Hiatus

Just got back from FL today, tomorrow I am heading to MO, then IL, then back to OK and finally to TX, before I go back to school.

Got my grades today 2 Bs and 1 A - ouch the two Bs hurts. After two years at OU I get evaluated and if I can't meet the expectations, there then I am not allowed to proceed. So not only do I have to get good grades, I have to do better than other students. I am really disappointed in myself right now...

I will update my blog again sometime around Jan 10 or 11. Hope everyone had a good Christmas.

Winter Wonderland in TX

Well, the day I left Norman to drive to TX it was 73 degrees in Norman. This was December 20, then today, in Flower Mound, TX it was so warm that I wore shorts and turned on the AC in my car so that I wouldn't get too hot. Now I hear that on Thursay, it won't get any warmer than the 20's. Is this not the craziest place for weather? I never know what to think about TX weather. Today an allergy alert for Mountain Cedar was issued and my sinuses were throbbing - I have messed up sinuses. I am thinking about going to a chiropracter to see if he can do anything about it, does anybody have any suggestions?

I have some random thoughts that I will post about the church that I attended before Trinity baptist. The church I was going to was Journey Church, a postmodern/seeker church. One time the pastor claimed that he didn't want any sacred cows at Journey so they intentionally changed the way they did things about every 8-10 weeks. Well, there was one thing he wouldn't change and that was the fact that the entire worship service was all about entertainment. I knew one of the secretaries and she said that many of the church staff were stressed and distressed that many of the big donar families were leaving to go to other churches. Why were they leaving - because the preaching/teaching was too shallow. So did the pastor change his sermon style - OF COURSE NOT! This is because people have a difficult time changing things, and if your church isn't really biblically focused to begin with, why will people stay when they begin to grow and hunger for more of God's Word. In the end, isn't that what every believer really desires, more understanding of who God is, and a stronger relationship with God. I realize that there are other aspects about Christianity that are extremely important, but the most important thing in a Christian's life is communicating with God. Whenever our communication with God suffers, everything else suffers. So sorry preaching that is mostly meant to be entertaining will always leave those who are "in Christ" begging for much, much, much more.

Christos = Kurios

Well, I finally made it to Trinity Baptist Church, and I wasn't disappointed. The preaching was excellent, it was not watered down, it was expositional deep and theologically challenging. If only more churches had preaching like this. It's obvious that a church like Trinity has many people that attend because they want to learn about the Word of God, not because of any charasmatic preacher or an entertaining service, i.e. Journey Church, where I previously attended.

The sermon was over Phil. 2:5-11, and I have never heard this passage exposited so well in my life. This is a passage of Scripture that has always troubled me. But he explained it as Jesus had to humble Himself as the Incarnation. This is the example that Christians are to follow, that of Christ humbling Himself as the Incarnate God.

One of the things that the pastor mentioned was Yahweh, and the significance of Christ is Lord. I can't insert Hebrew characters in my blog, but the word 'Yahweh' is often translated as Jehovah, but it's difficult to know how to translate it because the Hebrew text doesn't have any vowel points for the word, only consonents. Anyway, it was translated as 'Kurios' in the Greek Septuigint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. 'Kurios' is translated as 'Lord'. Hence, the significance of saying 'Christ is Lord'. When we make this assertion, we are saying that Jesus is the same person as the Lord in the Old Testament. So the statement, 'Christ is Lord' has Christological significance, as well as Trinitarian implications.

The Lord of the Old Testament is the Lord in the New Testament - that is what we are saying when we say Christ is Lord.

Body/Soul - some more musings

I started reading a book published by Eerdmans, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting. I'm now convinced, that there needs to be an emphasis upon the present life and resurrection. Yet, a biblical anthropology will account for the intermediate state also - the state of one's being after death, and before resurrection. (I think the book is out of print b/c I can't find the link on Eerdmans' web site.) So, whatever view one holds to these are the main issues that Christians need to account for: (1) the intermediate state; (2) the fullness of our present life; (3) the fullness of life to come; and (4) we can't make life in heaven more real than our existence now.

Let me go into more explanation about (4). Plato claimed that our existence on earth was a mere shadow of existence in heaven. Though sin has affected God's creation, God created things on earth as 'GOOD' this is important to remember. I think that the intermediate state is a lesser existence than the one that we have now. Nonetheless, it's important for us to remember that we experience the fullness of life upon our resurrection, but for sin, we would experience the fullness of life now - in a physical form.

One quick note about miracles and the resurrection. This question is for my readers:

What do most Christians think the purpose of the resurrection is?

Would most Christians claim that the resurrection shows that Jesus is the Son of God? Clearly this is wrong, because the resurrection is to show us what we have to look forward to when Jesus rises again. The signs/miracles in the gospel of John demonstrate that Jesus was the Son of God. There are seven signs in the Gospel of John, because 7 is a complete number. So I take this to mean that there was a sufficient amount of evidence given to show that Jesus was the Son of God during His lifetime, so the resurrection, wasn't needed to show that He was the Son of God, but to show the future hope of all Christians. I think Col. 1:18 says it best: "And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeeminence."

I think miracles are the same thing. Miracles don't show that God exists, they show God's power. We know that God exists by looking at the heavens. The fool has said in his heart that there isn't a God.

I did it!!

I was able to avoid watching the Return of the Jedi last night. It was extremely difficult. If it wouldn't have been 3:45AM I probably would have began watching Jedi. This is a monumental accomplishment for me in terms of will-power. Maybe I'll watch Jedi now. Cowboy Bebop, an anime series, came in the mail today, so I have watched the first five episodes today... needless to say, it's been a lazy day.

Fall 04 - in the books

This semester is officially over. So far, this is my report card:

(1) Metaphysics: B
(2) Religious Epistemology: ?A?
(3) Philosophy of Mind: ?A?

I've gotten all my papers back for metaphysics and yes I did earn a B. In both Religious epistemology and phil. of mind, I need a very high B or an A on my final papers for an A in the class.

I am a very hard person to please, especially when it's myself, but I must admit, I am proud of my performance from this semester. After my brother died, and I moved in the day before classes began, I was extremely frazzled. There were many days where it was all I could do to just wake up and not burst into tears. So now that it's all said and done, I'm glad. I didn't even want to go to school this semester, I considered staying home w/ my mom and sister, getting a job nearby so I could be with them after my brother died. My mom was upset when she heard me say this and told me that Adam (my brother) would have wanted me to go to school. It still makes me sad when I think about it, because Adam was going to apply to law school at OU and try to play rugby on the grad team here. The OU law school is ranked #66, which isn't too shabby. It's ranked high enough to get you a job upon graduating from it.

Sorry I don't have any intriguing theological questions, but I am reading through a book right now on the nature of God and I've read the chapters on omnipotence and omniscience. I was going to read the chapter on divine foreknowledge and human freedom, but I'm too tired. Philosophy is tough to read when you're not wide awake. I can read just about anything when I'm tired, history, political science, most theology, biology, cases, but not philosophy.

I think now I'll finish watching the greatness of The Empire Strikes Back. I always have a tough time watching that movie without then watching Return of the Jedi. It's always depressing to see Luke and Leia at the window of the space station, watching Chewie and Lando depart for Jabba's palace. Maybe tonight will be different...

last paper completed???

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE - TIME TO RISE AND SHINE!

Well, today, or actually more technically yesterday was another messed up day. I'm not turning off my computer until I print up my final paper to turn in for the semester. I'm setting my alarm for 1PM, and hoping to get enough sleep to not be jacked up today. I took 3 tylenol PMs about 70 minutes ago so they should start kicking in soon. So, I'll wake up in the afternoon/my morning and re-read through my paper outloud one last time, print it up, walk to the philosophy department, and turn it in - this is all contingent upon God willing it. So, I pray that this is God's will.

I'm also praying that it's God's will for me to get some sleep.

My computer is staying on, it almost didn't boot up this morning. That could have been a bad start to a bad day.

very, very, very unproductive day

Well, I tried to be productive today, woke up tired, worked out, felt even more tired, drank coffee, felt tired. Sometimes, things just don't bounce your way, today was one of those days. The good news is that I still have 36 hours until my last paper is due. That should be enough time, because it's finished, I just have to clean up some rough edges.

Right now it's 27 degrees here. OK is colder than TX, it very rarely gets below 30 degrees in TX, and already it's been in the 20's several nights in Norman, OK. I heard it's in the 20's during the daytime in IL. I'd forgotten how cold it can get up North. Burr, I miss TX!!

