Ok, have to explain what is going on here. I took a NT theology class with a prof. from SWBTS, Dr. E. Earle Ellis, called the theology of Jesus. In this class Dr. Ellis taught from the Bible something most people refer to as "soul sleep." This is the idea that there is no dualism, i.e. there is only body, not body spirit, and those who believe in body/soul/spirit are just followers of Plato, but because there is only a body, when we die, we die. We are in heaven corporately in Christ, just as when we become Christians we are "in Christ" meaning the Father no longer sees us but Christ's work on the cross, and Christ's life. So corporate personality is what allows us to be justified. So when we die, we remain dead until Jesus' return, at that time judgment will occur, and those who are in Christ will be resurrected, to live eternally on the new earth. So when we die, our next conscious moment will be at judgment. This allows Christians to be materialists.
I contrast Dr. Ellis' view with that of the pop-theology we usually hear in church that when we die we go to heaven where the streets are paved with gold and then we stay there forever, as a disembodied (very platonic) soul.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
A long way to go...
Since I have begun my blog, I have learned that I have a long way to go to effectively communicate my thoughts. I don't really do a good job explaining to people what I know or think. In part I have realized this when I am teaching, I often understand something, it makes sense to me, I know what it is - but I can't explain it to the students. Now I realize part of this is just plain laziness on the part of the students, not paying attention. Yet, reading some of the other philosophy blogs on the www I realize that I have a long way to go to become a more rigorous thinker, this is why OU is making me get an MA before I can begin the PhD. Yay, OU. (Does this remind anyone of something?) So, lotsa reading this summer and writing in my blog thoughts about what I have read.
One more goal to add, I would like to begin a web page this summer, that links to all of the philosophy of religion papers that there are on the internet.
Coming Attractions: Eternal bliss in heaven, or future resurrection? What is the future hope for all Christians?
One more goal to add, I would like to begin a web page this summer, that links to all of the philosophy of religion papers that there are on the internet.
Coming Attractions: Eternal bliss in heaven, or future resurrection? What is the future hope for all Christians?
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Sell Out!?!?
I was reading an article in the Dallas Morning News religion section a couple of weeks ago and it was about the Eastern Orthodox Church in Dallas. The pastor of the church was at a church fair at Dallas Baptist University and had a booth next to an evangelical church. The college minister from the evangelical church wore a "Dr. Suess Cat-in-the-Hat Hat" with a button that said, "smile, Jesus loves you." This pastor from the Eastern Orthodox Church said that the college minister was a sell-out. Now, this is a pressing issue in my life that I have thought about long and hard. My theology is baptist, I was a southern-baptist youth minister for 3 years, I agree with the direction that the Southern Baptist Convention is going - but the theology from the pulpit is a joke. Most pastors have such simple messages that people never grow spiritually, most converts to the Mormons come from Southern Baptist Churches, I think this is due to the lack of emphasis upon doctrine in Southern Baptist Churches. Worship at SBC churches is meant to entertain and make those who are not believers feel welcome, but those who do not have a relationship with God should feel uncomfortable when encountering a holy transcendent God. I do think that theology should be relevant for those in a contemporary setting and style of worship should be based upon the culture. However, Church should not be entertainment, as soon as we start going to a church because it is cool, or because we like the pastor, or because we feel comfortable there, I think that is wrong. I think the two most important factors are fellowship and preaching of the word/doctrine. Otherwise you do become a sellout.
Surfin' at which Beaches?
Ok, just to remind myself, I am probably going to surf at Manhattan Beach, or Bolsa Chica Beach when I visit Tony this summer in South Cali.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Read this, talk about a double standard!
A Heretic in Academe (Pagan Philosophy Student Martyred By Oppressive
Views Of Catholic Professor)
The Wall Street Journal | March 18, 2004 | DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
In March of last year, philosophy professor James Tuttle received a complaint that had been forwarded by his superior at Lakeland Community College in Ohio. The student letter-writer charged that Prof. Tuttle had made comments she deemed offensive to women and gays, and that he'd also shown signs of hostility to Muslim women. "I feel," she wrote, "as if I have been crushed, and forced to endure views that I do not agree with . . . we are supposed to be learning philosophy." But the main problem, the letter stressed, was the professor's excessive reference to his religion -- Catholicism. How, she wondered, would non-Catholic, liberal students "be able to defend themselves or even be able to learn in such a hostile learning environment?" The philosophy professor needed the separation of church and state explained to him; furthermore, the student said, his classes should be monitored and he should undergo counseling.
