New and old very non-exhaustive thoughts on hell

If you know where these are from please let me know. The second one may be somewhere in the United States.

From Facebook:

I do the best I can in this life and with my study of evil, asking God for help, but philosophically very very important things to ponder on are what happened before I existed (a first cause and originator of material reality or other?) and what will happen after I physically die (complete non-existence?, judgment?, heaven?, hell?). Death should make one ponder on such. My take: Hebrews 9: 27-28

thekingpin68

I am swamped with revisions, but here are some very non-exhaustive thoughts. Comments much appreciated. I provide the reader with a break from the philosophy of religion articles I have been presenting.

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 (NASB)

5This is a (A)plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be (B)considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.

6For after all (C)it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,

7and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well (D)when the Lord Jesus will be revealed (E)from heaven (F)with His mighty angels (G)in flaming fire,

8dealing out retribution to those who (H)do not know God and to those who (I)do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

9These will pay the penalty of (J)eternal destruction, (K)away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

10when He comes to be (L)glorified in His saints on that (M)day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our (N)testimony to you was believed.

Revelation 20:10-15 (NASB)

10And (AF)the devil who (AG)deceived them was thrown into the (AH)lake of fire and brimstone, where the (AI)beast and the (AJ)false prophet are also; and they will be (AK)tormented day and night forever and ever.

11Then I saw a great white (AL)throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence (AM)earth and heaven fled away, and (AN)no place was found for them.

12And I saw the dead, the (AO)great and the small, standing before the throne, and (AP)books were opened; and another book was opened, which is (AQ)the book of life; and the dead (AR)were judged from the things which were written in the books, (AS)according to their deeds.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and (AT)death and Hades (AU)gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them (AV)according to their deeds.

14Then (AW)death and Hades were thrown into (AX)the lake of fire This is the (AY)second death, the lake of fire.

15And if anyone's name was not found written in (AZ)the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Introduction

Celebrity death has been in the news lately. I reason death and hell are humanly distasteful, and on these points the Christian can often relate very well with the non-Christian. Death and the possibility of hell are very difficult to stomach especially when a deceased person really had a lot of valuable human qualities. However, Biblical Christianity states that there is an everlasting hell for those not in Christ. Many if not most Christian Biblical scholars and theologians appear to reason everlasting hell consists of conscious continual punishment. Other Christian scholars reason the figurative (not mythological!) hell type language allows for the Biblical possibility of annihilation of those outside of Christ, as does the Biblical concept of death meaning termination only. This in contrast to a concept of permanent banishment from God and everlasting life. For example, 'perish' from Strong (1986) page 16 can be interpreted in different ways depending on context. Strong provides the meanings as 'to destroy fully, to perish or lose, literally or figuratively, destroy, die, lose, mar, perish'.

From:

Perish

'Definition
1.to destroy
a.to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
b.render useless
c.to kill
d.to declare that one must be put to death
e.metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
f.to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2.to destroy
a.to lose'

Argument

I shall present an argument against the annihilation of unregenerate post-mortem persons. This is not exhaustive and is an argument, not the argument. This has been presented on satire and theology in the past and I add some material revised for this post from a hell lecture posted on this blog previously and from my MPhil posted here also. I have used Erickson as a source to support my premises and conclusion.

God is perfectly holy.

Erickson writes that God is totally separate from his creation. Erickson (1994: 284).

Erickson lists Exodus 15: 11, 1 Samuel 2: 2 and Isaiah 57: 15.

God is absolutely pure and good; God is not evil. Erickson (1994: 285).

Erickson lists Job 34: 12, Habakkuk 1: 13 and James 1: 13

Human beings are sinful.

Jeremiah 17: 9, Romans Chapter 1-3, Romans 3: 23, Romans 6: 23.

Sin must be atoned.

God is the administrator of justice and cannot justly simply forgive sins. Erickson (1994: 816). God is equally the God of love and justice. Justice is therefore not ignored for the sake of love, as a holy God must be just.