Old Skool & Radical Orthodoxy

I must admit, I am a conservative philosophical/theologian, I defend views of classical theism, the creeds, and the rule of faith. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that it is inerrant, furthermore, I believe that God has inspired the entire transmission process. Reading the Bible is different from reading a book. Yet, my musical tastes are totally progressive, I like bands such as Deftones, Ministry, Lush, The Smiths, Depeche Mode, The Cure, The Sundays, NIN, The Ramones, Metallica, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Rage Against the Machine, etc. What is my point, I would like to consider myself a radical Christian, biblical truth is important for its own sake. It doesn't need to be made practical, it IS practical the way it is. I think about how I would like to worship God in a dark and mysterious manner. I like Gothic churches that are huge and beatiful. I think that we all too often try to put God in a box. In fact we make God into an image of what we want Him to be. Recently I've been contemplating the cost of Christianity. At OU, most of the profs aren't believers, maybe 4 of them believe in some kind of deity, and one of them has actually said that he is going to declare war on religion. Whenever he encounters a Christian student he asks, "Are you one of those freaks?" But this is nothing compared to what the early Christians had to suffer. I recently read about a woman who taught her children the truth of Christianity, and was found out by the Roman authorities to be a Christian. The authorities gave her a chance to repeal and recant her Christian beliefs, and her husband pleaded with her to reject Christianity because her children needed their mother to live. The mother thought that it would be a bad testimony to teach her children about Christianity only to reject it, so she was martyred. I just don't know if I could do that. I don't know if I were being tortured if I would recant my Christian beliefs or not. I tend to think I would, I think that I would probably have the attitude that God would understand. But would God really understand? Perhaps, this is why God wouldn't call me to be a martyr. I don't know. As I thought about feeding the Christians to the wild animals as entertainment and other emperors using burning Christians as torches to light the way, it just made me wonder, how far would I go before recanting to keep my life? I hope that I would never recant, but do we realize what the early Church had to go through? Do we realize the importance of correct Christian beliefs for the early Church? I don't think that I do.

Nestorius v. Cyril

Nestorius is an early bishop in the Church, I think circa 4th century. Cyril is the biship who countered Nestorius. Nestorius is often considered a heretic for his teachings, but recent analysis of his claims have basically shown Nestorius to be confused. Once again reading about Christology always makes me wonder why doesn't the Church in America preach about this? Why do we preach 7 steps to financial freedom, instead of orthodox Christologies? Anybody who knows the answer to this please let me know...

BTW, this discussion is in a great book. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, I would recommend anybody who is interested in theology to read this book. It is perhaps the best introduction to Christian Theology that I can think of.

One interesting thing that Cyril accuses Nestorius of doing is disregarding historical teaching in the church. This reminded me why I went into philosophy instead of theology. I am convinced that the only kind of theology that is worth doing now days is historical theology, unless one does pastoral theology which I consider to be a response to contemporary concerns. Moreover, most contemporary systematic theology is an attempt to be creative, i.e. the concern is not so much doing good theology, but doing theology that is new and different. This is an absolute shame, why mess with something that works. In our contemporary culture we often have an arrogance towards things and events that have taken place in the past. Instead of learning from history, we think that we are above history. This is why it is so important to understand that past theological debates, because the current debates are just a continuation, i.e. same game with different players.

I'll leave you with three questions that were asked in the Nestorius v. Cyril debate. Just to assert one thing, Cyril was extremely concerned that everyone understood the Incarnation to be fully God and fully man. That means the Incarnation, Christ, possessed everything that God possessed and everything that man possessed. Another aspect of this debate is a theological title given to Mary - is she the bearer of God? So, this implies two souls, if God has a soul, two minds, etc. Here are the questions:
(1) Was God born of Mary, or was a man born of Mary?
(2) Did God die on the cross, or did a man die on the cross?
(3) Should the human nature of Christ be worshipped?

Problem with Hick's Pluralism: Ad Hick

The Sundays are playing right now on launchcase - Wild Horses, pure greatness. Their genre is modern rock/adult alternative. Am I that old that I like adult alternative? That's ok, b/c I still like Rancid and P.O.D. along with some Tool, NIN, and Ministry. Now, I feel better, maybe I'm not so old after all.... Now The Cure is playing... I'm telling everyone, launchcast is pure greatness...

Hick's pluralism... Hick makes two metaphysical claims that hold true for all religions

(1) All of the great world religions worship a manifestation of the Real
(2) The Ultimate Real is a transcendent ultimate reality that is beyond all human concepts.

So, if we take these two premises, we can only experience manifestations of the Real but not the Real itself. When we apply human concepts to the Real, the concepts are of the manifestations, not the Real itself. So, when we describe a manifestation of the Real as a Triune God, this is true, because we are applying a human concept to the manifestation, not the Real itself.

Here's a huge caveat: Hick denies an orthodox Christology, so Christ is not divine. Hence the Trinity is not Triune, but a Duality. So, when Christians claim to experience the risen Christ or experience a Triune God they are false. When Christians claim to experience the risen Christ, they are really experiencing the God that Christ taught about.

So, Hick's pluralism is a true pluralism, but many people are mistaken. To get to the truth these people have to rely upon Hick's interpretation to understand what they are really experiencing. I think that in many ways, pluralism is often intellectual imperalism, especially Hick's pluralism.

Here is the traditional notion of pluralism, which is really relativism.

(3) Everybody is right, and nobody is wrong. (Pluralist claim)
(4) No, I'm right and the pluralist is wrong. (Exclusivist claim)
(5) The pluralist is right and wrong. (Incoherent position)
(6) It is false that something can be A and not A, therefore pluralism is false.

Pluralistic arguments have resurfaced as pragmatic arguments where if something works then it is true. This is very dangerous for Christianity, because as Christians, we ought to be concerned with truth, for truth's sake.

Absofreakinlutely Stoked

I am excited, despite the fact that I fell asleep at 8AM this morning and woke up at noon Lynne Rudder-Baker's book Explaining Attitudes arrived in the mail today. I'm going to read through this book and use many of the arguments in the book to argue against physicalist theories of intentionality and mental content.

Good Morning/Good Night

I'm off to bed, 16 pages. I'm waking up at 1PM to read and read some more, it's due at 5PM, so hopefully I'll walk over to the philosophy department office around 4PM.

I was just thinking how excited I am about that spring semester. I'm stoked about my philsophy of language seminar. I still haven't finished all my papers from this semester and I'm excited about next semester AND it's 6:43AM

I'M JACKED UP!!!

I'm just glad I have an awesome friend in IL, who likes jacked up philosophers. If I can call myself a philosopher, maybe that's a title someone else has to give to you.

Antony Flew & Intelligent Design

In philosophy of religion, many times when we read an atheistic perspective, Antony Flew is the token atheist. Now, he has converted to deism. Deism is the view that God is a watchmaker who wound up the watch and left it alone, to run all by itself. This is the view that Thomas Jefferson held. Deism denies that God is personal. Supposedly, one of the reasons that Flew admitted that God exists, is due to recent arguments in intelligent design. One of the leaders in this movement is William Dembski, who is now at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Dembski is attempting to determine probability in detecting design. If he could establish a proof, this would be devastating for atheists. Not that they would give up their beliefs, but they would have to admit that intelligent design is more plausible than evolution. I must admit that I am absolutely shocked to hear about Antony Flew, don't get me wrong, I know that he isn't a Christian nor is he going to heaven, but still, for one who has read his works, I am speechless.

Here is a link to the article about Flew.

Poor John Hick

This is for my missionary friends, now Di can sarcastically say, "Poor John Hick." I'm writing a paper about him that is due on Friday (today) in about 14 hours, so when the folks in Poland roll out of bed, around 11AM I'll still be up working on this paper.

John Hick is currently one of the most vocal advocates for religious pluralism. Perhaps the most interesting fact about Hick is that he once was an evangelical. As a law student at the University College, Hull, Hick underwent as he described, “a powerful evangelical conversion under the impact of the New Testament figure of Jesus.” Hick experienced a higher truth and sensed the presence of a greater power. Eventually Hick accepted what he calls the evangelical package of theology: “the verbal inspiration of the Bible; Creation and Fall; Jesus as God the Son incarnate, born of a virgin, conscious of His divine nature, and performing miracles of divine power; redemption by His blood from sin and guilt; Jesus’ bodily resurrection, ascension, and future return in glory; heaven and hell.”

After serving in World War II with an ambulance unit, and upon returning to the University of Edinburgh to finish his philosophical studies, Hick had a crisis of faith. He didn’t have any answers as to how the sun stood still for a day according to the biblical passage in Joshua 10:13. The creation account in Genesis appeared to be contradictory with respect to what we know about evolutionary biology. He didn’t know how an all-loving God can send people to Hell for eternal torment. According to Hick, there didn’t seem to be any good answers to these questions.

For Hick, his first departure from the orthodox faith was when he questioned whether belief in the Incarnation required a belief in the historicity of the virgin conception. Hick claims that it’s actually beneficial for other young people to undergo an evangelical conversion similar to his, in order to jolt the younger generation out of the “secular humanism of our culture.” Although, a conversion like Hick’s is only beneficial so long as one is able to later remove the evangelical bent of one’s religious beliefs at a later date.

Hick now claims that anyone who is a thinking person can’t possibly accept a form of exclusivism

Just so everybody knows, exclusivism is that there is only one truth.

I also should let everybody know that I don't agree with Hick, I actually argue against him.

Vastly Improved

As I was walking to check the mail, I was contemplating - as a good philosopher is supposed to do - how much better my writing has become since I began blogging. I even had one friend comment that he has noticed a big improvement in my blog entries since I first started. So to everybody who keeps me accountable to write, and sometimes more accountable than I want to be with respect to precision and clarity, thanks.

