Friday fun

New Westminster, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

I thought I would post something slightly different today.

1. Helen who writes the artistic Muisto blog, disagrees with some of my article entitled, A philosophy of linking, which is in the May archives.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2007/05/philosophy-of-linking.html

Helen was nice enough to link my posting. I shall return the favour and link her article in order that her perspective is provided, and I also made the following edited comment at the end of Helen’s article.

Hi Helen.

Thanks for the link and insights.:)

Personally, I do not link primarily to create traffic as the quality of a blog is more important than the amount of traffic. If I comment on a blog it is because I think the blog is good (such as yours) and the exposure my blog receives in return is a bonus. I do comment on blogs that do not link me, but will primarily comment on blogs that are of good quality that also support me. I would not want a situation where I am primarily linking others and supporting their work and assisting them to receive comments and I am not receiving links back and struggling to receive comments. I ask for a link for a link to help ensure that my blogs are at least receiving a small amount of support and that I am not simply writing articles for myself and thinking to myself…well done satirical, kingpin...lol.

I realize that there are other reasonable ways to approach linking, other than mine, such as yours.

Russ;)

http://muisto.blogspot.com/2007/05/politics-of-linking.html

2. I have been on the Christian dating site, Christian Café, for seven years and most of time it has been with occasional free days provided each year. I have learned not to take on-line dating very seriously. I think a young woman would usually have to be met in person to know if there is any mutual romantic attraction. The other day I received an email on the site from a woman who was documented to be local, and with no photograph. Her personal information listed her as 31-35 years old, with blonde hair and in good physical condition. She was basically what many men in our Canadian society would consider to be a good prospect. In the email dialogue she seemed interested in my dissertation work, but since I am only on the site for a few free days at a time, I thought that I would provide her with an email address, so perhaps we could email chat occasionally. She later on the Café informed me that she was not sure if she was interested in staying on the site. From my research the last few years on women and dating, this young woman was showing signs of little or no interest in dialogue with me, and so I figured that it was a waste of our time. But, I thought I would ask her if she wanted to complete a problem of evil questionnaire.;) She seemed open-minded concerning the questionnaire and I sent her one through regular email. I assumed I would not receive any more Café messages from her.

The other day she emailed me on regular email explaining that she was very sorry, but this was all a ruse. She was investigating someone else, but realized that I was not that person. She stated that she really had no interest in the problem of evil, was probably ten years older that me, and was working on a PhD in Theology herself. She wanted to let me know the truth since she reasoned that I was being sincere with her in the dialogue. She noted that she would try and complete the questionnaire for me.

Hmm, no wonder I am still single…

Russ;)


The type of incident in the cartoon has never actually happened to me!

The danger of sentimental theology

Gleboczek, Poland (photo from trekearth.com)

The danger of sentimental theology

I thought I would share some non-exhaustive ideas on a common approach to theology. Late Tuesday morning, I received a phone call from a good friend who explained that a fairly young, adult dear relative of his had passed away unexpectedly during the night. Even though I am still a young man with improving health, having had struggles with serious sleep apnea, allergies, and eye problems the last few years, I have thought more about death than previously. I am not obsessed with the subject, but part of my focus with the Christian faith, and Christian theology, within the problem of evil, is attempting to understand in some ways, what exists beyond death.

Scientifically and empirically (by use of the senses) it appears that human beings die and all that is left are physical remains. Some religions and religious persons believe in an existence of the human spirit that exists after death. In the media, and at funerals it is said sometimes that the person that has passed away has gone to a better place. This is speculative, assumed and hoped for, since the departed was usually a good person, humanly speaking. This appears to be sentimental theology, and by that I mean theology that is primarily driven by feelings, that is speculative and lacks a significant use of reason. Please note, I am not stating that all theological speculation is lacking the significant use of reason. The naturalist can dismiss this sentimental theology on empirical grounds. Simon Blackburn defines naturalism as generally a view that nothing resists explanation from methods of natural sciences. A naturalist will therefore be opposed to the concept of mind-body since it allows for the possible explanation of human mental capacity outside of science. Blackburn (1996: 255). Henry Clarence Thiessen explains that naturalists reject the idea of God and view nature as self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Thiessen (1956: 32).

A theist such as myself can reason that the person that has died was morally imperfect as we all are, was part of, and affected by, the problem of evil, did not receive direct communication from God normally, and likely not at any point, prior to death. From this there is not an obvious reason here to realistically, and reasonably assume that a person that has passed away goes to a better place within a speculative theistic model. Within a speculative theistic model, I would reason that if a person lives an earthly temporal life apart from direct communication with God, then it is reasonable to assume that if God does grant everlasting life, it will not be some type of heaven in God’s presence, and therefore not necessarily a better place.

