My suggestion

New York Post: April 26, 2020

Cited

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is either dead, brain-dead or just fine, depending on which Asian media report you believe.

Cited

A Hong Kong broadcast network claimed Saturday that Kim died, citing a “very solid source.” A Japanese magazine, meanwhile, reported late Friday that he is in “a vegetative state.” On Kim’s home turf, the North Korean media has acted as if everything is perfectly normal.

Satirically, 'a way' to make much sense of these three reports is to assume...

a) The Hong Kong broadcast is correct, Kim is dead.

b) The Japanese magazine is correct, Kim is in a vegetative state.

c) The North Korean media is correct, Kim is perfectly normal.

My suggestion

Kim Jong Un (Kim Jong-un) is now a zombie...

(That can pass as 'normal' in a communist state if the state-controlled media states it is so)

---

Facebook has in error blocked my second Blogger website, Satire Und Theology from posting entries on my Facebook business page, Russell Norman Murray, PhD. Facebook falsely claims I violated community standards with a recent entry where Kenneth Copeland is on a YouTube video stating...

Quote: The Devil's tryin' to give me the flu

Further, the Blogger entry and the associated Facebook entry contained the following comments from me:

Presumptive theology in regards to God, Satanic beings and humanity, and making money in the process.
---

Obviously, my entry was not supporting Kenneth Copeland's claim.

I have made four requests from Facebook for clarification regarding community standards. No reply.

Therefore I publish this entry on this website that can be posted on my Facebook business page.

Quote: Such diversity of purpose

Kelowna 2018

Quote: Such diversity of purpose

Preface

I listened to a well-reasoned, good, online sermon today. I agree with the theology presented that God wills evil at times but in pure motives.

To paraphrase, the pastor mentioned that very often, the reasons for specific divinely willed (directly or indirectly/allowed by God, my add) evils and sufferings upon human beings are difficult to humanly understand.

I will add that apart from biblical teaching, at least typically, human beings are not provided with God's specific reasoning in particular situations and events.

I reason, in agreement with the pastor, (paraphrased) that far too often, many evangelicals, typically,
oversimplify problems of evil and problems of suffering in their attempts to help remedy the suffering (s) of persons and/or to set people and especially the sufferer, 'straight'.

It is actually a reasonable biblical, contextual understanding and Reformed theology that can set people straight.

I can acknowledge that philosophical theodicy, using theology and philosophy of religion does not take the place of effective practical theology that can assist a sufferer in having a true Christian religious experience.

From

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University 

God wills evil, but with pure motives

Calvin discussed in The Institutes the case of the Chaldeans attacking Job, that God, Satanic beings and human beings can all participate in the same evil acts:

Cited

How can we attribute the same work to God, to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan’s plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder.

Such diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. . . . We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity.

Calvin’s idea is that free human actions were first willed and determined by God. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). God’s motives in willing an action were always pure, working toward the greater good even while human beings freely sinned. (1543)(1996: 37-40).

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

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

Are you included? (Brief)

Sandy, Utah 2018

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

The review continues:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
. = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives)
x = variable
 . = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
∧ = Logical conjunction

Inclusion

Philosopher Langer introduces a 'new relation' called inclusion. (Note I have had this symbol in my key, as she introduced it earlier in the textbox). <  means that 'a' is included in 'b' (226). This means the same thing as the sum of 'a' and 'b' is 'b' itself. (226). In mathematics < is used for 'less than' (134), but is defined as is included and inclusion within symbolic logic (135).

She explains this importance...

< in this system means a + b = b, and this is the equivalent of ab = a; a proposition in terms of + (plus, addition) and x (times, multiplication), as in a x b = b or a x b = a. (227). This regarding classes does not demonstrate metaphysical nature (238), or reality or nature (238), but 'merely shows the pattern of class-relationships which we may call disjunction and conjunction, or total and partial inclusions, or overlapping, or anything else that fits the formal conditions.' (238).

(Disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).

Symbolic logic

A conjunction is a compound statement formed by combining two statements using the word and. In symbolic logic, the conjunction of p and q is written p∧q . A conjunction is true only if both the statements in it are true. 