So, tomorrow I am turning in my second paper, and my last paper is due on Wednesday. This means that after I turn in my paper tomorrow I have time to do some serious reading again. This is cause for much joy and celebration. I am going to begin reading a book called Self Expressions. As you my loyal reader(s) may or may not know, in philosophy there is what is called an "AOS" area of specialty. As many of you already know, one of my areas of specialty is philosophy of religion, but my other specialty is mind & language (aka, the philosophy of language, and the philosophy of mind). Self Expressions is a book on the philosophy of mind, concerning how there can be a meaning to life and any kind of ethical system if all that exists is physical matter. Immanuel Kant had an expression concerning ethics that was: "ought implies can." This means that if we ought to do something, we need to have the ability to do something. Hence, if we cannot perform any action, but for the action that we actually perform, then we are under no ethical obligations whatsoever, with respect to moral actions. If we live in a completely physical universe, then everything is the result of molecules bumping into each other, even our thoughts are the result of molecules colliding with other molecules. It's very difficult for the atheist to have any kind of morality if the universe is pure matter. This is why I am reading Self Expressions, I would like to see what the arguments for morality are if everything is physical and deterministic. Hopefully I'll get a lot of reading done tomorrow, I can't wait - WOO-HOO!!!

How sad is this?

Tonight, before going to bed, actually about 15 minutes ago, I watched the preview for Revenge of the Sith. It almost brought tears to my eyes, literally, yes, I AM SERIOUS! It had the part from Episode IV: A New Hope, where Obi-Wan is explaining to Luke that Darth Vader was Jedi who was seduced by the dark side. Obi-Wan also told Luke that Vader was Obi-Wan's pupil. I mean, this is sheer greatness. Thinking about it makes me want to weep... well maybe not weep, but it sure does get my misty-eyed. I think I'll watch it one more time before I go to bed. One of my best friends and I are going to get together one day over Christmas break and watch Episodes I, II, IV, V, and VI - all on one day. We decided that it was the right thing to do to watch over 10 hours of Star Wars in one day. His wife allows this too. Well, I'll return to my difficult to read philosophical/theological treatises tomorrow.

Home & Academics

I was flipping through the blogroll of Bananawama and TCUgirly tonight - because I was procrastinating so I could keep from writing my paper on John Hick. (I am at the beginning of my 7 page right now. I can go to bed after I write this post.) One of the xanga sites I cam across was a girl who was going to SWBTS. It reminded me how much I miss Fort Worth. I know that both OK and TX are in the southwest, but the states are extremely different. Texas has to be one of the coolest states in the U.S. (don't take this statement literally, b/c it is 100+ everyday in the summer) and I miss TX. I must admit that this is the most that I have been relaxed all semester... though I have a final tomorrow that I haven't studied for. Don't worry, it will be essay and true/false, and last time I studied about this much and earned a 98. This final is for philosophy of mind. I turned in my first paper on Monday, my paper for religious epistemology is due on Friday and next Wednesday my paper for philosophy of mind is due. So, things are finally starting to wind down.

I have begun to think about what I will do for the summer. I think that I am going to try and get a job at Starbucks, I only want to work about 20-30 hours a week, I just need something to do. I have thought about teaching as an adjunct at a community college - they have the best teachers you know - but that would be more work than I want to do. So Starbucks sounds good, because they treat their employess well, give you a free pound of coffee every week, free coffee while you work, and a 30% discount when you're not working. All of these things rock.

My real motivation for working at a place like Starbucks is that I worry sometimes that I become too much of a philosopher and academic. Philosophers have their own lingo and way of taking peoples words and statements literally. Then analyzing what the grammatical structure is and the many possible meanings that the speaker could have intended. It's good for me to hang out with normal people who don't wonder whether a statement somebody made is a modus ponens or a modus tolens argument. Yes, I am weird.

BTW - I just tried to log onto AIM and it said I was blocked... did I make anyone mad at me?

Divine Nature & Human Nature

In order to sufficiently answer Di's quesitons I decided to dedicate a post to some of the issues brought up - and some of them ones that I haven't really thought about. So I appreciate the questions because they have caused me to think more deeply about the Incarnation.

Virgin conception
It's often referred to as the virgin birth, but it's better to call it the virgin conception. This is because, Mary was made pregnant through supernatural means. Hence, she remained a virgin, though she helped to conceive. Why is the virgin conception important? I would suggest that if Jesus is fully God and fully man, then He would have to be conceived of differently than a typical man. Some theologians have denied that the virgin conception is important, but I thought of two reasons to maintain this position: (1) prima facie reason, the Bible teaches it; (2)this tends to lend credence to the idea that Christ is fully God and fully man, the processes that brought about His birth are supernatural, yet natural.

Sin Nature
Is the sin nature of humans and essential property that humans must have? --No, it isn't. Adam and Eve were fully human, yet they both lacked the sin nature. Only upon sinning did they receive the sin nature. Remember, Romans teaches us that Jesus is the second Adam. In other words, Jesus is a human as God originally created humans - without sin or a sin nature. So is it meaningful that Christ was tempted? Just because He was tempted doesn't mean that He sinned, or wanted to sin. What does it mean to be tempted? I would think that the offer of solicitation would be enough for a temptation. The rejection of this offer could be without hesitation, yet, the temptation would have occurred. Temptation doesn't imply sin nature. On the other hand, if Christ did have a sin nature, then He would have been a sinner. Having a sin nature implies that one is a sinner, hence one is guilty of sin.

Omnipotence
I'm not sure why C.S. Lewis would claim that God has to give up some of His omnipotence if humans and angels have freedom. I'm going to assume that Lewis means that humans and angels have libertarian freedom. Yet, this would imply that God loses some of his omniscience. Perhaps through losing some of his omniscience, God loses some of His omnipotence. His ability to react and use His power is limited by His loss of knowledge.

nonexistent objects

First of all, I'd like to say that on launchcast the Halloween Remix by Ministry is playing. A band that got their start in one of my best friend's favorite city - Chicago. A city that this friend of mine has betrayed by not rooting for their hapless yet fabled baseball franchise.

On to doctrinal matters. I don't know if many of you are familiar with Christian apologist William Lane Craig or not, but I wanted to post some thoughts about him. I was first exposed to him when he debated an atheist, and this is what has inspired me to become a philosopher, when Craig debated an atheist I realized that Christians can show that Christianity is true, just as much as atheists can show that it is false. I have become increasingly more disappointed with Craig, during the Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in San Antonio he demonstrated his lack of knowledge and understanding by asking several frivolous questions. However my biggest disappointment is his endorsement of an apollonarian position. An appolonarian believes that Christ inhabited just flesh when He was incarnated. Instead of claiming that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man, an apollonarian will claim that He was fully God entombed in flesh. Now my readers aren't theological readers like I am, but I want to ask you, how important is it to get the Incarnation right? Is it important to understand the Incarnation and is it part of preaching the gospel? I think that it is, explaining the Trinity and the Incarnation, I believe is part of preaching the gospel.

On a somewhat related note, I am writing a metaphysics paper in which I am arguing that we can attribute properties to objects that don't exist. So an impossible object such as the round square, can have the properties of roundness and squareness, yet not exist. The key of the whole argument is that I have to establish or argue for a method of being able to refer to these nonexistent objects. Now, some people would claim that the Incarnation leads to a logical contradiction. However, a contradiction by definition is something that is: A & not A. So we don't claim that the Incarnation is God and not God, nor do we claim that the Incarnation is man and not man. We claim that the Incarnation is fully God and fully man. This includes some things that people don't like, and this is why William Lane Craig is an apollonarian. So if the Incarnation is fully God and fully man, then Jesus has the mind of God and the mind of man. The knowledge that God has and the knowledge that man has. By biblical definition of the Incarnation we can't deny that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. So part of the reason that I'm writing this paper on nonexistent objects is to learn more about the predication of properties that appear to lead to incompatibilities.

Anyway, I would appreciate comments on how important fundamental doctrines are for preaching the gospel.

books, books, books, and more books...

I always know when I'm depressed. How do I know? I compulsively surf Amazon.com and look for good prices on books. Then I buy books, lots and lots of books. Well, maybe not that many, this week I bought six. What can I say, as I told one of my best friends who lives in IL and wants to do some missions in India, "I'm a book whore, I lust after books." I love to read, I'm weird.

Well, thanks for the advice Di, I will pray more about my sleep pattern. I've had a lot of times this semester when I wake up in a sweat, but I never remember having had a nightmare, except once, it gives me the chills thinking about it right now. Yeah, I probably haven't done the best job with spiritual warfare, about all I can say is that for the most part, I've continued my quiet time. But even that has been sub-par for me. I was on a reading plan where you read the NT through in a month... it took me more like 3 months. Now, I've just about finished reading Genesis. One of the signs that I'm beginning to recover from my slump is that I'm regaining my thirst for the Word and constantly thinking about what I've read.

Well, I'd better get back to my paper, it's due on Monday. In the meantime, I'll fantasize about reading all of the books that I've ordered, and about how many more thoughts I'll be able to think. WOO-HOO!!!

Another one of those mornings

Well, just to post my thoughts before I shower and go to bed. Still thinking about what I am going to argue in my paper - this is not good since my paper is due on Monday. I am at the point now where I feel really depressed and this is probably more the result of my being tired than anything else. Right now I feel like I will moan for a long time when I lay down in bed - this however is good, because I usually dread going to bed because I cannot sleep. Ever since my dad died my sleep pattern has been really jacked up, and this jacked up sleep pattern was not helped by my brother's death this summer.