The complainant could not have anticipated the speed with which college authorities would comply with her recipe for the teacher's reform. A part-time instructor at Lakeland for the last four-and-a-half years, Prof. Tuttle, 40, who holds a doctorate in philosophy from Duquesne, had relatively slight preparation for what was to come. Two years earlier, two sisters, one a lapsed Catholic, had objected that there was too much Catholicism and Christianity in his comparative religion class. Another student took offense when he noted, in a discussion about attitudes toward Christ, that some had viewed him as a crazy man. The offended student didn't think the word "crazy" was acceptable
language for the mentally disturbed. She, too, thought the instructor should undergo treatment, in this case, via sensitivity training classes.
The dean of the arts and humanities department was willing to dismiss the latter charge. It was the first that concerned him -- too many Catholic and Christian references in class. In due course, Dean James Brown advised Prof. Tuttle he should cut down on Christianity in his syllabus, and perhaps bring guest speakers in when teaching about Catholicism rather than instruct the class himself. He could thus seem to teach from a position of neutrality -- one, the dean emphatically assured him, he had better develop.
The dean's warnings were considerably darker after the March 2003 complaint. He advised the teacher that he apparently suffered from closed-mindedness and that he should do nothing again that would cause a student to feel similarly offended. That was something not entirely in his control, the professor pointed out. Like every other college teacher, he knew the infinite variety of causes, from words to looks, that could move students to charge they were in a hostile learning environment. Indeed, the complaining student had detected, she said, a look of distaste on his face when she identified herself as a pagan. The professor wrote a formal answer denying the accusations, noting that he welcomed disagreement in his classes -- a response that clearly failed to impress the administrators. They had the student's word that her feelings had been offended -- all the proof needed to conclude that her accusations were valid, and called for disciplinary measures.
To grasp the special nature of the treatment accorded Prof. Tuttle here, it's only necessary to consider what would have happened if the accused had been a feminist professor rather than a Catholic philosopher -- if, an Evangelical Christian student, offended by criticisms of Christianity, the church as subjugator of women and the like, were to file complaint charging bias and a hostile learning environment. Can one imagine -- the mind reels -- administrators warning this professor to cease offending and seek counseling?
If the administrators' behavior toward him initially surprised Prof. Tuttle, there was reason. It is, after all, not unusual for teachers to tell students of their own deeply held political and social views. Feminist instructors routinely inform classes of their particular perspective. Similarly students have heard professors declare, "I'm Marxist, so you know where I'm coming from" or "I'm a socialist." At Lakeland College, on the other hand, Prof. Tuttle would learn that where he was coming from was a subject decidedly off limits in the
classroom.
Both the college president, Morris W. Beverage Jr., and Dean Brown declined to speak for the record. The administration has, however, repeatedly stated that Prof. Tuttle's difficulties had nothing to do with his Catholicism -- a denial that would have been more persuasive if the dean had not put into writing certain of his views on the matter. After being informed of the student's complaint, Prof. Tuttle mentioned that he'd been moved to add disclaimers to his syllabi. These urged students to discuss any criticisms or discomfort that they might feel during their free exchange of views. Since Prof. Tuttle, too, wanted his students to know where he was coming from, he also included
the information that their teacher was a committed Catholic and Christian philosopher.
The dean's outraged response left no doubt what it was about Prof. Tuttle that so disturbed the school administrators. The bold statement of religious faith was too much for Dean Brown, who proceeded to write to the professor that he was "more bothered by the disclaimer" than by anything in the student's complaint.
This comment -- that the professor's public statement of his faith was more disturbing than the alleged wrong he might have done a student -- is instructive. Here was a teacher whose intellectual and moral views -- matters not unconnected to the teaching of philosophy -- had been shaped by his Catholicism, a fact this philosopher saw fit to share with his students. By repeating it in a course syllabus, which caused the dean to conclude that that Prof. Tuttle was beyond rehabilitation, the teacher had sealed his fate. In his letter, brimming with outrage, the dean declared that Prof. Tuttle continued to state his beliefs in the classroom, and that this was unacceptable. "The level of arrogance is unnerving . . . I think that you would be happier in a sectarian
classroom." There would be a price, the letter made clear. "For the fall semester I've reduced your teaching load to one section." His classroom performance would be monitored. After he'd met with the monitor, the dean wrote, "I'll decide whether you'll be teaching at Lakeland College for the spring semester, 2004."