Biblical Christianity is not dependent on sentimental theology. Millard J. Erickson writes that natural theology deduces that God can be understood objectively through nature, history, and human personality. Erickson (1994: 156). But, it should be stated that although natural theology can perhaps bring a person to a limited knowledge of God, it does not provide revealed information concerning salvation or everlasting life for human beings. I have written an article on this blog that supports a notion of a first cause for creation, but even if matter was created by a first cause it would not make this first cause personally knowable to human beings. I agree with Erickson when he deduces that a sound argument for first cause does not mean that the first cause is necessarily the Christian God. Erickson (1994: 161).

Erickson explains that Biblical revelation views God as taking the initiative to make himself known to followers. Erickson (1994: 198). This would be a more effective way than natural revelation as God reveals personal things about himself through his prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. It can be reasoned that this revelation is documented in the Bible with persons that are historical and not mythological. Thiessen writes that God revealed himself in the history of ancient Israel. Thiessen (1956: 33). God is presented as personally appearing to chosen persons in the Hebrew Bible through dreams, visions and directly. Thiessen (1956: 34). Thiessen explains that miracles were also noted to occur within the Hebrew Bible, miracles being unusual events that were not a product of natural laws. Thiessen (1956: 35). The Hebrew Bible and New Testament present historical persons that experienced the supernatural God and supernatural occurrences. Some will accept the historicity of these persons, but deny the supernatural aspects of the Bible, but according to the New American Standard Bible presented by Charles Caldwell Ryrie and the Lockman Foundation, approximately 40 authors wrote the Biblical texts over a period of approximately 1600 years. Ryrie (1984: xv). Not all these persons knew each other and yet spoke of the same God that revealed himself progressively over time. The atoning work and resurrection of Christ was documented and discussed by several historical authors within the New Testament and through this work everlasting life is provided to followers of Christ. The book of Revelation describes the culminated Kingdom of God in Chapters 21-22.

The New Testament provides information about the historical Jesus Christ and his followers in historical setting and this gives much more credibility for theology concerning the concept of life after death in the presence of God, than does sentimental theology which denies or twists the concepts of Scripture in order to fit some type of speculative theistic hope for everlasting life which is devoid of the significant use of reason. This is a dangerous way to approach God and life, as there is not convincing evidence for believing that God shall save a departed person, outside of revelation from God explaining by what means he would bring a person that has passed away into his presence forever, and/or place them in a better place.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘naturalism', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 255. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

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

RYRIE, CHARLES, CALDWELL (1984) The New American Standard Version Bible, Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

An explanation: There is no feminist agenda

California

Thank you to all the church attendees and Christian leaders that have taken the time to assist me with the problem of evil questionnaire. I am nearing my goal of 200+ questionnaires completed, and am still looking for assistance. I really appreciate those that take the time in person to complete a survey, and those through email that take the time to scan my letter and questionnaire and then decide to assist me. Some are even nice enough to pass my questionnaire on to others, which is much appreciated! I have emailed hundreds of Christian churches concerning my problem of evil questionnaire and the purpose of the project is explained in the email letter and in the body of the questionnaire. Some leaders who represent churches culturally known as Christian, whether on the left or right theologically, have assumed that I somehow have a hidden agenda that is not primarily the problem of evil and theodicy. Besides in the email and questionnaire sent out, on this blog I have spelled out what my basic theological views are and what the purpose of my questionnaire is within my PhD project, and provide a link to my blog in the email letter. I can understand how a Christian leader may be annoyed by my email and perhaps view it as spam, but regardless, those who are publicly and culturally Christian leaders should scan my blog before rushing to false conclusions about my work and me personally which they then put in writing. Some ministers have simply stated that they are not interested in helping me and do not have the time, and that is a reasonable way to handle my email to them. One could of course simply delete my email and offer no reply.

There is no feminist agenda with my questionnaire or dissertation. Within the last three months a couple of ministers have mentioned by email that there may be a feminist agenda behind my work. As well, a good friend explained to me that a pastor and friend of his that issued the questionnaire on my behalf stated that some women who completed the questionnaire assumed that a woman must have written the document since it contained questions concerning women. I do not hold to feminist theology, personally. Feminism in the context of theology and Biblical studies is in a broad sense wanting to show both God’s feminine characteristics and, at the same time, present a case for what is interpreted to be male theological bias. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 51). Within my dissertation, and on my two theology related blogs, I am coming from a Reformed, conservative, Christian perspective. I am very much in favour of women as creatures made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), but I do not hold to feminist theology!