I don't have much theological wit or wisdom to spout forth, I did read a lecture tonight (perhaps it is last night since this is the morning) by N.T. Wright. I'll post it on my blog tomorrow, it was very encouraging and it was given for Christians in a postmodern culture. One of the things I appreciate about scholars like Wright is that they get the big picture of the whole Bible. The Bible is a unified book, not just a series of separate books; sometimes I even think that the worst thing that was done to the Bible was putting the chapter numbers and verse numbers in it. This makes people think that they need to understand every verse as in individual apart from the whole. Oh well, not much I can do about that now. Happy Bible reading everyone.

Intentionality & Worship

I have an idea for a paper that I will submit to be presented in November at the national Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting - at Valley Forge, PA. Here is the thesis: If materialism is true, Christians cannot worship God, because worshipping God entails that our thoughts and affections are about and directed at God. However, no naturalistic theories of content or intentionality have proved fruitful, hence Christians ought not be materialists.

I should say that I still reject Rene Descartes' and Plato's notions of the soul. This is something that hopefully I can explain later on, and tell a story that is consistent theologically and philosophically.

Intentionality is the concept that our thoughts are about something (or directed at something).

Materialism is the idea that all that exists is matter, but this view also allows for the existence of God.

Physicalism claims that all that exists is what science claims exists, hence there cannot be any type of deity in a physicalist worldview. (I think naturalism and physicalism are synonymous terms.)

So my question to everybody is (hopefully I have explained all the terms that I've used and you can understand my thesis), is my notion of worship right? Is worship simply the fact that our thoughts and affections are directed at and focused on God? I realize that worship involves thanking God for what He has done, acknowledging who He is, and giving glory to God - I don't think that we can do any of these things if our thoughts cannot be directed towards God. Anyway, I think this is my whole paper, of course I'll flesh things out more and give more sustained arguments, but this is the abstract for my paper topic.

John Hick's pluralism

I will first begin by explaining what pluralism is - pluralism is the idea that all religions worship a manifestation of the ultimate reality (or being). I am writing a paper in response to John Hick's pluralism. First of all, when everybody is right, nobody is right: if the buddhists are correct and there isn't a deity, then how can those who are followers of the Triune God be right? How can Christians rightly be said to worship the true living God? Second, Hick claims that most religions are the result of cultural perspectives, yet, Christianity began as an Eastern religion. Has anybody heard of the Eastern Orthodox Church? However, Christianity is often considered a Western religion. So I really think that religions are too diverse to use cultural diversity to explain their differences. Hick believes that every major religion teaches compassion for their fellow man. Once again I think that this is incorrect, Christianity would claim that we have compassion for our fellow man because of the Grace of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Also, I would ask if Islam really teaches compassion for one's fellow man. Is Jihad an Islamic notion? What is the meaning of Jihad, are the terrorists true muslims or a part of the rebel fringe of Islam? If terrorists are true Muslims, then Islam doesn't seem to teach compassion for one's fellow man.

This is about it, my arguments will be a bit more complex, but this is just a simple summary critique of John Hick.

Communitarian Hermeneutics

Post-Modern Theology - by popular demand

One of the main tenets of post-modern theology is a community hermeneutic. (So none of you have to look this up, a hermeneutic is an interpretation, and this can be an interpretation of anything, but in this instance it's the interpretation of the Bible.) What is a community hermeneutic? The community decides what they believe. Take the example of the feminist community, I don't have any specific non-biblical examples, but they would understand some parts of the Bible where it teaches wives to submit to their husbands, as no longer applicable, because this is patriarchal, and Jesus taught that everyone was equal. The concerns of the feminist community would guide the manner in which they read the Bible. A liberation hermeneutic reads the Bible in a revolutionary manner, if a liberation community is being oppressed, they would understand Exodus and 'The Exodus' of Moses and the Israelites to apply to them. Hence those in the oppressed community would then use whatever means necessary to overthrow their oppressors. If this means they get out the AK-47 and kill their oppressors, then this is what they do.

Many post-modern theologians encourage this type of hermeneutic. Why? Because there is no God's-eye perspective. The only person that has a God's-eye perspective is God, but even then we can't be sure what God is telling us. Therefore, we really can't know what is true, so truth is determined by the community that we live in. (Not to get the GA Dem riled up, but there might be a 'Republican' hermeneutic - not to say that Christians ought to be democrats though, just making a value-neutral statement.)

Obviously this is very problematic for the Christian community. We need to have some standard or criterion for a true biblical hermeneutic and truth. I suggest that we have a community hermeneutic, but among the church as a whole. This includes the entire community of the Church, from Adam to John the Apostle, from Clement of Rome to Kevin Vanhoozer. This would include, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, and etc. Hopefully you get the picture. Not that an individual shouldn't read the Bible by herself, but that she ought to read the Bible with the entire church in mind. If an individual interprets the Bible in such a manner that no one else agrees with that person's interpretation. Then that individual ought to re-examine the Scripture. Throughout the entire history of the Church, including St. Augustine and John Calvin, famous theologians have made mistakes interpreting Scripture. Why can we as individuals expect to do any better? We need to interpret Scripture in light of the entire community of the Church. There is an absolute truth and God uses the Holy Spirit acting and present among the Body of Christ to reveal His truth to us.

Reformed Missionaries

When I was at seminary every year, all the time, they had missions focus. The first thing that everyone would tell you is that the country they were a missionary in was beautiful. The people were beautiful, they were serving God, God was moving. They would always show you how exotic their country was and how much cool stuff you could do there. It always seemed to me that it was an emotional appeal, kinda like the Navy used to advertise, "See the world. Join the Navy." One of my friends was a missions recruiter and I called him out about this one time. I asked him, "how come we are made to feel guilty if we don't go to the mission field?" My friend was very apologetic about this approach but he would also say, what do you expect? This is true, almost every missionary I've known (except for one if you count internet friends) have been extremely emotional about missions. In fact, these people haven't known their theology, all they want to tell people is that, "Jesus loves you." I'll get back to this later, but first I want to mention another point of contention I raised with my friend. I asked him, how come most people treat mission trips, or being a missionary as an extended vacation. It also seemed like a lot of people that did missions, did so because they didn't know what else to do. My friend also responded to this, very gracefully I might add, that they did have counseling sessions with people before they left and told them about the hardships that they would face in the field. Yet, many people go overseas without truly being called by God - my friend was upfront about this. This is why I suppose it's difficult to become a full-time missionary.

Back to theology. It's great to tell people that Jesus loves them, people need to know that, but there's a slight problem with this. Why is it important for people to know that Jesus loves them? Who is Jesus? He's the Son of God, what does this mean? Why did God send Jesus to die on the cross - Jesus died for my sins. Well if God is all-powerful, why couldn't He forgive us without sending His son to die on the cross? God had to punish somebody so He put Jesus in your place? Yeah, but just because I lie doesn't mean that I should be put to death - right? Even then, God can forgive me for lying, so what kind of God would kill His own Son? God must not be very powerful if He couldn't forgive us without killing His own Son. Now I realize that many people don't follow this line of thinking, though when I was in Vancouver for a intership as a church planter, this is the attitude that I was met with. Canada is different from many places that missionaries visit, yet, missionaries need to know their theology. How can you tell people about God if you don't know who God is? I realize that none of us will ever fully understand who God is - that's besides the point - we need to do the best we can to explain who God is if we are to present the gospel to people. If we tell someone in England to come down and get saved she would have no idea what we are talking about. It's difficult to speak another language than Christianese if you don't understand the gospel yourself.

I have more to say about how the Southern Baptist Convention does missions but I'll save it for later...

What I really wanted to say is that I praise God for reformed missionaries who have an idea about what they believe and have a biblical theology. I truly sleep better at night because of this - honestly.

God & Time: part 1

As promised I will present the view that God is atemporal, or without time in this post.

In classical theism (classical theism means that God is simple, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and exists outside of time - in other words, God is the greatest possible being) the view that God exists outside of time is widely accepted. However, in contemporary philosophy and theology the idea that God is outside of time is a minority view. I think part of this is due to the fact that most people reject classical theism, and also like the idea of a more anthropomorphic God (more humanlike), but I don't - I like to worship a God who is wholly transcendent and not humanlike.

How do things work if God is outside of time? For starters, there aren't any moments for God if He exists outside of time. There is one eternal now, in one moment every action that God performed was completed. This is why the atemporal view of God is difficult to understand. The first difficulty is that of the Incarnation, how could God become man and interact in time, without losing His atemporality? Well, this is a difficult question to understand, but I would suggest that we might understand it by holding to a robust Trinitarian view of God and hold to the idea that while God the Son was in time, God the Father remained outside of time. Also, it is difficult to hold to a notion of free-will, unless one wants to argue for middle-knowledge, but I don't think middle-knowledge works. Third, it's difficult to understand how God can interact with a world in time if He is outside of time, yet again I'll appeal to the Trinity. Throughout the Bible God has used messengers, e.g. the Angel of the Lord, and has been in time Himself, e.g. Holy Spirit, the Son. This is something that I'll have to work on some more, because I don't want to hold to tri-theism, which in actuality is polytheism.