With his options reduced to a last pick of courses -- the Religion, Ethics and Philosophy classes he'd taught previously were now unavailable to him -- Prof. Tuttle declined. Present and former students, aware of the case, have sent letters expressing amazement at the charges against a teacher whose classes they'd valued as unforgettable, a teacher eminently fair and respectful to all faiths. And how could he have taught philosophy without reference to religion,
his own included, the writers wanted to know?
It is a question also raised by University of Pennsylvania Professor Alan Charles Kors, chairman of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has undertaken Prof. Tuttle's case. From the evidence of the dean's letter, he notes, Thomas Aquinas himself wouldn't be welcome to teach philosophy at Lakeland Community College. Nor is it likely that Prof. Tuttle will ever again teach at the school, which provided him with so memorable a lesson in academic double-standards -- in all, a costly education.
Views Of Catholic Professor)
The Wall Street Journal | March 18, 2004 | DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
In March of last year, philosophy professor James Tuttle received a complaint that had been forwarded by his superior at Lakeland Community College in Ohio. The student letter-writer charged that Prof. Tuttle had made comments she deemed offensive to women and gays, and that he'd also shown signs of hostility to Muslim women. "I feel," she wrote, "as if I have been crushed, and forced to endure views that I do not agree with . . . we are supposed to be learning philosophy." But the main problem, the letter stressed, was the professor's excessive reference to his religion -- Catholicism. How, she wondered, would non-Catholic, liberal students "be able to defend themselves or even be able to learn in such a hostile learning environment?" The philosophy professor needed the separation of church and state explained to him; furthermore, the student said, his classes should be monitored and he should undergo counseling.
The complainant could not have anticipated the speed with which college authorities would comply with her recipe for the teacher's reform. A part-time instructor at Lakeland for the last four-and-a-half years, Prof. Tuttle, 40, who holds a doctorate in philosophy from Duquesne, had relatively slight preparation for what was to come. Two years earlier, two sisters, one a lapsed Catholic, had objected that there was too much Catholicism and Christianity in his comparative religion class. Another student took offense when he noted, in a discussion about attitudes toward Christ, that some had viewed him as a crazy man. The offended student didn't think the word "crazy" was acceptable
language for the mentally disturbed. She, too, thought the instructor should undergo treatment, in this case, via sensitivity training classes.
The dean of the arts and humanities department was willing to dismiss the latter charge. It was the first that concerned him -- too many Catholic and Christian references in class. In due course, Dean James Brown advised Prof. Tuttle he should cut down on Christianity in his syllabus, and perhaps bring guest speakers in when teaching about Catholicism rather than instruct the class himself. He could thus seem to teach from a position of neutrality -- one, the dean emphatically assured him, he had better develop.
The dean's warnings were considerably darker after the March 2003 complaint. He advised the teacher that he apparently suffered from closed-mindedness and that he should do nothing again that would cause a student to feel similarly offended. That was something not entirely in his control, the professor pointed out. Like every other college teacher, he knew the infinite variety of causes, from words to looks, that could move students to charge they were in a hostile learning environment. Indeed, the complaining student had detected, she said, a look of distaste on his face when she identified herself as a pagan. The professor wrote a formal answer denying the accusations, noting that he welcomed disagreement in his classes -- a response that clearly failed to impress the administrators. They had the student's word that her feelings had been offended -- all the proof needed to conclude that her accusations were valid, and called for disciplinary measures.
To grasp the special nature of the treatment accorded Prof. Tuttle here, it's only necessary to consider what would have happened if the accused had been a feminist professor rather than a Catholic philosopher -- if, an Evangelical Christian student, offended by criticisms of Christianity, the church as subjugator of women and the like, were to file complaint charging bias and a hostile learning environment. Can one imagine -- the mind reels -- administrators warning this professor to cease offending and seek counseling?
If the administrators' behavior toward him initially surprised Prof. Tuttle, there was reason. It is, after all, not unusual for teachers to tell students of their own deeply held political and social views. Feminist instructors routinely inform classes of their particular perspective. Similarly students have heard professors declare, "I'm Marxist, so you know where I'm coming from" or "I'm a socialist." At Lakeland College, on the other hand, Prof. Tuttle would learn that where he was coming from was a subject decidedly off limits in the
classroom.
