Shills?

Ron Niebrugge

Opine:

Lately in the National Hockey League media, Las Vegas has seemingly moved ahead of Seattle as the supposed next city for expansion, or perhaps relocation.

This despite not good statistical support if one does some research.

There are related Canadian sites I have read, but here is one from the United States of America, the New York Times, for example:

New York Times 2013 May 31

Based on Google search numbers:

Las Vegas, approximately 5% avid hockey fans & approximately 91, 000 fan population.

Seattle, approximately 5% avid hockey fans & approximately 241, 000 fan population.

By the way

Phoenix which has a team, approximately 6% avid hockey fans & approximately 263, 000 fan population. 

In the media Phoenix is often labelled a poor market and a relocation candidate with Florida (Greater Miami) but has a difficult arena deal, and is compared unfavourably to supposedly superior Seattle.

Toronto (Second team at Air Canada Centre for example) 52% avid hockey fans & approximately 5 million fan population.

Quebec City approximately 48% avid hockey fans & approximately 530, 000 fan population.

Evidence and arguments for fan base work against Las Vegas in comparison to Seattle and especially Toronto and Quebec City.

Evidence and arguments for greater numbers of growing avid new fans work against Las Vegas as there would likely be more casual hockey fans to become avid hockey fans in markets where hockey is more culturally important.

Unless there are other issues I am not aware of, in regard to hockey business anyway, it seems the Canadian candidates are easily the best two financially.

Seems to me many NHL commentators since they work for corporations contractually associated with the League, lack objectivity in regard to League business issues and at times serve as shills. 

Something to philosophically ponder on in regard to media...

Robert H. Mounce (PhD Edit)

Photo: Austria-Google+

Preface

Robert Mounce was a very helpful main body and footnote source for my PhD work. I used his work from Romans and Revelation commentaries as scholarly reference. 

Romans 

Robert H. Mounce (1995) writes that God directs the affairs in life, for those who love him, for the greater good. Mounce (1995: 187). He explains the Bible never argues for the existence of God. Mounce (1995: 32). 

He reasons rational observation of our universe provides the necessary evidence of a power great enough to bring the universe into existence. Mounce (1995: 33). He deduces that natural revelation was minimal, and therefore God eventually revealed himself through Christ. Mounce (1995: 33).

Revelation 

Mounce explains that the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20 is not an arbitrary judgment of God but is based on the works of each person. Mounce (1990: 365-366). It is sign of the ultimate justice of God for all persons. Note this does not work against the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for salvation, rather Mounce is noting that those judged at Revelation 20 are judged for works. 

This leads some scholars to reason this is a judgment for those outside of Christ, in contrast to 2 Corinthians 5: 10. However, Mounce leans to Revelation 20 being a general judgment of all. (364-365). Sin, death and suffering will not exist in the culminated Kingdom. Mounce (1990: 372). His commentary on Revelation provides many helpful insights. Figurative language is definitely used within the book of Revelation, but an actual culminated Kingdom of God is being mysteriously described. Mounce (1990: 368-397).

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Proverbs 17: 27-28

Capri-Italy, Facebook-Travel+Leisure

Proverbs 17:27-28

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 27 He who restrains his words [a]has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. 28 Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent.

Footnotes: Proverbs 17:27 Lit knows New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

Last Sunday with the sermon at church, the Lead Pastor stated (paraphrased) that persons tend not to think, make decisions and act based on reason, objectively, but tend to think, make decisions and act based on emotions, subjectively. I agree that this is true, generally, speaking.

Recent events make this evident once again.

I am not going to disclose many details.

I also, by the way, do not claim to have a perfectly, rational, reasonable mind that is always objective when it should be. I am tainted by sin (Romans 1-3).

There are subjective sides of issues, but idealistically it should not damage objectivity.

I do have a highly-trained (in my academic fields), active, objective mind, that is sinful and finite.

Basically, presently in a group there was a specific problem with a fellow person. He and I are definite Christian believers.

To be more specific it was a problem related to him, more so than a problem with him directly as a person.

