Education is evil?

Champs Et Arbre, Charmey, Switzerland (photo from trekearth.com)

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/lochness-monster.html

My PhD is bound and under review at Wales and all prayers for my success are appreciated. Additionally I have completed the task of searching through my entire thesis making pencil notes with background information concerning my exemplars, for the verbal defence.

With my sleep apnea, I have noticed an increase in energy since completing the PhD thesis. Truly the Wales PhD and MPhil theses are very tiring projects. God willing, once I pass my PhD thesis, I shall be looking for work as a professor and this will require much research to find a right position. If anyone associated with academics likes my academic work here, and perhaps views my work on satire and theology, in links, as making me more relatable to students, please feel free to pass along any suggestions for possible work. This can be done in the comments on either blog, or through the email address for either blog which can be found by clicking on view my complete profile. Thank you.

In my Christian journey I have come across in different forms some pseudo-Christian cultists, and misinformed Christians that reason that someone is spiritually deficient if they have too much Biblical, theological, and philosophical education. Let us look at some possibilities:

a) Persons are outside of Christ, as in not enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and do not significantly study the Bible, Christian theology, philosophy of religion relating to Christianity, and other disciplines to assist in an understanding of God’s truth.

These persons are unbelievers, and John describes unbelievers that will take part in the lake of fire, the second death in Revelation 21:8. Robert Mounce writes that Revelation is stating that the entirety of apostates and pagans will be cast in the lake of fire. Mounce (1990: 375). Some apostates may very well have taken Biblical, theological, and philosophical studies relating to Christianity, but the pagan seemingly fits my first category.

Persons in this category may be very intelligent and have other significant knowledge to offer, but usually will not have anything significant to offer in regard to Christianity.

b) Persons are outside of Christ, and are not enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and do significantly study the Bible, Christian theology, philosophy of religion relating to Christianity, and other disciplines to assist in an understanding of God’s truth.

We can include in this category, perhaps, at least some of the apostates from Revelation. Mounce (1990: 375). In First Corinthians 6: 9-11, it lists types of persons that shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul W. Marsh explains that certain Corinthians needed to reexamine their standing in Christ. Marsh (1986: 1359). These could be potential apostates that had some Biblical, theological, and philosophical training relating to Christianity and yet perhaps did not believe and therefore lived outside of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There are people with very academic degrees such as perhaps MPhil or PhD degrees, and yet live as pagans and/or are apostates that may claim Christ and yet deny Biblical essentials for following the true Christ. These persons can be scholars and can serve as valuable sources of information for Christian readers, but non-Christian worldviews should be significantly understood with an open mind and then rejected where they contradict Biblical truth.

c) Persons are in Christ, as is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and do not significantly study the Bible, Christian theology, and philosophy of religion relating to Christianity and other disciplines to assist in an understanding of God’s truth.

These persons are regenerated in Christ, but in ignorance can be prone to Biblical, theological, and philosophical error in life, and these persons can potentially serve as obstacles to both Christians and non-Christians. These types can potentially oppose solid Christian teaching, as they are largely ignorant of such, and can at times provide the wrong impression of how a Christian should act and live to non-believers. Hopefully, this type of Christian in many cases will live a quiet basically secret Christian life and not become an obstacle to others, but simply believe in and trust in the Lord in a quite private manner with basic Christian morality. I am not stating this is a good way to live, but within this category would be a lesser evil.

d) Persons are in Christ, as is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and do significantly study the Bible, Christian theology, and philosophy of religion relating to Christianity and other disciplines to assist in an understanding of God’s truth.

It is not necessary for each person to have an academic degree, and with all the books, audio teaching, websites and blogs available there is much to potentially learn to supplement preaching heard from the pulpit.

This is the best option and since these persons are guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, persons in the category can be both spiritual, as in following God closely, and intellectually pursuing God’s truth. First Peter 3: 15 tells the Christian to be able to defend the faith with gentleness and reverence, and Second Timothy 2: 15 informs the Christian to be one that can accurately handle the word of truth.

Humility is a key in all education as one should primarily trust in God, and not in what God provides.

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.

Limited atonement

Canaletto, Warwick Castle East Front 1752

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/birthday-partybad.html

Limited atonement is also known as particular redemption according to the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The view is Jesus’ death secured salvation for only a limited number of persons, which are the elect. This is contrasted with the idea that the atoning work is intended for all of humanity, as in unlimited atonement. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The understanding with limited atonement is that since not all are elected and saved, God did not have Christ die for all. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). Walter A. Elwell describes this as maintaining Christ’s atoning work was sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. Elwell (1996: 99). Erickson writes that most Calvinists reason that the purpose of Christ’s coming was not to make salvation possible for all persons, but to provide salvation for the elect. Erickson (1994: 826).