Both the college president, Morris W. Beverage Jr., and Dean Brown declined to speak for the record. The administration has, however, repeatedly stated that Prof. Tuttle's difficulties had nothing to do with his Catholicism -- a denial that would have been more persuasive if the dean had not put into writing certain of his views on the matter. After being informed of the student's complaint, Prof. Tuttle mentioned that he'd been moved to add disclaimers to his syllabi. These urged students to discuss any criticisms or discomfort that they might feel during their free exchange of views. Since Prof. Tuttle, too, wanted his students to know where he was coming from, he also included
the information that their teacher was a committed Catholic and Christian philosopher.
The dean's outraged response left no doubt what it was about Prof. Tuttle that so disturbed the school administrators. The bold statement of religious faith was too much for Dean Brown, who proceeded to write to the professor that he was "more bothered by the disclaimer" than by anything in the student's complaint.
This comment -- that the professor's public statement of his faith was more disturbing than the alleged wrong he might have done a student -- is instructive. Here was a teacher whose intellectual and moral views -- matters not unconnected to the teaching of philosophy -- had been shaped by his Catholicism, a fact this philosopher saw fit to share with his students. By repeating it in a course syllabus, which caused the dean to conclude that that Prof. Tuttle was beyond rehabilitation, the teacher had sealed his fate. In his letter, brimming with outrage, the dean declared that Prof. Tuttle continued to state his beliefs in the classroom, and that this was unacceptable. "The level of arrogance is unnerving . . . I think that you would be happier in a sectarian
classroom." There would be a price, the letter made clear. "For the fall semester I've reduced your teaching load to one section." His classroom performance would be monitored. After he'd met with the monitor, the dean wrote, "I'll decide whether you'll be teaching at Lakeland College for the spring semester, 2004."
With his options reduced to a last pick of courses -- the Religion, Ethics and Philosophy classes he'd taught previously were now unavailable to him -- Prof. Tuttle declined. Present and former students, aware of the case, have sent letters expressing amazement at the charges against a teacher whose classes they'd valued as unforgettable, a teacher eminently fair and respectful to all faiths. And how could he have taught philosophy without reference to religion,
his own included, the writers wanted to know?
It is a question also raised by University of Pennsylvania Professor Alan Charles Kors, chairman of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has undertaken Prof. Tuttle's case. From the evidence of the dean's letter, he notes, Thomas Aquinas himself wouldn't be welcome to teach philosophy at Lakeland Community College. Nor is it likely that Prof. Tuttle will ever again teach at the school, which provided him with so memorable a lesson in academic double-standards -- in all, a costly education.
Musings on the canon
Ok, so before I begin to work on my paper, Richard Rorty's Claim concerning William James and Nietzsche, I just wanted to post a few random thoughts on the Christian canon. Here is the primary issue, does the authority of the canon come from the church or the Bible? Now according to the orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church, God used the church to decide what the canon, i.e. the Bible, would be. Since God used the church to authoritatively pick the canon, the church can therefore determine what else ought to be authoritative, e.g. papal infallibility, or church councils, or creeds & confessions. Now the Protestants say, the church picked out the scriptures that were already authoritative, there were 3 criteria for a Scripture to be included in the canon, and please someone correct me if I am wrong, (1) apostolic authority - is the author an apostle or a follower of one, (2) universal acceptance - how many of the churches used this book authoritatively (3) orthodox teaching - does it agree with the other scriptures. I also think that it is important for who the church was founded by that was using the scriptures, if it was founded by an apostle I think that that gave more significance to the use of the biblical texts. So based upon these criteria, the church took those books that were already authoritative and combined them in the Bible.
Did God give the authority to the church to determine or make something that was aurthoritative? Why do I brink all of this up? Because there are many interesting questions to be asked. First, of all, the question of hermeneutics and the role of church councils and creeds in interpreting Scripture. Second, the role of the individual in interpreting Scripture. I am reading a book on (actually doing a book review for the Southwestern Journal of Theology) Ancient Christian Hermeneutics. Many of these questions have divided the Protestants from the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Churches, I am interested in who is right.
Did God give the authority to the church to determine or make something that was aurthoritative? Why do I brink all of this up? Because there are many interesting questions to be asked. First, of all, the question of hermeneutics and the role of church councils and creeds in interpreting Scripture. Second, the role of the individual in interpreting Scripture. I am reading a book on (actually doing a book review for the Southwestern Journal of Theology) Ancient Christian Hermeneutics. Many of these questions have divided the Protestants from the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Churches, I am interested in who is right.
What a beatdown!!!