The person was oblivious to the problem that the others and I had to something related with this person.

I had with humour attempted to to mention the problem, to perhaps soften it as an issue, but it was ignored.

Eventually, from this group leader an order was made via email to basically change circumstances that would end all like problems that could occur with any person and end the specific problem related to this person.

I, trying to show Christian love (John 15, Mark 12, Matthew 15) by email warned this fellow Christian and friend of the email command before he would have the opportunity to read it, in order to make certain changes, as soon as possible in order to end the related problem.

In order to help his standing with the group.

This fellow Christian followed my advice and the email order; but now he is angry and offended with me and is denying completely that there was ever any problem, ever any issue.

The reasoning being because the circumstances are now changed and the problem non-existent; therefore there was not a problem previously.

But, without going into details, I can simply state that there is not a problem now that the email directive was followed but there was a problem previously.

If there was not a problem the email command from the group leader would not have occurred. I know this not only empirically by experiencing the problem, but also by discussing the matter with the leader and others involved.

But, the fellow Christian, when I tried to explain my position and the position of the group, claimed that if I did not stop explaining the problem that had been related to him, that I risked harassment.

So, I stopped.

That is the end of the matter.

I see this type of overly emotional, overly subjective approach to problems at times offline and online in dialogue that sometimes becomes disputes.

Communication ends because a person does not want to risk his/her intellectual/philosophical position and so all dialogue ends.

This is often true when there is anger involved by the offended party.

Perhaps at times there is fear of perhaps having to admit something, that one does not want to admit.

There is not an agreement in truth. Which is unfortunate when persons are in Christ.

This person reached out to family which predictably supported, but that does not deal with the objectivity or not of the problem, or the position, does it?

From my perspective I need to simply, as noted, see the issue as ended.

If the friendship is less, so be it. Frankly, anyone that states I might be harassing them is a very questionable friend.

This definition of harassment was simply my side of the story as one trying to be a Christian friend.

Where is the New Testament love toward me?  Limited at best.

Forgiveness is claimed for the supposed offense but my position was not even considered.

When we honestly think about it, in heated debates, is this type of harassment accusation not sometimes the case?

I sometimes am challenged and disagree with critiques. But unlike with this first scenario, I do attempt to listen and I do ponder and pray on the criticisms.

Sometimes I receive an apology and have apologized my share of times as well in situations.

So, I shall follow Proverbs 17: 27-28, and need to continually learn when to keep silent and when to speak with a cool head.

Live and learn.

Prayer & Determinism (s)

Paris-Facebook-Travel+Leisure

At church this Sunday the subject of prayer and determinism was discussed in regard to Luke 1 and the Biblical fact that Zacharias' 'petition has been heard' (13) by God in regard to the birth of John.

It had been determined by God after many years of petition and yet was still an answer to prayer.

A brief review of two types of determinism philosophically and theologically,

Determinism also known as Hard Determinism

Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281).

Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).

With determinism and hard determinism, it is philosophically and theologically far more difficult to view human prayer as philosophically reasonable, because within the model only cause1, which would be God causing significant thoughts, acts and actions, would occur.

Certainly, at least thoughts, acts and actions, one could be held morally responsible for with significant freedom.

Soft-Determinism and Compatibilism

Compatibilism and soft determinism does hold that what God determines must happen by necessity, but reasons that contingent rational beings with a significant use of free will are not coerced or forced to commit acts, which must occur by necessity.

A person can hold to hard determinism and believe that God determined all events without the significant use of free will of rational creatures.

P.S. Greenspan writes that compatibilism holds to free will and determinism being compatible. Greenspan (1998: 1).

Louis P. Pojman, defines compatibilism as the concept that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was done voluntarily and without compulsion. Pojman (1996: 596).

J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24).

Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).

W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains that moral responsibility is consistent with determinism in the context of soft determinism and requires it. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). If human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).

Soft-determinism and compatibilism with the understanding of limited human free will present a model which has cause1 with God as first cause and cause2 with human beings as secondary causes of thoughts, acts and actions.

This could in cases include prayer; and would in cases include prayer.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

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

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.