My University department is not Reformed. It is secular and has required me to add some women related questions, as they originally wanted me to review a feminist theodicy. I informed them that as far as I could tell there was no such thing. I am required to meet certain academic standards, including presenting viewpoints that are not from my particular theological tradition. I am required to review three basic theoretical approaches to the problem of evil. These approaches are also known as theodicy. Robert M. Adams notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794). A good definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists. I hold to one of these views, sovereignty theodicy, and present two views that are contrary to my own, although there is not complete disagreement on every point. I then present questions from these different theodicy and place them in questionnaire form. I was also asked to place some women related questions in my questionnaire. When I compile my questionnaire results I will have an original form of empirical theology. Professor Leslie J. Francis and the Practical Theology Team of the University of Wales, Bangor, explain that an element of practical theology is the use of empirical data. Francis (2005: 1). I can examine the results to questions relating to each theodicy approach and the women related questions and then produce some original and unique empirical theology that relates to the philosophical theology already written. God willing, I will produce an original, very academic PhD dissertation, which presents some women related issues. But women's issues and feminism are not a primary or even major focus of my work.

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team (2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website, University of Wales, Bangor.
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/pt/ptunit/definition.php.

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


California

Future Rebellion?

Butchart Gardens, BC

Today, a pastor who had completed a problem of evil questionnaire mentioned to me through email, the theological issue of whether citizens of the Kingdom of God/heaven would be able to rebel against God. Here is my reply to the pastor with references added and slight changes for this blog article.

In my view, since the lake of fire (Revelation, Chapter 20) appears to exist everlastingly, rebellion against God will continue from fallen angels and those outside of Christ. I speculate that the lake of fire, like Hades (Revelation, Chapter 20) and Paradise (2 Corinthians, 12: 4) are outside of our present material reality and are not part of God's material creation that he will restore for humanity, and perhaps animals and other living creatures. The lake of fire is likely physical but is intended for punishment. Robert H. Mounce explains that it is the place for all that is sinful and wicked in the world. Mounce (1990: 350). God merely will restore the fallen material creation within our reality and eliminate the problem of evil within it.

In my view the elect in the restored creation shall not fall since God will determine with the use of compatibilism/soft determinism that they shall not. This means he will determine, influence and guide thoughts and actions, but not force or coerce them. Louis P. Pojman writes that compatibilism or soft determinism states that an act can be entirely determined and yet be free in the sense that it was committed voluntarily and without external force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 596). Compatibilism shall occur through God's will and by perfecting the nature of followers, but it can be deduced that Satan had a perfect nature prior to his fall, as a sinful being would not exist in heaven (Luke 10: 18). Satan and the fallen angels are Biblically not provided any type of atonement. Adam and Eve prior to the fall in Genesis 3 had a perfect nature, but in my opinion had a spiritual immaturity that persons will not possess in heaven as resurrected followers that have experienced the problem of evil, sin, death, the atoning work and resurrection of Christ and their own resurrection will not disobey God in the immature fashion that Adam and Eve did. A problem with holding too strong of a view on free will, and perhaps free will theodicy, as opposed to sovereignty theodicy, is that it denies compatibilism and soft determinism and therefore rebellion against God by perfect beings would always be a reasonable possibility. I agree that it would be possible in the culminated Kingdom to rebel if citizens were merely left with perfect natures, although less likely than originally because of maturity, but rebellion becomes impossible as God indwells and guides persons to freely with a limited compatibilistic but significant free will, to follow him forever. I suppose one could state that persons cannot sin in heaven because God determines that persons cannot, but he does not use force or coercion since this would eliminate significant freedom. I do not believe that God uses hard determinism in saving persons or damning others. Pojman defines hard determinism as the theory that every event is caused and no one is responsible for his or her actions. Pojman (1996: 596). This is in contrast with soft determinism that would state that God would be the primary cause of all actions, while significantly free beings would be the secondary cause of their own actions. One could also state that persons could hypothetically rebel because beings with finite perfect natures could always fall, as did Satan, but persons will not sin because God determines that they shall not. So I think, hypothetically, rebellion could always happen but will not because of God's constant influence upon saved human persons that have experienced the problem of evil and do not want to go back to it. If God took his influence from citizens they could sin once again, even in heaven. So, those in Christ shall not sin in heaven due to a purified nature and God's use of soft determinism and not force or coercion.

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

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