I worked tonight and dealt craps, I wanted to decline the offer but the manager told me that they needed all the people they could get to deal. I was at the Studios in Los Colinas, where they have the sets for shows such as Walker Texas Ranger, I think they also have the submarine used in the Hunt for Red October, and they had a prototype of Yoda there also. What is the beatdown about - the guys I work with. At these parties I work at, they are usually high-toned, so people come looking there best, so you see guys with trophey wives and young women whether single or married looking as hot as can be. Almost all of the guys I work with are married, yet whenever they see a hot chica, they drool all over themelves and make all kinds of comments, like it's a big deal. Now I realize that I am an adjunct professor so I am used to seeing people that are young and in shape, but these guys are out of control. Do they have that much disrespect for their wives that they have to literally drool while looking at hot chicas?!?! If they don't like their wives that much then why don't they get a divorce; why stay married? I think it's because the fear of being alone is what drives most people to get married, and not out of mutual love and admiration of each other. Is it disrepectful to one's wife to act in this manner? I have to believe so, I also assume that their wives probably act this way towards guys, sham of a marriage that is... well, I will just work with them until I move to Norman, and even now, I don't work for the money but just to repay the favor because they let me work over the holidays when I was the most concerned about being depressed about my dad's death and my friend's suicide.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Goals for the summer :)
Well, school is ending soon. My last paper for the classes I am taking is due on Monday April 26. Then I will just have to grade tests & papers. So, I am thinking about what to do for the summer, I have decided to put them on the blog so my loyal readers can hold me accountable, to my goals. Maybe beat me up, or throw me down, or something like that... anyway, here are my goals listed in the greatest priority to the least priority.
1. Read my Bible - this goes without saying but lately I have been slacking on the amount of bilbical reading I have been doing - quantity wise - I am going to get back onto the read the NT in a month program again.
2. Prepare for classes in the fall, this will include some extra reading. I am taking a Philosophy of Mind class, with will probably include theories of content so it will be important to read up on philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. Then I will also read the readings for both language and mind. So hopefully reading these books I won't be behind the other philosophy grad students
3. Read some serious theology. The book that I have in mind is N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. I heard him speak in November and he is probably the premier theologian among Christians today.
4. Work out 5 days every week when I am in town. Also increase my cardio workout to 45 minutes.
5. Drop down below 255 lbs.
6. Read some good philosophical theology, e.g. Summa Contra Gentiles, by Thomas Aquinas , and The City of God, by St. Augustine.
7. Read quality fiction. This would include, J.R.R. Tolkein, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Jane Austen, etc...
8. Enjoy the summer and sleep as much as possible.
I reserve the rights to update this post, but I will not remove any goals, only add goals.
1. Read my Bible - this goes without saying but lately I have been slacking on the amount of bilbical reading I have been doing - quantity wise - I am going to get back onto the read the NT in a month program again.
2. Prepare for classes in the fall, this will include some extra reading. I am taking a Philosophy of Mind class, with will probably include theories of content so it will be important to read up on philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. Then I will also read the readings for both language and mind. So hopefully reading these books I won't be behind the other philosophy grad students
3. Read some serious theology. The book that I have in mind is N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. I heard him speak in November and he is probably the premier theologian among Christians today.
4. Work out 5 days every week when I am in town. Also increase my cardio workout to 45 minutes.
5. Drop down below 255 lbs.
6. Read some good philosophical theology, e.g. Summa Contra Gentiles, by Thomas Aquinas , and The City of God, by St. Augustine.
7. Read quality fiction. This would include, J.R.R. Tolkein, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Jane Austen, etc...
8. Enjoy the summer and sleep as much as possible.
I reserve the rights to update this post, but I will not remove any goals, only add goals.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
More on miracles, is David Hume inconsistent?
I have not completely read David Hume's treatise on religion I have read his Treatise of Human Nature - a very tedious but easy to read (as far as philosophy goes). I was teaching about induction, or as philosophers say - I hope that I can classify myself as a philosopher - the "problem" of induction. Hume's inconsistency appears to involve the principle of uniformity. This reading section that I have now of Hume's comes from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
The problems that Hume discusses relate to cause & effect, and induction. Induction would be if I observe 99 black crowes, what color can I assume the next crow will be? Well it will be black, because, so far every crow that I have seen has been black. Cause & effect says that if A causes B, everytime B appears, A has preceded it and A is within spatio-temporal proximity to B. Hume denies that we can know anything about cause & effect or induction because both of them presuppose that the future will resemble the past. Now here are some quotes from Hume:
"that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past."