Christ as infinite God outlasted finite sin in the atonement.

As God, Christ’s death has infinite worth. Erickson (1994: 804). As God he can atone for all finite human sin.

Christ as a perfect man was sacrificed for imperfect persons in the atonement.

As a human, Christ could redeem other humans. Erickson (1994: 804). Christ redeemed all of human nature through the atonement. Erickson (1994: 804).

Conclusion

Therefore, those outside of Christ cannot justly be annihilated as their sins are never atoned. Biblically, all persons exist port-mortem (Revelation, Chapter 20). It could be reasoned that everlasting punishment exists as finite unregenerate persons continue to attempt to atone for their sins in hell, but can never fully cover their sins without Christ. Therefore they cannot justly be annihilated. Earthly sins are not covered, and post-mortem sins (rejecting God and related) in disembodied and resurrection states also remain uncovered.

C.S. Lewis:

Concerning the objection of the horrors of hell, and the intense punishment, Lewis rejected annihilationism because he stated that ". . . the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. . . . If souls can be destroyed, must there not be a state of having been a human soul?" Lewis (1940)(1996: 127). This could be the case, but I think it tenable to believe that God could completely destroy what he had created. To say he could not would be troubling in light of the Christian belief in God’s omnipotence (see my recent articles). It would not be contradiction for God to destruct what he had constructed, so I think Lewis has a logical point, but one that would not concern annihilationists, or critics of hell very much, since the God Christians believe in should possess the power to destroy his own creations.

It is quite possible that the level of hell one endures could very well be proportionate to their level of rebellion against God which takes place in their sin position. Jesus indicated there was greater sin for certain acts, as when he was handed over to the Romans by Judas and the Jews in John 19:11.

I think that annihilationism may be philosophically reasonable, and Biblically possible, although the argument from Scripture for everlasting punishment seems stronger. As well, if annihilationism is true, and a non-believer does not face God after death, or is simply annihilated after negative judgment, there seems to be a lack of justice. The sinner never is really faced with the trueness of his/her sin, and the foolishness of hating (Romans 5: 10 the unregenerate are enemies of God) and rejecting God (Romans 3) and not responding to the light one could have in life (Romans 1), although one cannot save self and is dependent on the regenerating work of God (John 3). If one is annihilated after judgment facing God, one must wonder how God can make one sinner's punishment worse than another person's? Everlasting death would seemingly be equal punishment for all.

With annihilation, the sins of the unregenerate are not atoned for by Christ and these people remain unrighteous (Romans 1, 4, 5). These people, although likely resurrected, are not fully sanctified with these resurrection bodies as are believers (1 Corinthians 15) and they are not suffering/punished for their sins in everlasting punishment. Is this just? In the name of divine justice, can some type of unlimited and universal atonement of Christ be applied to them for sin as they then face annihilation?

This seems problematic.

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

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

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



I fell through a lawn chair once and scratched my back up pretty good.

A friend from Los Angeles sent me this...

Scientology

I found there was only one way to look thin, hang out with fat people.
Rodney Dangerfield

Some dog I got too. We call him Egypt. Because in every room he leaves a pyramid. Rodney Dangerfield

A girl phoned me the other day and said... Come on over, there's nobody home. I went over. Nobody was home. Rodney Dangerfield

I went to the psychiatrist, and he says, "You're crazy. " I tell him I want a second opinion. He says, “Okay, you're ugly too!" Rodney Dangerfield

The other night a mugger took off his mask and made me wear it. Rodney Dangerfield

William James and omnipotence

William James and omnipotence

Preface

Photo is from St. Giles Cathedral, official website. Built in 1992 by Austrian firm. I visited that Cathedral in April 2024 on my British Isles trip.

Article originally published 20090612. Format revision on 2024062.