Pragmatically

It seems to me, symbolic logic can provide a system, with logical formal conditions for presenting propositions. I have noted that the pragmatic benefits of using symbolic logic for reasoning for me, are questionable, in that symbolic logic is difficult for the average reader to understand.

Propositions are statements, and I was required to present propositions for my British MPhil and Doctoral survey questionnaires. Interestingly, working through this section of Langer, I was not considering it as significantly philosophically beneficial, however, it became crystal clear while researching this article that a conclusion is considered a proposition in contrast to a premise or premises which support (s) the conclusion. This was not often clearly stated in much of the philosophical reading I have done over the years. Indeed in my British academic survey questionnaires, I was formally presenting:

Proposition = Conclusion

or

Statement = Proposition = Conclusion

One key issue in writing my Doctoral thesis's main body was to avoid presenting an assertion without an argument. As an assertion = statement = proposition = conclusion. This was left for the questionnaire surveys.

As noted in an earlier review with this text; an implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188).

This section from Langer ended up being beneficial research.

Proposition < Conclusion

A proposition is inclusive to a conclusion. < means that 'a' is included in 'b' (226).

---

Fee-easy.com

I ordered a trimmer from the United States, Friday (not bleach). My first do it yourself haircut is on the way...

Quote: remarkably uncool

July 7, 2019: Toward the Fraser River

Hindrances - by Michael Phillips Personal Evangelism - Part 3 of 5

Oct 08, 2017 pm 

Sermon audio link

Sermon notes

Cited

From the day of my birth until Thursday of last week, I would have said, 'Fear is the number one hindrance to Personal Evangelism'. I'm sure this is true in North Korea or Saudi Arabia, but it is not true in America.

In this country, where there is little formal or state sanctioned persecution, the main reason we don't witness for Jesus Christ is embarrassment.

Both fear and embarrassment would seem reasonable suggestions for a lack of witness and evangelism from many biblical Christians within North America. I would add, lack of biblical knowledge for some is likely a reason for hesitation with evangelism.

Cited

I suppose there are many answers to this, but let me tell you the one I think fits our situation the best. Christians in the Bay Area today are ashamed to Jesus because He is remarkably uncool. His theology is intolerant, saying there is only One God, only One Savior, only One way of Salvation, and that if you're not on that One way, you're on the way to Destruction. Can you imagine anything less cool than this?

I will admit that Pastor Phillips; mention of living in the (San Francisco) Bay Area and therefore Jesus Christ would be remarkably uncool, was funny to me. Jesus Christ, indeed, by modern western standards, is also considered theologically intolerant. The same can be stated for his New Testament writers.

A good Reformed friend of mine, now living in Calgary has said to me many times, paraphrasing a famous American pastor: 'Christians are supposed to be uncool!' In the context of this sermon, this is mainly under the review of western secular worldviews.

The New Testament, biblical worldview via progressive revelation is connected to the previous Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. The New Testament claims for Jesus Christ, include a virgin birth, the pregnancy initiated by the Holy Spirit in Matthew 1: 18, Luke 1: 35, states Browning in Oxford (389).

There were also documented miracles (see mainly Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and by his disciples through God, in Acts).

Through his crucifixion and death on the cross, his atoning and resurrection saving work is applied to those who believe in him (key theological teaching of the Gospels and the New Testament).

Jesus Christ is documented as God incarnate (John 1), and the eternal God the Son (John 1, Matthew 28 as examples), and Word of God (John 1), and as God is the creator of all things (Colossians 1).

John 1: 1-5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it.

a John 1:2 Lit This one
b John 1:5 Or overpower

Colossians 1: 15 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 [w]He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For [x]by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He [y]is before all things, and in Him all things [z]hold together.

w Colossians 1:15 Lit Who is
x Colossians 1:16 Or in
y Colossians 1:17 Or has existed prior to
z Colossians 1:17 Or endure

E.G. Ashby explains the mistake made by the Arians that Christ is the first-born of creation was therefore created, instead of being co-eternal with God the Father. But the context does not allow that interpretation. Page 1454. Firstborn can be defined as having to do with priority and superiority of God the Son in pre-existence as God. This being a reference to his deity, not his humanity. Page 1454. Firstborn has to do the priority and superiority of Christ over creation as he was the creator and not a mere creation.