Erickson provides the view that Biblical verses stating that Christ died for the world and for all men must be understood in context. Romans 8: 32, which states God gave his Son for us all, is in the context of 8: 28, where those called according to his purposes are predestined. Erickson (1994: 833). Also in the context of John 3: 16, it states that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but will have everlasting life. Erickson (1994: 833). A person trusts as God guides him/her to believe and this does not mean that one can believe in the gospel by human means. Erickson notes that verses such as 1 John 2: 2 cannot be ignored where Christ is noted as giving himself for the sins of those in Christ and for the sins of the whole world. Erickson (1994: 834). He provides the view that limited atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of the nonelect, but Christ did not die for them. The idea being that salvation is entirely based on the choice of God and not on an Arminian perspective that in part God has foreknowledge of who will believe with faith and merit. Erickson (1994: 835).

In a sense, Christ universally died for all and his atoning work is sufficient for all, but it is limited in application, and therefore I hold to a form of limited atonement.

Elwell mentions that even with a Calvinistic view of limited atonement, with Christ’s work there is room for all human beings to be saved if they come in. Elwell (1996: 99). I can grant this idea although persons cannot come to Christ on their own, and God must make the choice to regenerate a person. However, the elect at least are restorable by God. This could be stated as human openness, but absolutely not in the sense of a human being with libertarian freedom deciding whether or not to follow Christ, which is often incorrectly taught within evangelical theology. It must be understood that the openness/potential to salvation is insufficient to be saved and that God must by his choice alone regenerate and guide a person to have openness in salvation. This would be a proper understanding of human openness to salvation. It is possible that only the elect are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, which God exploits to save a person. However, my view is that likely all persons are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, and God uses this human aspect to regenerate a person, and that God simply and rightly only prefers to save some. I must make it clear that when I mention the concepts of a person being restorable or having openness to God, I am not approaching this from a libertarian free will, or Arminian perspective. The potential restorability or openness of a human being does not change the fact that each person rejects God via a corrupt nature and sinful choices and is unworthy of the Kingdom of God having no merit in order to please God.

The potentiality of human beings to freely believe, if God chooses to regenerate and guide a person to salvation takes philosophical hard determinism out of the process. Human beings would not be forced or coerced to believe, but would be regenerated by God and freely believe in this irresistible, persuasive process with soft determinism/compatibilism.

In philosophical terms this makes God the primary cause of the human action and the human being the secondary cause. Make no mistake, the person’s free acceptance of the gospel truth is not a human work of salvation in any theological sense, as there is no human merit whatsoever in New Testament salvation. It states in Ephesians 2 :8-10, one is saved in grace through faith, and good works should be a result of that process. God does not force or coerce human belief, but guides one to freely believe.

ELWELL, WALTER A. (1996) ‘Atonement, Extent of the’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

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

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

C.S. Lewis and animal pain

Giovanni Antonio Canale, called Canaletto (1697-1768)

Capriccio: River Landscape with a Column, a Ruined Roman Arch, and Reminiscences of England. c. 1754. Oil on canvas. The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/radical-canadian-
liberal-christianity.html

This article features another portion from my MPhil where I reviewed C.S. Lewis' work on the problem of evil.

This is short and hopefully sweet and comments are always appreciated. I will provide new additional comments at the end.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

Animal Pain

Lewis was not sure why animals suffer, and stated that no human being knew. He doubted that animals had a soul of consciousness as human beings do. Without consciousness an animal experiences sensations, but does not deal with it in a deep, soulful way as a human being would.

He stated:

But at least a great deal of what appears to be animal suffering need not be suffering in any real sense. It may be we who have invented the ‘sufferers’ by the ‘pathetic fallacy’ of reading into the beast a self for which there is no real evidence. Lewis (1940)(1996: 137).

Animals after all do not build civilizations, nor do they have families as we understand them. Animals communicate and live based on instinct and sensation rather than conscious rational thought, so their pain would be different. I am not minimizing their pain, and I think cruelty to animals is appalling, but I think Lewis correct in indicating that animal pain in not well understood by humanity. What can be deduced is that it is not comparable to human pain which is experienced by rational beings.

Additional

The term rational is a tricky one. In the MPhil I was meaning that the concept of being rational would consist of reasoning. Blackburn provides a good explanation that reasoning would consist of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises. Blackburn (1996: 320).

Osterhaven explains that Biblically animals are considered to have a soul. Osterhaven. (1996: 1036). I provide here again in this article, as with the last article, the most commonly used Greek word for soul ‘psuche’ psoo-khay according to Strong's Concordance. Strong (1986: 106). Osterhaven also notes that beasts as a principle of life are stated to have a spirit as well in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Strong is in agreement on the verses and the most common Old Testament word for breath or spirit ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh is used, and I provide this once again. Strong (1986: 142).