Advantages to holding to the view that God is outside of time, God sees all of time as if it were present, so there is a reason to trust that prophecy is accurate. For those who hold that God is inside of time, God knows the probably outcomes of future events, but can't be sure. Yet, if we assert that God is outside of time, then we can see how prophecy is accurate. I think this view of God is also the more biblical view of God, it's less anthropomorphic. Also, heaven is where God dwells, yet none of us would claim that we can travel to heaven. Why is this? Is heaven located within time? Another question to ask is, is time a creation of God? If God created time, then He shouldn't be constrained or restricted by His creation, but the view of God in time restricts God. If God is contrained by time because time has always existed, then there is another entity that is equal to God because it exerts some form of control over Him. This is why I hold to a timeless view of God.

Obviously there are many difficult issues to deal with. I'm going to continue to read through the different positions. Perhaps I'll be swayed to another position, but I just don't like the idea of God being constrained by time or not knowing the future, it just doesn't seem biblical.

Bitter ol' man

I think I'm just a bitter old man (28) but I am going to rant about these things regardless.

What does it mean to say that God has a plan for your life? Do we say this to comfort ourselves that our lives have meaning? If someone told me that it's ok don't worry God has a plan for you life, I'd say of course God has a plan for my life, but I need to follow it. But do people who say that God has a plan for my life mean that regardless they will follow God's plan because it's God's plan? If so, then are these people hardcore Jonathan Edwards reformed and deterministic? Or do they believe in free-will? If they believe in free will then believing that God has a plan for them and that regardless of what happens they will be in God's plan is absolutely incoherent! How can it make sense to be in God's plan regardless of your actions if you have free will? (This is why I reject a libertarian concept of free-will, though I belong to the libertarian political party - I'll explain that later.) It seems that all too often to me Christians are more concerned with how God can help them, than with understanding who God is. It's almost as if (By the way Di your quote from Tozar, is completely opposite of what I'm ranting against.) we only care about God as long as He is relevant to us. Of course God is relevant, He is the transcendent being who created us. How could knowing about the being who created us not be relevant? I'm just baffled at the self-centered nature of American Christians, it's an epidemic. I know I struggle with it, but I think that I realize that God does not exist to make my life easier or to assist me, but I exist to serve God and to have the privilige of working alongside God to bring more glory to Him. This is God's plan for me - so I know what God's plan is for my life and that is to serve Him. Yet if I don't serve God, He will find someone else who will serve Him. God doesn't need me, and as soon as Christians realize this, they will begin to live differently - I hope, at least this is my prayer.

ETS/EPS Report

I must admit that I really immensely enjoyed my mini-vacation in San Antonio. I really needed it - though I didn't get much sleep the two nights in San Antonio, since I've gotten back I've slept 9 hours and 10 hours. This is an unheard of amount of sleeping for me, I'm lucky if I get 7 hours let alone 8 hours.

There was an interesting tone being set at the meeting. Openness theology is definitely getting hammered on. But what really got hammered on is post-modern evangelical theologians. These are theologians that deny truth is foundational and claim that truth is only found in the community of believers. Stanley Grenz was hammered on the hardest. These theologians were referred to as "cowards" and their idea of truth being non-foundational as "not worthy of the martyrs' blood" - this is what J.P. Moreland said (a Christian apologist who has written popular level books).

I only bought six books while I was there: First Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer; Out of Egypt (vol. 5 in a hermeneutics series); God & Time, ed. Greg Ganssle; Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark; New Testament Theology, I. Howard Marshall; Problem of Evil, ed. Peter van Inwagen.

So, the book that I'm mostly reading now is God & Time. I just read a section on the atemporalist view of God by Paul Helm. I'm going to read it again then post a summary on my blog tomorrow. It will keep me accountable to reading if I post some interesting arguments from what I'm reading.

A-Musing

As I was driving to Fort Worth to meet my friend Mike so we could drive down to San Antonio for the ETS/EPS conference I noticed a huge billboard. The billboard I noticed was for Tommie Nelson's Song of Solomon Conference. Now, I'm single, and I like hot chics as much as the next guy, and I'm not opposed to being married. I'm 28 and engrossed in philosophy/theology, but I have time for the ladies, but... I'm not obsessed with getting married - though I may be obsessed with other things. Why is it that all of the Christian books that sell the most are on sex? Are evangelicals that obsessed with sex and marriage? Why? Is everyone afraid of being alone? This doesn't seem to be a phenomenon among the secular crowd, why is it? I think it's because the church makes those who are single feel as if they are handicapped if they aren't married. It's almost as if, pastors say, "poor single person, don't worry, someday you'll be happy when you get married." First of all, I'm going to say, I love being single, I've done so much that I wouldn't have been able to do if I were married, I praise God that I have and will continue to take advantage of my singleness. Though, upon being in the right situation with the right person, I'm not opposed to being married. However, I'm not going to be one of those people who reads all of the books preparing myself for my future wife, because that is just a bunch of worldly wisdom preparing us for marriage.

Why is it worldly? Well, because there are two types of marriage that I can think of OT marriages which are arranged and NT, in which you have sex when you're engaged and then the husband builds a house and him and his fiance move out of their parents house. So, which type of marriage do the Christian marriage books prepare us for? Neither, because we don't follow either model of marriage. I'm not advocating either model. All that I am saying is that contemporary evangelical books on marriage and dating are a JOKE! I thought about much of this as I looked at some of the book titles at the ETS/EPS meeting. By the way, why is Josh Harris so famous? A little fact, Tommie Nelson's church wasn't big until he did his Bible teaching on the Song of Solomon, and that's when his church really grew. The sad fact of the matter is that in Song of Solomon, the book in the Bible, they do have sex before they are married. In many ways Tommie Nelson butchers the text to get it to say what he wants it to say so that he can support his notion of dating and courtship. I'm not opposed to courtship, just don't try to make a biblical argument for it to me, because courtship is not in the Bible and it certainly IS NOT in the Song of Solomon.

I just hope that the current evangelical obsession with marriage produces some better theology on this issue.


UPDATE (11/20): Perhaps what I should have said is that the cultural norm for the OT is arranged marriages and the cultural norm for the NT was sex while engaged, while the groom prepares a house for his bride. Jesus only condemmed the act of divorce and polygamy, He never criticized the cultural practices of marriage.

Everyone should be proud of me!!!

Look at the time of this post - no I didn't alter it, this is how early I got up today... well not really, this is how late I stayed up working on a paper. Why did I stay up so late working on a paper? Well, I'm glad you asked that question, because it's a good question. I'm leaving to go to San Antonio today, after I little bit of sleep, for the the Evangelical Theological/Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting. Lots of people go there to present papers. This year a big thing will be a discussion between N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan (one of the founders of the [JOKE] Jesus Seminar). Some of the big philosophers will be William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and the more technical, less pop philosophers will include Robert Koons and Michael Rea. (Not that anybody ever goes to the links that I put on my blog, but just in case anybody wants to go, I put the links there.)

So what is going to be the greatest thing about going to San Antonio - besides seeing all of my old seminary friends - THE BOOKS!! See, I absolutely lust after books, it's my biggest weakness, if someone told me that they would buy me a book if I didn't eat one day, I would do it, without thinking about it. At the ETS/EPS they will have books for 50%, a book whore's dream. I can't wait to look at the book display, of course, first, I need to get some sleep, only after I finish my paper...

It's early/late

Not much to say... been thinking about how I can refute Quine's extensionalism. Listening to Johnny Cash right now on launchcast... if any of you don't have it you should download it off of yahoo messenger.

"My name is Sue! How do you do? Now, you gonna die!"
"... cuz I'm the &%$* that named you Sue!"
--Johnny Cash


Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
The Dude: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no reason why these two...
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?


Walter Sobchak: The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy adversary.
Donny: Who's in pajamas Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut up, Donny.

Have you ever been....

Have you ever been so tired that you're sad? That's how I feel right now... I think I'm kinda delirious... maybe not... I don't know...

Anyway, I've been working on a paper that I need to turn in a day early on Tuesday, because I'm going to the national Evangelical Theological Society/Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in San Antonio. So, I need to get this paper done, and I have the rest of the weekend, I suppose, or at least what's left of the weekend.

Here are some more quotes, but they are to make me laugh.

Walter Sobchak: Those rich [punks]! This whole thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this strumpet...
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection


Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
The Dude: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no reason why these two...
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?

Back to Philosophy

Well, as much as I LOVE to read Francis Schaeffer, for the rest of this weekend, it's back to W.V.O. Quine's Word and Object. Quine's a physicalist - this is different from a materialist - because Quine claims that all that exists is what science claims exists. A materialist believes that all that exists is material objects. Hence, some Christians are materialists, they believe that God is a material object, but I haven't read them in depth so I really don't know how God could be a material object.

BTW, Maria and Brian are the only people that I know who have seen The Big Lebowski and haven't liked it. If you do see it though, be warned, it contains very colorful language. Here are some more pertinent quotes to my situation right now (all from different scenes):

Walter Sobchak: "Nihilists! me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

The Dude: Walter, what is the point? Look, we all know who is at fault here, what the are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: Huh? No, what the are you... I'm not... We're talking about unchecked aggression here, Dude.
Donny: What the is he talking about?
The Dude: My rug.
Walter Sobchak: Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!
The Dude: Walter, the chinaman who peed on my rug, I can't go give him a bill, so what the are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: What the are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

Walter Sobchak: You have got to buck up, man. You cannot drag this negative energy in to the tournament!