William James and omnipotence 

This is a portion from my PhD work on James and omnipotence. James held to pragmatism and the view that God was finite (limited).

William James (1842-1910)[1] is a well-known American philosopher,[2] psychologist [3] and a founder of the philosophy of pragmatism.[4] John K. Roth (1892-1907)(1969) explains within the Introduction to The Moral Philosophy of William James that James’ pragmatism emphasizes the human ability to choose an individual lifestyle from several actual and authentic possibilities.[5] Pragmatism emphasized the need for a community of free thought that was open to inquiry and testing.[6] Concepts are to be considered without ‘initial prejudice.’[7] A pragmatic approach should analyze and clarify forms of human experience and action in order to bring harmony to human community.[8] David Paulsen (1999) within The Journal of Speculative Philosophy[9] explains that James rejected some of the traditional philosophical views concerning the nature of God, which would include concepts of God as infinite and unchangeable.[10] James reasoned there was a very distinct difference between the God of classic philosophy, orthodox theology, and what the Bible actually taught.[11] James in his 1902 text, Varieties of Religious Experience[12] writes that since philosophy could do little to legitimately demonstrate God’s existence,[13] it would not fare better in accurately describing God’s divine attributes.[14] Most importantly, James rejected the God of orthodox theology because this being lacked significant practical meaning.[15] When applying pragmatism to theories of ‘God’s metaphysical attributes’[16] they are ‘destitute of all intelligible significance’.[17] James examines many of God’s supposed attributes as distinguished from his moral qualities,[18] and seriously questions how ‘such qualities as these make any definite connection with our life?’[19] He reasons there is not even the smallest consequence religiously whether any of the philosophical deductions concerning God’s attributes were true.[20] In contrast, James’ views concepts of God’s moral attributes as beneficial and they ‘positively determine fear and hope and expectation, and are foundations for the saintly life.’[21] Religion can provide for James, metaphysical support for moral efforts of human beings.[22] Pragmatically God’s moral attributes are on a stronger intellectual footing.[23] James reasons the existence of a personal God is ‘an ultimate brute fact.’[24] This personal God is inconceivable[25] and the human mind can only know its own thoughts and yet a ‘moral imperative exists’[26] and ‘spiritual principle in every one.’[27]

James desired to make room for religious belief if it was pragmatic, even if the entire worldview expressed by a religion was not verifiable.[28] Religion had its practical emotional benefits.[29] As a result of James’ pragmatic philosophy, Paulsen explains that God’s omnipotence is rejected in a traditional sense,[30] but rather God’s omnipotence[31] provides the power to secure the triumph of good,[32] and not the power to bring about any logical state of affairs.[33] Within this view, God’s knowledge of the future[34] is finite and therefore not much different than that of human beings.[35] God would only have knowledge of facts and possibilities.[36] Therefore, a classic view of divine omnipotence would need to be abandoned and God would only be able to bring about a logical state of affairs that would be under constraints based on the actions of other agencies.[37] God is a morally perfect being that is working out history within time.[38] The environment God is working in includes significantly free human beings that have choices that cannot be controlled or absolutely foreknown.[39] For James, human beings and not God alone shape the future of the world.[40] He held to a view that the future was open-ended for both God and humanity. [41] God’s knowledge of the future would be incomplete as far as with what actually will occur.[42]

James’ view on omnipotence, can be considered to be somewhat subjectively based.[43] Roth does raise this legitimate criticism[44] which I do not think is completely answered by James, or by Roth of his behalf.[45] A significantly subjective view of God that assumes he is omnipotent in some way[46] and claims that this view can lead to some power to overcome evil for good for humanity[47] seems on somewhat shaky philosophical ground.[48] A critic[49] can state that there is no objective reason to believe that God, if there is one, has the actual power to rid the world of evil, as James’ view could just be a figment of the imagination and misplaced optimism based in emotionalism and a desire for a God based morally as James desired.[50]

[1] McDermott (1996: 385). 