There is no sense of a literal son being born of a literal father. However, Bauer from the Greek states that the term is used in a figurative sense as in Christ is the firstborn of a new humanity. Page 726. Christ would be the firstborn of resurrected humanity within the culminated KOG.

Romans 8: 29 firstborn of many brethren.

Πρωτοτοκος, the root word is prototokos, defined as firstborn prwtotokon in Romans 8:29.

Back to the sermon...

Cited

Jesus is also uncool in His ethics. He was against Divorce, for example; or living together without marriage. And, while He never personally addressed the LGBT Thing, His Apostles did, and they were dead set against it!

In context, even as Pastor Phillips is an excellent teacher of the Reformed tradition, he is from the United States of America and generally, American evangelical churches have certain biblical issues emphasized, and some of these connect to very heated political issues.

I have not been interested in this politicized approach on my websites and am not interested in this approach. As can be seen by my writing over the years, I have no intention of singling out a particular group within sinful humanity, connected to politics and political rights within a democracy. To be clear.

My Reformed, New Testament theology appeals to universal corrupted, fallen, human nature. From Romans 3, no person is righteous (10), no one understands and no one seeks for God (11), no one does good (12). With issues such as this, the Reformed view on sinful nature is incredibly helpful and clarifies the actual, as opposed to sentimental theologies, reality between humanity and God. Universal human sinful nature, and embraced sinful choices exist, and these can only be remedied within New Testament theology by Holy Spirit regeneration (Titus 3, John 3), and the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ applied to persons.

In both love and truth, I need to be academically and intellectually open and honest with my readers, being one that reviews Greek manuscripts and uses biblical tools, there are New Testament verses based on thousands of ancient manuscripts that agree with the theology mentioned by Phillips in regards to Jesus Christ and his Apostles views on sexual morality and ethics. Please see Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, Revelation 22, as examples.

For example, adulterers and fornicators, also outside of the applied gospel work of Jesus Christ, will as well not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6).

There are no verses that reasonably support a disagreement with what Phillips has stated. There are creative, usually liberal theologies that attempt reinterpretations for agendas, but they fail to be contextually true to the scripture. As I have noted on this website, premises (and conclusions) can be logical, but logical premises are not always reasonable and true. There can be logical theologies that are used within Christendom to counter logical biblical theologies, but they fail to be true.

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 Logic versus Truth

Back to the sermon...

Cited

...Jesus is also uncool in His ethics. 

True.

1 Corinthians 6 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

f 1 Corinthians 6:9 I.e. effeminate by perversion

Cited

He's a Man who is naïve enough to think that you ought to have sex only with the person you're married to, and if you're not married, with no one at all, either real or imaginary. That's uncool! 

Then you think of His political stances, or rather, non-stances. I suppose our Lord had His share of political beliefs, but He considered them to be of secondary importance, not taking bold stands for 1st Century equivalents of welfare, immigration, health care, or prison reform. He may have cared deeply for such things, but you'd never know it from the Bible! 

Jesus Christ, and his key New Testament era followers, were far more interested in sharing the gospel than they were in politics.

Jesus is the uncoolest Man who ever lived; and if you're going to be His disciple, you'll also have to be uncool. The stigma keeps many Christians silent when they ought to speak up for the Lord who bought them. Does Jesus embarrass you? If He does, you need to remember I John 2:17- The world is passing away and the lusts thereof, but he who does the will of God abides forever. 

Wanting to fit in, be cool, accepted, hip, up-to-date, in step with the times, is one of these lusts, and is rushing headlong to oblivion!

If indeed, the manuscript evidence and Church history support the gospel and a New Testament worldview, then an everlasting perspective on humanity and God should be embraced.

ASHBY, E G. (1986) 'Colossians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.