OK, now back to Quine
See, I hold to a realist intentionality, which says (loosely, non-technically), when I think about something that object has mental inexistence in my mind. Quine denies that there is any intentionality, for that matter he denies that there is a mind. So I'm reading through Quine's articles and his book, to lay out his argument so that I can then critique it. Right now, I'm reading about referential opacity. FUN!! FUN!! I know all my readers wish that they could be in grad school doing philosophy, walking around and thinking about problems with reference and intentionality, but alas, God only selects a few lucky people to do this type of glamorous service for Him. (Though I do consider what I'm doing to be worth doing for the glory of God.) So, anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

Just remember, if you're feeling blue, old skool punk cheers me up. I listened to some Rancid today. The other day I listened to some Dead Kennedys - Blow up the MTV

Church & State relations

(This post is not directed at any one individual but is a warning for believers in general.)

I like to read both liberal and conservative stories to gain my information, because I have found that if you read just conservative or just liberal sources, then you will only have partial information. So I read the The New Republic, which is slightly left of the center, but they did support Kerry in the election. On the cover of one of the most recent The New Republic was a girl who was crying and had a Kerry/Edwards sticker on her face with a Kerry/Edwards t-shirt on. All I could think for the next couple of hours is that she needs a relationship with God. How sorry I feel for this girl, because the candidate that she was supporting didn't get into office she was devastated. I realize that if Bush/Cheney would have lost the roles would have been reversed, and unfortunately I think that many so-called evangelicals would have been devastated also. I can't imagine the despair and lack of hope that these people have - how small is their world. To be so upset that one man doesn't take control over another - A MAN - and a fallen man at that, an imperfect man, a sinful man, a lying man, an egotistical man. You can put in all the adjectives that you want, but I really felt bad for this girl because it seems that her life is without true meaning. This leads me to my biggest concern, I'm afraid that at the end of the day, more evangelicals put their hope in George Bush than in God. I really think that this is true. For many people, God is getting a good job, having a moral family, and living a quiet life. We pay tribute to God to appease Him so that He'll leave us alone. I really think that this is how many evangelicals view God. Now I believe that we ought to vote our morals. I am decidedly against abortion, more so than any other issue, I'm glad that Bush won and I hope that Roe v. Wade gets overturned. If Kerry would have won my life would have gone on. I would still serve God, and possibly it would be easier to serve God because Christians would realize that they live in a post-Christian society. Now I'm worried that these so-called votes for values will confuse the Christians into equivocated between Christianity and values. Just because you're against homosexual marriage or against abortion doesn't mean that you're a Christian, for that matter, just because you're a Republican doesn't mean that you're a Christian. Sadly though, many evangelicals feel this way. I'm going to leave with a quote from Francis Schaeffer (He's reformed Di, so you need to read him.)

In the United States many churches display the American flag. The Christian flag is usually put on one side and the American flag on the other. Does having the two flags in your church mean that Christianity and the American establishment are equal? If it does, you are really in trouble. These are not two equal loyalties. The state is also under the norm of thw Word of God. So if by having the American flag in your church you are indicating to you young people that there are two equal loyalties or two intertwined loyalties, you had better find some way out of it. The establishment may easily become the church's enemy. Before the pressure comes, you young people (from kindergarten on), our older people, and our officers must understand this well: there are not two equal loyalties; Caesar is second to God. This must be preached and taught in sermons, Sunday school classes, and young people's groups.
It must be taught that patriotic loyalty must not be identified with Christianity. As Christians we are responsible, under the Lordship of Christ in all of life, to carry the Christian principles into our relationship to the state. But we must not make oure country and Christianity be synonymous.
This has always been important, but should certainly be so today. If a pastor stands in the pulpit and preaches this way, and the people come in and hear him making plain that he is not confusing the two loyalties, then even if they differ on certian specific questions, at least the pastor has maintained credibility with them. But the really important thing is not our credibility with other men, but our rightness with God. Equating any other loyalty with our loyalty to God is sin. An we had better get our priorities straight now before the pressures in our society overwhelms both us and society as we have known it. If the pressures are great now, there is every reason to be sure they will get greater.

--Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century

The Big Lebowski

I've decided to begin a new tradition on my blog, everytime I put up a new post, I will include a quote from the greatest comedy ever... THE BIG LEBOWSKI. So to start off this tradition right, I'm beginning with the introduction from THE BIG LEBOWSKI. Hopefully sometime later this week, I can put up some random thoughts on church/state relations. I definitely think that Christians have an obligation to vote for candidates that represent Christian values, but I'll get into that later... here's a quote from the greatest comedy ever.

The Stranger :

[opening narrations] Way out west there was this fella I wanna tell ya' about. Goes by the name of Jeff Lebowski. At least that was the handle his loving parents gave him, but he never had much use for himself. See, this Lebowski, he called himself "The Dude". Now, Dude, there's a name no man would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about the Dude that didn't make a whole lot of sense. And a lot about where he lived, like-wise. But then again, maybe that's why I found the place so darned' interestin'. See, they call Los Angeles the "City Of Angels", but I didn't find it to be that, exactly. But I'll allow it as there are some nice folks there. 'Course I aint never been to London, and I aint never seen France. And I aint never seen no queen in her damned undies, so the fella says. But I'll tell you what, after seeing Los Angeles, and this here story I'm about to unfold, well, I guess I seen somethin' every bit as stupefyin' as you'd seen in any of them other places. And in English, too. So I can with a smile on my face. Without feelin' like the good lord gipped me. Now this here story I'm about to unfold took place in the early nineties - just about the time of our conflict with Sad'm and the eye-rackies. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man, I wont say a hero, cause, what's a hero? Sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the Dude here - The dude from Los Angeles. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Dude. The Dude, from Los Angeles. And even if he's a lazy man, and the Dude was most certainly that. Quite possibly the laziest in all of Los Angeles County. Which would place him high in the runnin' for laziest worldwide. Sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here. But... aw, hell. I've done introduced it enough.

Comments Jacked Up!!

My comments link seems to be on the fritz right now... I don't know what's up with it.

NBA has started

Lost in all the hype and hoopla of the presidential election is the start of the NBA season. Since the NHL has cancelled their season (or they will shortly) the NBA is a huge deal. In fact we have switched our fantasy hockey league, to a fantasy hoops league. I was reading a NBA preview here an thought that this quote about Mark Cuban (the owner of the Dallas Mavericks) was hilarious. It's extremely likely that no one else who reads my blog will find it funny. Regardless, I'm posting this quote.

Any time you construct a free agent offer that's so insane, Mark Cuban studies it for a few minutes, then throws up his hands and says, "You know what, I can't match that thing" ... I mean, that's a pretty good sign you went overboard. Which is exactly what the Suns did by guaranteeing Steve Nash and his bad back $60 million. Crazy contract. Just crazy. ...I'm not going to attempt to understand Mark Cuban, since this was the same man that just inflicted "The Benefactor" on us. But something doesn't add up from last summer ... and no, I'm not talking about how the Mavs failed to pursue Shaq, which only would have meant two or three titles. Whatever.

Dangers for Evangelicals

As I said in an earlier post, the real winners of this election were the so-called evangelicals. There have been many statements made by leaders in the Democratic party that the Democrats have to re-position themselves and get back to traditional values. The Republicans pretty much destroyed the Democrats in the south and the plains of the U.S. The evangelicals are being held responsible for getting Bush re-elected. The Democrats don't want to be known as the party of the Northeast, that's pro-gay, for singles, and without morals. The Democratic leaders have vowed to gain more evangelical and religious votes. This mean that the moral balance of the country will shift towards the evangelical side. Specifically banning gay marriage, and repealing the Roe v. Wade decision. In my opinion there is no greater injustice in the world than abortion. I don't want to neglect other issues of social justice, I just think those issues ought to be handled by the church and not the government, and the fact that the church doesn't handle these issues... well, shame on the church.

Why do I think that this situation is dangerous for the evangelicals? Now it seems that they (we) are going to get everything that we want. Now, it's not necessarily a bad thing to legislate morality, but my concern is that of Soren Kierkegaard. (A very loose paraphrase of Kierkegaard is about to follow.) Kierkegaard said that when there is a state church and everyone is a Christian, there is no church and no one is a Christian. What this means is that when things are easy for the Christians, we take things for granted. I'm concerned that we might develop into a quasi-state church in the U.S. with an evangelical morality instilled among the U.S. citizens. I'm concerned that the church will reduce itself to a moral agent, no longer concerned with biblical standards of morality, but the morality that the evangelicals want to choose to follow. The theology of the American Church is nothing short of atrocious right now, we are semi-gnostic in our theology and don't even realize it. The danger for evangelicals is that we have the possibility of creating a quasi-state church, where all the evangelicals are believers and holy, without having to worship God. I'm concerned that evangelicals will commit idolatry.

Francis Schaeffer's Warning to the Real Winners

Who are the real winners, well in this election it appears that the real winners are the so-callled evangelicals. (I refer to them as 'so-called' because who knows what kind of doctrine these evangelicals believe.) As I've said before that the Republicans pander to the evangelicals, now more than ever the Republicans owe the evangelicals. The exit polls early in the day showed the Kerry was going to win, the exit polls were so decidedly in Kerry's favor that Bush had begun to lose hope that he would win the election, but as the results began to return Bush began to gain a lead over Kerry. Almost all of the political anaylysts attribute Bush's victory to the record turnout from the evangelicals. Why do I think the evangelicals are the real winners of this election? Because now the Democrats will have to begin to pander to the evangelicals - there are many states where the Democrates don't even compete with the Republicans. In fact some people claim that the Democrats are no longer a national party. The Republicans have a governor in California, New York, and Massachusets, three of the so-called liberal states. I don't believe that there are any Democrat governors in the most conservative states. So in order for the Democrats to better compete with the Republicans, the Democrats will have to begin to take the evangelicals more seriously, this is just a fact. If the evangelicals will be the most powerful force in every election, which it appears to have been the case, then Democrats will only win the presidential office by pandering to the evangelicals just as the Republicans have. Eventually, if the Democrats do pander to the evangelicals, a third party will be formed, probably to the left of the Democrats.

