reasonable to stay in that nature while understanding evil.

WELTY, GREG (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Greg Welty PhD, Fort Worth, Texas. Philosophy Department, Southwestern Baptist Theological  Seminary.  

http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/probevil.htm

---

[1] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 30).  Welty (1999: 1).

[2] Welty (1999: 1).

[3] Welty (1999: 1).

[4] Welty (1999: 1).

[5] Welty (1999: 1).

[6] This is an aspect of compatibilism, which shall be primarily defined and discussed in Chapters Two and Three.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD This material used in-part for an entry on academia.edu