[2] John K. Roth writes that James was a dominant philosopher within James’ time. 

[3] McDermott (1996: 385). 

[4] McDermott (1996: 385). 

[5] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4). 

[6] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14).

[7] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14).

[8] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14).

[9] The article is entitled: ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James.’ 

[10] Paulsen (1999: 1). The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will’. 

[11] Paulsen (1999: 1). 

[12] Within the text Writings 1902 – 1910.

[13] I strongly doubt that God as a spiritual being, could ever be proven empirically and physically to exist. Philosophical attempts, in general terms, at proving God’s existence will be discussed briefly in Chapter Four. 

[14] James (1902-1910)(1987: 394). 

[15] Paulsen (1999: 1). This makes sense since James was one of the founders of pragmatism. McDermott (1996: 385). According to Norman Geisler, James doubted that rational proofs for God’s existence were psychologically convincing as human beings had needs that went beyond the rational. Geisler (1975: 88). 

[16] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). 

[17] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). They have no relevance to any vital human concern. Paulsen (1999: 4). James tested the ‘fruits of religious life’ by examining how they contributed to the development of ideal human communities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4).

[18] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). 

[19] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). Philosophy at times obscures God’s nature and the divine relationship with humanity. Paulsen (1999: 4). 

[20] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). For James the source of religious experience is not important, but rather the fruits that are produced by religious experience are important. Geisler (1975: 60). Therefore, understanding God’s attributes, and in theory God, is not vital for James as are the results within persons that have religious belief. 

[21] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).

[22] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). 

[23] Paulsen (1999: 6).

[24] James provides this view within The Will to Believe (1897), which is within a textual compilation of his work entitled The Moral Philosophy of William James. James (1892-1907)(1969: 202).

[25] As would be God’s traditional theories of omnipotence to James. 

[26] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202).

[27] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). Roth admits that James’ theory may seem to reduce truth to subjective opinion. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). James deals with this criticism by noting truth must be pragmatic as in being expedient, useful and workable over the long haul and in overall terms. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). 

[28] Blackburn (1996: 201).

[29] Blackburn (1996: 201). 

[30] Paulsen (1999: 6).

[31] More so the human idea of God’s omnipotence is meant here. 

[32] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).

[33] Paulsen (1999: 6). 

[34] Foreknowledge which will discussed throughout the thesis, including by Augustine in Chapter Two. 

[35] Paulsen (1999: 9). 

[36] Paulsen (1999: 9). I would suggest even if God was finite, his knowledge based on intelligence and years of existence would provide him with better understanding of possible situations in comparison to his creations. 

[37] Paulsen (1999: 9). 

[38] Paulsen (1999: 9). God works through time and completes his plans, including a plan of salvation. 

[39] Paulsen (1999: 9). 

[40] Paulsen (1999: 9). Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12).

[41] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12).

[42] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). Within The Will to Believe, James explain that there was an ‘endless chain of causes’ in reality but God was the ‘absolute first cause’. James (1892-1907)(1969: 203). For James, there would be many causes within the endless chain not in God’s absolute control.

[43] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). 

[44] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). 

[45] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15-16). 

[46] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). 

[47] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401). 

[48] I am not stating that there are not human subjective aspects to understanding God’s omnipotence, but that the objective understanding of this concept is still important.

[49] Atheistic or theistic. 

[50] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).

---

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.),Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University.

JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York.

MCDERMOTT, JOHN J. (1996) ‘James, William’ in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

PAULSON, DAVID (1999) ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James’, in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 13.2, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn State University Press.