What have the evangelicals won? In 11 states same-sex marriage was banned. The Republican lead in the House and Senate was increased over the Democrats. Now in the Senate the Republicans hold 55 seats. When it comes time to appoint supreme court justices, the more moderate pro-life democrats may take the side of Republicans. This is why many liberals are concerned, there is a greater than 50% chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned in the future. (Abortion in my opinion is the greatest injustice in the world.) So the evangelicals have come out of this election as a major political force. (BTW, I'm a libertarian, with a pro-life argument.)

What is Francis Schaeffer's warning to the evangelicals. Well, first let me say a little bit about Schaeffer, his is a reformed apologist who studied under Cornelius van Til. Schaeffer has much to say about the post-Christian culture in the U.S. That's right POST-CHRISTIAN CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. This is not a Christian nation, regardless of what the evangelicals think. One of the things that Schaeffer says is imagine the power to transform our culture that we would have if just 20% of the United States citizens were orthodox evangelical Christians who knew their doctrine and acted out on what they believed. I think Schaeffer has a good point, supposedly there is double or triple of 20% of the people in this country who claim to be evangelical. All I'll point to is the divorce rate among evangelicals - does that look like they act out on orthodox biblical beliefs? Now Schaeffer has a warning to today's evangelicals, don't get caught up in your alliances. What does this mean? Evangelicals who have partnered with Republicans to make moral gains, banning same-sex marriage, seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, should not forget who their first allegience is to - God. Sometimes or a lot of times, evangelicals get the Republican Party confused with Christianity. The Republican Party is not ordained by God, I don't care what the evangelicals say. This is what Schaeffer is warning evangelicals about, it's good to ban abortion, but just remember, the Republican Party doesn't care about orthodox theology, the Republican party cares about staying in political power. If the Democrats come with a better deal, join a new alliance.

Suicide

I got an email this morning from St. Anselm of Canterbury, the Episcopal church that I was planning on going to, this email informed me that the chaplain of the church was dead - it appeared to be from suicide. They found him in a field, he had a wife and children. I'm still planning on going to this church, obviously it will be full of pain, but I believe that God has put me in this situation for a reason... not that I'm going to go there and heal everybody, I'll probably wait to go there for a couple of weeks while people can mourn for their pastor, but I don't know, it just seems to me to be someplace that God is leading me to.

My dad died April 16, 2003, 6 days after my 27 birthday. About 4 to 5 weeks after that one of my best friends from high school, Chris, called me up and left a message, in the message it said that it was very important that I call Chris back. Now I hadn't talked to Chris for about 2 1/2 years, and we had only talked about 4 or 5 times since I had gone off to college. Chris got married when he was 18 and his wife was 17 - they eloped. So when I got Chris' message I thought that he was in some type of legal trouble, because he was a gun dealer. I came to find out that Chris' wife had left him, so I drove over to his house right away to talk to him. He shared with me many of the details of his marriage. Chris was wearing the tuxedo that he had been married in. We prayed together and talked for a while, discussing many matters of faith. Chris wanted to know that things would be fine in a short while, and I couldn't promise him that. Many other preachers or ministers might have done so, but I knew that I didn't want to give him false hope and I told him that things would get better, but it would take time. I told Chris that I would call him and we would hang out more. I called Chris that weekend, I never got a hold of him but he left a message on my machine that he was "ok." I shortly thereafter went out of town, when I returned my mom told me that Chris had committed suicide. When he was served with his divorce papers, he went to his house knowing that his soon to be ex-wife would soon be there and shot himself in the head. My mom told me that the day after I had talked to him he attempted to commit suicide by turning on the ignition in his car while he was in the garage, but his sister had come over to check on him, and found him in the garage passed out.

All I could remember thinking that night that my mom told me that Chris committed suicide is that: "Chris lied to me, he wasn't ok."

There is nothing more selfish that anyone can do than to commit suicide. I realize that people fall into despair so deep that they think they will never recover, but the people that suffer are the friends and family members of the person who commits suicide.

This last year and a half 4 people that I've been close to have died, my dad, Chris, my brother, and someone whom I considered a second mom. Although, I'll always regret that my brother died, and his death caused me the most pain - and always will - Chris' death was the worst, because I've always wondered what I could have said differently to prevent it. In the end I realize that there is nothing I could have said differently to stop him, but I still second guess myself - I always will. Getting that email from St. Anselm of Canterbury Church, brought many of the same emotions to the surface I had after Chris died. Mostly emotions of feeling cheated and robbed of a good friend, realizing that the world would be a darker and lonlier place without Chris in it.

John 10:10

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abunddantly. (NKJV)

I was reading back through my blog comments, because (1) I was procrastinating, (2) I was bored, and (3) I noticed one entry had 12 comments. Somebody mentioned that the purpose of Jesus was John 10:10. Now, I can't remember who said it, but I think that this is a huge issue. Though we are called to lay our lives down for Christ, and to carry our cross, Jesus still tells us that in Him, we will have an abundant life. Only in Christ, so while we may lose our lives, we will only have a full life in Christ.

Just a quick mention of the cross. We often talk about the scandal of the cross, we often don't explain the significance of the scandal. Moreover, "cross" was considered a four-lettered word in the first century. "Cross" conjured up images so vile and foul, it was considered in bad taste to mention it. Just think how people, specifically evangelical Christians, causually mention bearing their cross, as if bearing the cross is something insignificant. The word "cross" was so offensive people didn't even use that word, this is why Paul's mentioning of the cross, is such a jolt to the first century Christians.

So, what is a full life, I'm not sure, but I would think that it implies that an abundant life is equivalent to our life now, just infinitely better. I do agree with the person who said that Jesus was about abundant life, this is important for us to remember. This is the tension in the gospel, but giving up our lives, we gain a more abundant life.

UPDATE 10/30:
I would say that an abundant life implies a physical bodily life but I'm not quite sure of that yet. I've been thinking about this since I wrote my post yesterday. If someone were to tell me that I was going to have a more abundant life, I would assume it would be in bodily form. Does anybody think that they'll have a more abundant life without their body, because their body restrains them in any way? Sure, we would rather not have a body that's fallen, but that is a different matter, then having no body at all. Or at least I think it is.

Liturgy & Sacraments

As I recently told a friend, I am baptist in my theology, it's just that most baptist churches don't preach baptist theology. Why not? Because of their overwhelming concern for the seekers. Sometimes we forget that worship is for the believers. Worship is not entertainment, and it isn't for non-believers, it's for those who desire to make an offering to God. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't contextualize worship, just that we shouldn't design worship to accomodate non-believers, or make non-believers feel comfortable in the presence of a Holy God. Nor, should believers feel comfortable in the presence of a Holy God.

Well, my two concerns about the episcopal church are the two sacraments, communion and baptism. Here's what the Episcopal Church's web page had to say:

Baptism is the sacrament whereby people become Christians, and thereby members of the Church. At Baptism, the new Christian (or in the case of a child, the parents or guardians) professes belief in Jesus, renounces evil before the Church, and then is immersed in (or sprinkled with) water three times—in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism represents our participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and assures us of our salvation through belief in him.

All baptized Christians participate in the Eucharist (from the Greek, meaning “Thanksgiving”) or as it is also called “Holy Communion,” “the Lord’s Supper,” or “The Mass.” The Eucharist was instituted, according to the Bible, by Jesus himself on the night of his arrest, before he was crucified. During the Eucharist, bread and wine are blessed as symbols of Christ’s body and blood. The bread is broken and shared, and then the cup of wine is passed among the worshipers as a sign of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection. The Eucharist is a continual remembrance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection until he comes again.

So let me know what you think. This looks to be in the evangelical reformed tradition. The only part I disagree with is allowing infant baptism. So I have to decide what's more important. Taking the worship of a Holy God seriously, or allowing infant baptism. I'm not sure...

Religious Experience

Recently I read an article by William Rowe, who I believe is from Australia and taught (and still does teach) at Purdue University, though he is an emeritus professor now. Rowe is a philosopher of religion, but a philosopher that we would call an atheologian, because he's an atheist and gives arguments to refute the Christian's arguments. Why is Rowe an atheist? Because, he wanted to believe, he wanted a religious experience, he prayed to God and begged and pleaded, and God never gave him an experience. So, Rowe came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Part of Rowe's reasoning involves the idea that if God exists, He will reveal Himself to us or manifest Himself to us. But is this true? Rowe also said that a famous Christian philosopher/theologian St. Anselm of Canterbury, never had a religious experience either.