Theologically in Scripture animals are not described as communicating with God in a spiritual way, and therefore theologically the soul/spirit nature of animals is considered unable to spiritually communicate with God. The theological assumption can be made that the animal soul/spirit is limited to the temporal earthly realm and when an animal body dies, so does the soul. I lean toward this understanding, and do not reason that there are animals in soul/spirit form in God's presence after death. However, in the new heaven and new earth, God if he so pleases could resurrect animals seemingly easily. This could be done if God desires that some of his animals inhabit the Kingdom of God and it could also occur since many resurrected persons will seemingly desire to love their deceased pets.

If there were animals in the culminated Kingdom would they be immortal? Perhaps, but if they were not, certainly God, or even perhaps resurrected persons could in faith with God's power maintain the life of animals as they could be virtually immortal even if they were not technically immortal.

So, do animals go to heaven? Well, the answer could be yes and no. I doubt animals are in God's presence in a strictly spiritual realm, but some animals could be resurrected as the Kingdom of God is culminated.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LEWIS, C.S. (1940)(1996) The Problem of Pain, San Francisco, Harper-Collins.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.




My Mom sent me an email with photos from the Tiger Temple or Wat Pha Luang Ta Bua which is a Theravada Buddhist temple in Thailand. I do not like the idea of the tigers beings chained up and favour, if possible, the idea of wild animals living in the wild. I have no problem with people having domestic pets.




I dare you to try and floss my teeth.


An overgrown house cat?

Do you have soul? Do you have spirit?

Greek Islands

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/blog-tips.html

A critic of Christianity and theism can make the claim that there is no good reason to believe in the existence of the human soul/spirit as it cannot be shown to exist empirically (with the five senses).

According to John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger there exists a debate within the scientific community on whether or not human beings are entirely physical, or if they could have an immaterial nature. Burr and Goldinger (1976: 319). The existence of the human spirit is not empirically verifiable, and its existence from a Christian perspective would primarily rely on Scripture. Thiessen (1956: 227). Richard Taylor writes that the idea of an immortal soul cannot be seen as necessarily false. Taylor (1969)(1976: 334). However, he reasons that if there is difficulty explaining how the body can do certain things, it would be no less difficult explaining how a soul could do certain things. Taylor (1969)(1976: 336). For Clarence Darrow the immaterial soul does not exist and cannot be reasonably conceived. Darrow (1928)(1973: 261). Jesus stated that God is spirit in John 4:24 and therefore I reason God is not of a material nature and cannot be proven by the use of matter or scientific experiment.

M.E. Osterhaven explains that in the Hebrew Bible, spirit is at times the Hebrew word ‘ruah’ and means breath of air or wind. This breath gives human beings life and rationality. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). He writes that in the New Testament sometimes the terms spirit and soul are used synonymously, at times the spirit is viewed as spiritual and the soul is understood as natural. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Osterhaven explains that the idea of soul can be used for a living being, person or spiritual nature, and although the term can be used interchangeably with spirit some difference in explaining the two have occurred in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Osterhaven (1996: 1036). Thiessen provides a possible explanation that the soul would feature human imagination, memory and understanding, while the spirit features the reason, conscience, and will. Thiessen (1956: 227). This is speculation of course, but I am not convinced that there is definitive difference between the human soul and spirit.

For Strong. the most often documented word used for spirit in the Hebrew Bible is ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh. Strong (1986: 142). The most common word used in the Hebrew Bible for soul is ‘nephesh’ neh’-fesh. Strong (1986: 105). The most used word for spirit in the New Testament is ‘pneuma’ pnyoo’mah. Strong (1986: 78). The most common world for soul is ‘psuche’ psoo-khay. Strong (1986: 106).

As with a belief in God, who is spirit, a Judeo-Christian belief in the soul/spirit is not based in empiricism or scientific explanation, but in the religious philosophy and faith presented by God through numerous scribes, prophets and apostles, and Jesus Christ himself. The existence of God as the ultimate spirit was revealed and the fact that persons are made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27) means that human beings as well share this spiritual nature, although finite in comparison to God’s infinite nature. To insist that only empirical knowledge is true knowledge is to abandon all supernatural revelation that claims that there is a spiritual reality. Although I reason that much of ancient religion is mythology, and much of what in modern times is claimed to be spiritual is natural and not supernatural, I do not reason that all supernatural occurrences in human history are mythology and/or fraudulent. There is a historical consistency of the Biblical message and actual historically documented persons provided information that supported the notion of a spiritual realm and the existence of the human soul/spirit. As well, I reason that since the Bible discusses the supernatural powers of darkness, that some assumed supernatural occurrences within the occult, Hinduism and other non-Christian religions are indeed of a spiritual nature, although from Satanic forces and not God.

BURR JOHN, R AND MILTON GOLDINGER (1976) (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’ in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

TAYLOR, RICHARD (1969)(1976) ‘How to Bury the Mind-Body Problem’, in American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 2, April, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), in Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

These scans are from Strong's, and I realize that they are not near perfect. I am scanning a huge volume with a small scanner.











http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/video.htm

Dr. Habermas discusses the existence of the human spirit in the context of Near Death Experiences.