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

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

---

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Friedrich Schleiermacher and omnipotence

Drina Gorge, Serbia (trekearth.com)

A portion of my PhD revisions:

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)[1] according to W.A. Hoffecker (1996), is considered to be a very influential theologian of the nineteenth century,[2] and the father of liberal Protestant theology.[3] Schleiermacher’s views on omnipotence can be contrasted with traditional view discussed.[4] Editors H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart (1821)(1928)(1976) within the Editors Preface of Schleiermacher’s 1821 text The Christian Faith provide the opinion that besides John Calvin’s Institutes[5], The Christian Faith is the most important work covering Christian theology and doctrine within Protestantism.[6] George Cross within his 1913 text, The Theology of Schleiermacher explains that in Schleiermacher’s theology human religious consciousness[7] expresses a relation between God and the world,[8] and therefore the consciousness of a dependence on God only arises in connection with the world.[9] God-consciousness[10] is connected with every human experience[11] and this is a demand upon human nature.[12] and this means every ‘world-impression’ must be able to connect with religious feeling.[13] God-consciousness is not only a contingent aspect of human experience,[14] as this would not allow God omnipotence to be an obtained expression in this world.[15] God’s omnipotence can only be referred to as finite human beings are affected by it through our God consciousness.[16] Divine omnipotence will be conceived by persons as eternal and omnipresent[17] as everything in reality is already ‘posited through finite causes in time and space.’[18] Everything that exists by natural order still takes places through divine omnipotence and therefore through One, that being God.[19] W.B. Selbie (1911)(2009) explains that for Schleiermacher, the almighty nature of God is ‘grounded in the infinite causality’ of the divine God.[20] Persons understand the manifested causality of God through human dependence on everything that comes from this divine being.[21] There is little difference for Schleiermacher between what can do and what God will do.[22] God’s omnipotence is energy everywhere in action and equates to all possible things.[23] God can do what he wills, and ‘whichever is greater than the other, the will or the ability, there is always a limitation.’[24] This limitation is only done away with for Schleiermacher when what God can do and will do, are equal in range.[25] The inner power of God to do something and his will do it cannot be separated.[26] God’s almighty power is not the power to do anything, but instead anything God pleases.[27] The divine power of the Almighty is subject to self-limitations which are connected to both God’s moral nature and the freedom of his human creatures.[28] The one all-embracing divine will is identical with eternal omnipotence.[29]

Schleiermacher’s approach redefines Christian religion as a unique element of human experience, not located in the intellectual and moral aspects of persons as these produce indirect knowledge concerning God only.[30] God is instead experienced through feeling.[31] The infinite God is experienced through human experience with the finite world[32] and not primarily from rational and doctrinal concepts.[33] Therefore, Schleiermacher, unlike many traditional and Reformed approaches with the omnipotence of God[34] is not primarily concerned with a dogma and doctrine[35] concerning the omnipotence of God, but is instead focused on how God is experienced by persons[36], and this would include God’s attribute of omnipotence. I personally still favour a doctrinal approach[37] but also grant that an understanding of God, which can include both intellectual and emotional[38] aspects can be reasonably theologically considered. Also, there is at least minimally, some truth to the notion that the omnipotence of God with the approach of Schleiermacher, can be experienced by persons through the finite world.[39] God’s almighty power and will[40] can be somewhat deduced through his creation that human beings experience daily.[41]