"In reality, all arguments from experience are founded on the similarity which we discover among natural objects, and by which we are induced to expect effects similar to those which we have found to follow from such objects."
"It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance."
How does this relate to the resurrection or miracles? To oversimplify the problem most arguments against miracles or the resurrection are of the variety that X cannot have happened because X does not normally happen; or X goes against the natural laws that govern the universe. We cannot argue for any type of natural laws based upon Hume's denial of the principle of uniformity. How do we know that people don't rise from the grave - it's never happened before, but that doesn't answer why it cannot happen now or in the future. All that tells us is what has happened, similar to the fact that I have seen 99 black crowes, that does not mean that the hundredth crow will not be black, it could be gray. Just like the fact that just because water has not been turned into wine before - before Jesus did - does not preclude the possibility that it can happen.
The problems that Hume discusses relate to cause & effect, and induction. Induction would be if I observe 99 black crowes, what color can I assume the next crow will be? Well it will be black, because, so far every crow that I have seen has been black. Cause & effect says that if A causes B, everytime B appears, A has preceded it and A is within spatio-temporal proximity to B. Hume denies that we can know anything about cause & effect or induction because both of them presuppose that the future will resemble the past. Now here are some quotes from Hume:
"that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past."
"In reality, all arguments from experience are founded on the similarity which we discover among natural objects, and by which we are induced to expect effects similar to those which we have found to follow from such objects."
"It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance."
How does this relate to the resurrection or miracles? To oversimplify the problem most arguments against miracles or the resurrection are of the variety that X cannot have happened because X does not normally happen; or X goes against the natural laws that govern the universe. We cannot argue for any type of natural laws based upon Hume's denial of the principle of uniformity. How do we know that people don't rise from the grave - it's never happened before, but that doesn't answer why it cannot happen now or in the future. All that tells us is what has happened, similar to the fact that I have seen 99 black crowes, that does not mean that the hundredth crow will not be black, it could be gray. Just like the fact that just because water has not been turned into wine before - before Jesus did - does not preclude the possibility that it can happen.
Peter Van Inwagen and epistemology
A quote that I have posted by Peter Van Inwagen several posts ago deserves some explanation... here it is:
In current epistemology there is a denial that any type of certainty can be obtained with respect to knowledge. In other words, we cannot be sure about anything that we know, at best we can have a high probability. (This will be a simple non-technical explanation.) What Inwagen is saying is that epistemology realizes that certainty about knowing things cannot be obtained, yet people are quick to dismiss the claims of Christianity. Why should Christianity have to prove its doctrines with certainty, when no other epistemological claims can generate certainty? There is a double standard. Now Ang's concerns are well-founded. Often in the church, people will allow weak evidence to support Christian claims, while letting strong evidence for non-Christian claims be ignored - Ang's point is valid. Van Inwagen though is also critiquing the non-theistic crowd, don't apply a standard to us that you don't apply to yourselves. We cannot be certain of any of Christianity's claims, yet neither can secular philosophers be certain about atheistic claims, this is the bottom line.
In current epistemology there is a denial that any type of certainty can be obtained with respect to knowledge. In other words, we cannot be sure about anything that we know, at best we can have a high probability. (This will be a simple non-technical explanation.) What Inwagen is saying is that epistemology realizes that certainty about knowing things cannot be obtained, yet people are quick to dismiss the claims of Christianity. Why should Christianity have to prove its doctrines with certainty, when no other epistemological claims can generate certainty? There is a double standard. Now Ang's concerns are well-founded. Often in the church, people will allow weak evidence to support Christian claims, while letting strong evidence for non-Christian claims be ignored - Ang's point is valid. Van Inwagen though is also critiquing the non-theistic crowd, don't apply a standard to us that you don't apply to yourselves. We cannot be certain of any of Christianity's claims, yet neither can secular philosophers be certain about atheistic claims, this is the bottom line.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
a little venting...
I currently teach at two schools, a four-year university with a graduate program and a two year community college. I have always assumed that you would have better students at a four-year university - boy, was I wrong!! There are several students that have told me that after they finish school at Tarleton State University, they are going to graduate school in the fall of '05. I don't think so!! These are some of the sorriest thinking, uncritical students that I have had!! Now I have only been teaching for about two years, one year which was mostly being a TA and substituting, but the students at Tarleton suck. The greatest thing about philosophy is the discussion, most of the questions in philosophy are never fully answered and if they are, these areas then become a part of the "hard" sciences. Basically, philosophy is mental weight-lifting; philosophy is not practical for its sake but practical for the sake of developing one's critical thinking... though it becomes practical in areas of philosophical ethics and philosophical theology.