[ok just remember, if you comment on my blog with questions, I'll answer them on my blog in the same comment thread that way it keeps things less confusing when we have a somewhat stimulating discussion]

Diana made a statement in her blog today, that Jesus is beautiful. This really made me think. If you ask me whether Jesus is beautiful, I would say yes, but why would I say yes? I'm really not sure, similar to Rowe and Anselm, I don't know if I've had a feeling of experiencing the beauty of Jesus. As I walked to class today, I thought about my religious experiences and except for feelings of condemnation before salvation, it's never been anything more than an assent to propositions for me. One time I went to a Buddhist temple and experienced a type of demonic presence. But I don't know what it's like or what it would be like to experience the beauty of Jesus. For myself, I really don't know what my religious experiences have amounted to. I think that most of my experiences have been of learning and teaching. So, I am confused about this. Is there something that I'm missing out on, or is God just allowing people to experience Him in different ways? I guess if I reflect upon this it may be the latter, though, I think that I would enjoy an emotional estatic religious experience that many Christians seem to have. I would love to go to a One Day event and get all hyped up - but what usually happens when I go to events like that is I get really bored, and analyze the lyrics of the worship songs to make sure that the songs I'm singing aren't heretical. In fact, many of the contemporary worship songs, I believe to be weak theologically, and many of the songs I don't sing, because it isn't an orthodox theology in the song. So this tends to ruin many contemporary worship experiences for me. Even when I go to Christian punk concerts I make sure that the lyrics are theologically correct before I sing them and even then while I am singing the lyrics I think about the significance of their meaning.

Well, before I get too cynical I should just sum up my main thought in this post. Similar to St. Anselm, I haven't really had any type of religious experiences. So if someone asks me if Jesus is beautiful I'll respond "yes" but I haven't felt or experienced Jesus' beauty, I just know that I'm forgiven due to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, hence to me, Jesus is beautiful.

FIRST 'A'

Alright, I'm extremely stoked today. I received an 'A' in my religious epistemology class. This is a big deal to me because: (1) at SWBTS they never graded difficult, they just gave grades, (2) my professor is the president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and (3) I doubt myself more than anyone else. This is awesome for me, and I'm really, really, really, excited.

Thanks to everyone for all the interesting discussion so far. One of the things that I've been kicking around in my head (if you can actually kick things around in your head) is if I ever get a job at a seminary (which is very possible) that I need to write a book on the philosophical theology of the mind/body problem. This would cover some of the things that have been discussed about the soul. I still appreciate any and all questions.

On a sad note, I did not make it to St. Anselm's church on Sunday, at the last minute I kinda got sick. It's still my goal to attend an orthodox church every Sunday, preferably a conservative orthodox church. So, I will email the two episcopal churches in the area to find out more about their doctrine. Why am I interested in Episcopal churches? They have Sunday afternoon services. My doctrine is still early church/baptist. The biggest problem I have with baptist churches is that they don't preach what they believe. It's kinda like Christians who claim that they believe in Christ, but don't live like it. Baptist churches always claim that they preach the Bible, and are biblically focused when in reality they are growth driven. I was a Southern Baptist youth minister for 3 years so I've seen how it works... sorry to be cynical.

Platonic or Cartesian: How do evangelical Christians understand the Soul?

This post is motivated by some recent questions. I think that I've ranted enough about the contemporary Christian misunderstanding of the afterlife. The ultimate goal for Christians is the future resurrection; we are all awaiting the return of Christ - the parousia (which is Christ's return) - when the resurrection of the dead will occur. Yet the focus of most Christians is going to heaven. But what part of us goes to heaven? In the Old Testament the word soul, is nephesh, which is one's body, appetites, desires, and etc. Soul, is not an immaterial object seperate from the body. According to the creation account in Genesis, animals have souls. So what makes our souls different? And, if our souls are the same as our body, or identical with our bodies, then what goes to be with Christ when we die? So, our bodies stay here but our souls leave our bodies and go to heaven, but this can't happen if our souls are identical with our bodies. Our eschatological hope is the resurrection of our bodies in a perfect state, as God originally intended before the fall; upon our bodily resurrection our bodies will be undamaged by sin.

There is a tension in all Christian theology, and most of the mistakes that are made are because of neglecting the tension. The best way to understand eschatology (last things, or the study of last things) is to have an already but not yet understanding. The power of God's Kingdom is already prevalent on earth, it began with the resurrection of Christ and the miracles that He performed - this is the already. The not yet part, is that part of us which is still affected by sin, our fallen nature - this is why we all die - we are all affected by the effects of sin.

Rene Descartes was a Catholic philosopher who held to a soul/body distinction, yet the soul was completely separate from the body. In many ways, I think this is the view that contemporary Christians hold to. Descartes took the view of the body that it was just a shell, and a person's essence was in their soul. But this is contrary to the OT teaching, a person's body is just as much a part of their essece as their soul or spirit is. Descartes view of the soul was motivated just as much by philosophy as it was by theology. I don't know where many evangelical Christians have learned about the soul, but for the most part, I think that they are pseudo-cartesians. This is also a Platonic view of the soul, but probably more influenced by Descartes than anyone else.

I think if one takes a biblical view of the soul, then the question of heaven is moved into a different territory. Instead of thinking of our body as a shell, we think of our body as who we are, then the part of us that is with Christ after death is not our full being, but only a part of it, and while we are with Christ, we are eagerly awaiting the resurrection.

Recent musings...

I am going to St. Anselm of Canterbury Episcopal Church today. There's two reasons for this: (1) Perhaps the thing that's caused me to leave Journey Church is that they're an openness church. Due to recent comments on matters of theology from blog friends, I've decided that one can't be openness and be orthodox, let alone evangelical. So, I've decided that it's time for me to start attending a church that falls under the orthodox Christian tradition. I don't even need to attend a conservative church, just an orthodox church. (2) St. Anselm starts at 5PM, which is another requirement for my church attendance these days; I sleep in too late. Though my theology is baptist, I can be sympathetic to other orthodox churches, just not to heretical churches.

There was something else that I wanted to comment on but I'll use a whole post to do this. Basically I'm going to see whether our current conception of the soul is biblical or philosophical.

Theology, might rub some of you the wrong way...

Ok, I heard N.T. Wright speak in Atlanta during tha annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting. You really should read this link, but realize that N.T. Wright is conservative and believes that Jesus will return and salvation is only through Christ, and Christ alone. So read this and let me know what you think.

Here's a link to my school's radio station, college radio rocks!!

Small Group & Euthyphro

Well, I almost left the small group early Wednesday night. A neighbor of the girl whose house we meet at showed up drunk, so we spent the first 30 to 45 minutes trying to argue with a drunk guy. This brought back memories from college when everybody gets drunk and talks about religion, nobody makes any sense, and nobody is worried about speaking coherently... So I kept asking myself, why am I wasting my time listening to the leader of the small group trying to reason with a drunk guy.

Another observation to make: why do we give up so much ground trying to placate non-believers? I really don't care the guy showed up drunk, I mean of all the sins, drunkenness is not one that I'm worried about, I'm more worried about divorce/adultery than I am drunkenness. But, the whole small group revolved around trying to understand this drunk guys conception of God. He kept saying, "God is a dead-beat dad," and alternated that with, "God is my best friend," and occasionally he'd tell us, "God and I don't get along." So, it sucked.

Here's my point of the post, maybe I'm arrogant, I don't know, but if I am just tell me so, and pray for me. But I feel like the leader of the group is just questioning everything because he left the Southern Baptist Convention, but journey church (where we go now) is a SBC church for seekers - IT'S THE SAME - the only difference I can detect is the preaching is more entertainment and the music is better, and the service more organized than your typical country baptist church. Regardless, the leader always seems to think that by questioning things he can show us where we are wrong. So, I believe that good is based upon God, here's a premise:

(1) God is good.

God is identical with good, and God is good. So, the leader asked me, "Is it good because God says it's good?" What do you think my response was, "God is good." Here's the leader's next question, "So, how do you define good?" My response: "God is the criterion for good." Here's the leader's follow up question: "So, is it good because God says it's good?" Ok, at this point in time he is trying to trap me in the Euthyphro dilemma, but he doesn't know enough about it to understand that I've already avoided it. Here's the Euthyphro dilemma as broadly construed:

(2) Good exists.
(3) God exists.
(4) Is it good because God tells us it's good?
(5) Or, does God tell us X is good because X is good?

Here's the difference between (4) and (5), on (4) good is arbitrary, if God tells us to rape, murder, or steal, then those actions are good because God commands us to do them. For, (5) good is an entity that exists apart from God, and in many ways, exists as God's equal. How do I escape (4) and (5), with (1):

(1) God is good.

Since God is good, every action that He commits is consitent with His nature, which is goodness. We know right actions from wrong actions from observing God's behavior. This also prevents the question of why can't God sin, because sin is inconsistent with His nature and sin is a lack of good, whereas sin is a lack of strength, and good is a strength as broadly construed.

Nevertheless, I was frustrated with the leader's line of question because he was trying to trick me, but I was so far ahead of him and he didn't even realize it. Furthermore I even explained to the leader a further thing about (1) which I'll call:

(1') God is necessarily good.

This means that in all possible worlds that could have occurred or existed, God is good. So, there is no way that the Euthyphro dilemma applies to (1'). Now, there are some difficulties for this position, namely that of whether God has a nature, but I'll save that for a different post

Hope that I'm not arrogant, but if I am, I'll work on it and pray for humility.