[1] Grenz and Olson (1992: 40). Hoffecker (1996: 983).
[2] Hoffecker (1996: 981). Stephen Neill and Tom Wright explain that Schleiermacher’s influence upon theology was notable by the end of the eighteenth century. Neill and Wright (1964)(1988: 3).
[3] Hoffecker (1996: 981). Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson reason Schleiermacher is a pioneer in theology. Grenz and Olson (1992: 40). His influence on contemporary theology ‘can hardly be over estimated.’ Grenz and Olson (1992: 39).
[4] Traditional and Reformed.
[5] Calvin, John (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
[6] Mackintosh and Stewart (1821)(1928)(1976: v).
[7] As discussed and referenced from Schleiermacher’s text The Christian Faith. See also Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70).
[8] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70).
[9] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-70). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[10] This will be further discussed in Chapter Four, as Schleiermacher’s views have influenced John Hick.
[11] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[12] Cross (1913)(2009: 1). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[13] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[14] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[15] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[16] Cross (1913)(2009: 1).
[17] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[18] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[19] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[20] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Within natural order every effect has been ordained by divine causality. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212).
[21] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Persons understand omnipotence also based on a feeling of ‘absolute dependence’ on God. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[22] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[23] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68). Selbie further explains that omnipotence for Schleiermacher is the ‘infinity of divine productivity.’ Selbie (1911)(2009: 70).
[24] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[25] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[26] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214). Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[27] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68).
[28] Selbie (1911)(2009: 68-69).
[29] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214).
[30] Hoffecker (1996: 982).
[31] Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[32] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[33] Hoffecker (1996: 982).
[34] Such as Erickson and Frame.
[35] Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[36] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[37] In particular a Reformed perspective.
[38] Including feelings. Hoffecker (1996: 982). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[39] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213).
[40] Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 214-215).
[41] Romans, Chapter 1 indicates this idea and C.E.B. Cranfield explains that since creation persons have viewed within that creation God’s eternal power and his divine nature. Cranfield (1992: 32). Robert H. Mounce reasons God is explained within this Chapter as being understandable to persons as powerful and existing beyond natural order. Mounce (1995: 78). The Bible of course does not deal with the philosophical term ‘omnipotence’ but implies in Romans 1 that God is almighty and beyond the visible physical realm.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. My MPhil and PhD theses topics are the problem of evil, and the problem of evil and theodicy have been discussed on my blogs.

Propaganda posters related to the problem of evil have generated some traffic for me and I present some more posters.

I am trying to learn and educate through history and my aim is not to offend.

From

http://www.oddee.com/item_66536.aspx


World War Two: United States


World War Two: Germany

From site:

'This poster makes a direct Christological comparison of Hitler. Just as a dove descended on Christ when he was baptised by John the Baptist, so what looks to be an eagle hovers against the light of heaven over an idealized Hitler.'

Christ obeyed the Father and his Kingdom was not of this world. John 18: 36.

Hilter sought to establish a Kingdom (Third Reich) in this fallen present realm.

Christ's Kingdom is within different realm with a new heaven and new earth. Revelation 21-22.

Hilter was no Christ.

From

http://abduzeedo.com/47-soviet-propaganda-posters


Giant Stalin, World War Two: The Soviet Union

From

http://www.iisg.nl/landsberger/


Giant Mao, 1969: The People's Republic of China

Consciousness, universalism, and Dos Equis

Ljubljana, Slovenia (photo from trekearth.com)

I have been trying to post on my latest revisions concerning consciousness, but between Blogger, Microsoft Word and Internet Explorer 8 it has been a disaster.

For whatever reason, Blogger will not post the new work from my PhD properly! I have posted Word footnotes previously.

Anyway, this post concerning universalism was on this blog previously and to be honest, I reason more of you would find this interesting than my latest work on consciousness. Most of you have not read it and it only had six comments originally.

It relates also to my PhD work.

But here is a sampling of my consciousness work...

Sir John Houghton defines consciousness as ‘a quality possessed by human beings’ and the extent that it may be possessed by higher animals is the subject of debate. Houghton (1995: 219). Although the human brain is sometimes compared to a computer, the human brain seems different as it thinks, feels, and demonstrates the property of self-awareness and consciousness. Houghton (1995: 92).

Rocco J. Gennaro of Indiana State University documents grammatically that the main term under review, 'consciousness' is derived from the Latin con (with) and scire (know). Gennaro (2006: 1). Michael Winkelman of the American Anthropological Association writes that common understanding of a model of consciousness includes attention-awareness, phenomenal experiences, self-referencing, learning and the use of information, interpreting meanings, having goals, and systems of social reference. It is suggested that consciousness manifests itself through the physical properties of the brain. Winkelman (2004: 1).