Right now at Weatherford College, the two-year community college, I have students that are more critically thinking that the the students that are about to graduate at Tarleton. Not only that, but I enjoy teaching at Weatherford because the students challenge some of the claims that I present. The worst part about Tarleton is the amount of whining I endure from the students, I have bent over backwards so many of them would not fail... perhaps it is my fault, since they don't want to do the work, they should fail. Yet the students always whine... but this is the part that absolutely pisses me off. At least 1/3 to 1/2 of the class are Christians, and we read many medieval philosophers who are basically theologians... the complaining was never worse, during the reading of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Anselm. Due to a suggestion from Ang, next time I am in this situation I will present the anti-Christian viewpoint to make them think.
So what is the purpose of this rant... just to get my thoughts out there, next week - the last lecture period - will cover J. L. Austin, an analytical philosopher. Now is the time to cover some topics that I am interested in, not that I haven't done that already, but I will cover philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, both difficult topics. I am just pissed that the class talks during my lecture and whines so much, this last test will not be easy. I guess a good rule of thumb for students is don't disrespect the person determining your grade. Will I make the test more difficult than it needs to be? No, I will just ask tough questions and since the class never really cares about what I say anyway, I will talk about the questions then put them on the review sheet. Let me know if I am over-reacting. I have done everything in my power to make the class easy for the students, now I am just upset for the amount of disrespect I was shown last night. I don't demand to be respected - just not disrespected.
I am going to enjoy discussing speech-act theory and ideas about the present queen of France. Along with qualia and intentionality - but I doubt the class will, but hey, I am the one who has to drive over an hour to teach, it should be a subject that I enjoy talking about. Shouldn't it?
Right now at Weatherford College, the two-year community college, I have students that are more critically thinking that the the students that are about to graduate at Tarleton. Not only that, but I enjoy teaching at Weatherford because the students challenge some of the claims that I present. The worst part about Tarleton is the amount of whining I endure from the students, I have bent over backwards so many of them would not fail... perhaps it is my fault, since they don't want to do the work, they should fail. Yet the students always whine... but this is the part that absolutely pisses me off. At least 1/3 to 1/2 of the class are Christians, and we read many medieval philosophers who are basically theologians... the complaining was never worse, during the reading of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Anselm. Due to a suggestion from Ang, next time I am in this situation I will present the anti-Christian viewpoint to make them think.
So what is the purpose of this rant... just to get my thoughts out there, next week - the last lecture period - will cover J. L. Austin, an analytical philosopher. Now is the time to cover some topics that I am interested in, not that I haven't done that already, but I will cover philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, both difficult topics. I am just pissed that the class talks during my lecture and whines so much, this last test will not be easy. I guess a good rule of thumb for students is don't disrespect the person determining your grade. Will I make the test more difficult than it needs to be? No, I will just ask tough questions and since the class never really cares about what I say anyway, I will talk about the questions then put them on the review sheet. Let me know if I am over-reacting. I have done everything in my power to make the class easy for the students, now I am just upset for the amount of disrespect I was shown last night. I don't demand to be respected - just not disrespected.
I am going to enjoy discussing speech-act theory and ideas about the present queen of France. Along with qualia and intentionality - but I doubt the class will, but hey, I am the one who has to drive over an hour to teach, it should be a subject that I enjoy talking about. Shouldn't it?