Biologist Alfred Gierer from Tubingen suggests that consciousness appears as ‘a system’s feature of our brain with neural processes strictly following the laws of physics’. Gierer (2003: 1). Gierer explains that there is not however, a general and exhaustive theory of human consciousness. Gierer (2003: 1).

Houghton admits it is difficult for many observers to accept that consciousness can be defined in a meaningful way or to describe it in terms of other things. Houghton (1995: 92-93).

Within my PhD consciousness is connected to human desires and free will.

Gierer reasons one of the difficulties with the problem of understanding human consciousness and understanding humanity is the question of human free will. Gierer (2003: 13).

GENNARO, ROCCO, J. (2006) ‘Consciousness’, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Martin, Tennessee, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

GIERER, ALFRED (2003) ‘Brain, mind, and limitations of a scientific theory of human consciousness’, Preprint of a contribution to the symposium: Proteus im Spiegel-Kritische Theorie des Subjekts im 20, Tubingen, Max-Planck-Institute Biology, Tubingen.

HOUGHTON, JOHN (1995) The Search for God, Can Science Help?, Lion Publishing, Oxford.

WINKELMAN, MICHAEL (2004) ‘Understanding Consciousness Using Systems Approaches and Lexical Universal’, American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia, American Anthropological Association.

The interesting advertising campaign is from Dos Equis and was not with the original post. I have seen this campaign on television in British Columbia for the first time this week, but viewed it on Jake's blog months ago. The ads are both entertaining and in my mind somewhat philosophical at points.

No, I am not a huge drinker of alcoholic beverages, but I tried Dos Equis and it was quite good.

Please feel free to comment and yes I realize two of the clips seem perhaps identical but they are not.

Within the concept of soul-making theodicy, John Hick explains that once a human being dies a conscious personality continues to exist. Hick (1978: 12). He concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem existence must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices. Hick (1978: 13). Robert Smid writes that Hick believes that humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people. Smid (1999: 12). Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381). Hick holds to universalism, which John Ankerberg and John Weldon explain is the theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore as a result each person will eventually be redeemed in heaven in God’s presence. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503). John Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this concept. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286). D.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128).

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. William Barclay points out, that Luke 13:24 is presenting a similar idea which may have come from the same original source, but reached the author of Luke from a different tradition. Barclay (1975: 97). In Luke, Jesus explains that many will strive to enter by the narrow gate, but shall not be able to. Barclay (1975: 97). This idea from Jesus would fit with a compatibilistic theology where God uses soft determinism to elect individuals to salvation. From this perspective, human beings with the use of free will alone cannot choose God. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom, and those he elects shall believe and follow him without being forced or coerced to do so. I reason that as God regenerates an individual by the Holy Spirit, he simultaneously determines that the person shall freely with the use of a limited, but significant free will, believe in Christ. Sentimentally, universalism is humanly more comforting, but it appears that Jesus disagreed with Hick on universalism. Laurence E. Porter describes a scenario in Luke 13:24-28 where some religious persons are rejected by God. Porter (1986: 1211). Jesus did not accept the theology that a sincere religious devotion alone would lead one to God’s presence in the culminated Kingdom of God. Let me point out that everlasting existence apart from God is absolutely and positively, not my hope for any individual person, but my theological findings are driven by research and not sentiment. I see no good reason to believe that human beings that have rejected the Biblical God throughout their lives with a corrupt nature and the resulting sinful thoughts and actions would ever in post-mortem existence come to Christ, unless determined to do so by God. Biblically, there appears to be no salvation for those outside of Christ upon death.

Hebrews 9:27, from the New American Standard Bible states:

As inasmuch as it is appointed for man to die once and after this comes judgment.

For deceased children and those who are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably certain point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.

In contrast it could be stated that children and the mentally deficient outside of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged only according to what they know. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite and not largely deficient understanding.

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

ELLER, D.B. (1996) ‘Universalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1128-1130. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University.

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.