Monday, April 19, 2004
procrastination
Why is it when I need to get the most work done, I find more and more and more things to waste my time with? I am surprised that MTV doesn't have a Real World marathon on tv or a Real World/Road Rules challenge marathon. Though the NHL and the association playoffs are enough of an excuse to do something else rather than read on theories of truth... I am a slacker
Christian philosophy
Ang brought up a question that I have just taken for granted... until he asked it. "What do I think it means to be a 'Christian' philosopher?" You know, I am not sure. Another question that Ang asked me is: Would you be opposed to working (teaching) in a seminary? I think only my ego would, and let me explain. In academics, seminaries are not the capitol of thinking but usually involved in teaching what a specific group or genre, e.g. denomination, evangelical, of people believe. You become pigeon-holed if you teach in a seminary, especially evangelical seminaries. Well the only type of seminary that I would be interested in teaching at would be an evangelical seminary. Perhaps my biggest reservation about teaching at an evangelical seminary is that I would be limited to evangelical schools for the rest of my life... which is not a bad thing, it means that my call from God would be to equip people for ministry and build them up in their faith. However, I would never be offered a job (well, maybe a 0.001% chance) in a majore research university. My second reservation about teaching in a seminary would be the quality of students. Most students arriving at a seminary have the idea that the seminary is in their way of doing "real ministry" and nothing that is learned in seminary will be practical. So often seminary students are lazy and apathetic. There are not very many scholar-pastors anymore. Perhaps the best example of a current scholar-pastor is John Piper. Others would include, Martin Luther, John Calvin, St. Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and John Gill. I'm sure that there are others but these are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
So what does it mean to do Christian philosophy? I am not sure... I have always assumed that Alvin Plantinga is right... one assumes the doctrine of the Christian faith are correct when doing philosophy, any doctrine that does not match one's philosophy, invalidates the philosophical position that one holds to. What is one's responsibility, i.e. what could I do at a secular research university? I have assumed that I could present a Christian worldview. This would show people that there are alternatives to naturalism, and also be able to show that it is rational and coherent to believe in the tenets of Christianity.
I will definitely think about this more... this is not a finished conversation for me but will be a continuing dialogue.
So what does it mean to do Christian philosophy? I am not sure... I have always assumed that Alvin Plantinga is right... one assumes the doctrine of the Christian faith are correct when doing philosophy, any doctrine that does not match one's philosophy, invalidates the philosophical position that one holds to. What is one's responsibility, i.e. what could I do at a secular research university? I have assumed that I could present a Christian worldview. This would show people that there are alternatives to naturalism, and also be able to show that it is rational and coherent to believe in the tenets of Christianity.
I will definitely think about this more... this is not a finished conversation for me but will be a continuing dialogue.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
blow to the ego
Everytime I think that I am becoming a "great" or a "rigorous" philosopher I read an article or an essay in which I have difficulty understanding some of it. Tonight it was Hilary Putnam's essay on "William James's Theory of Truth." There were several parts in the essay in which I wondered what Putnam was trying to say in his essay. That'll teach me to get a big head :)
It seems as if I never get as much done as I want to, though I wrote 5 pages for my paper, I didn't begin any writing for my book review. Seeing that it's 1:14AM and I am getting tired I will probably just try to go to sleep and have a productive day tomorrow. Productive days are important and I have plenty of time in the day to do my work if I am productive, but "IF" is a big word for me... and I usually answer it negatively...
It seems as if I never get as much done as I want to, though I wrote 5 pages for my paper, I didn't begin any writing for my book review. Seeing that it's 1:14AM and I am getting tired I will probably just try to go to sleep and have a productive day tomorrow. Productive days are important and I have plenty of time in the day to do my work if I am productive, but "IF" is a big word for me... and I usually answer it negatively...
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Truth: Rorty on Nietzsche and William James
Finally waited to the last minute, no more time to procrastinate... gotta write the paper. Began reading some on truth in Nietzsche but I started falling asleep. The author of the book, John Wilcox, was using metaethical terms to describe Nietzsche's epistemology. Wilcox talked about cognitivism (objectivism), and noncognitivism (subjectivisim). A cognitivist believes that people can find out the facts and then they will learn what is right or wrong (or true or false). Whereas a noncognitivist does not believe that one can rationally learn what is right or wrong. So far so good, but the rest of it will have to wait until tomorrow morning, or later on this morning....
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Miracles
What are miracles (this posting is inspired by discussion in class today and discussion in the gym w/ Ang)? Are miracles the result of intervention in space-time by God - if so then we have a deistic concept of God. This would be a deistic concept of God because we would view God as a being who remains apart from His creation, and intervenes only during certain time periods. So an orthodox understanding of God would see God as constantly involved in His creation, sustaining all of creation. So if God is constantly involved in His creation then a miracle cannot be defined as God's intervening in space-time, because God continually intervenes in space-time (in the person of the Holy Spirit, hence the helpfulness of the doctrine of the Trinity). I think a miracle could be defined as God's unusual interaction in His creation, i.e. people usually die, and do not rise from the grave, but in certain circumstances God causes people to rise from the grave. Or we could discuss turning water into wine, or ax-heads floating in water. Regardless, a miracle is something that is different about the way God interacts with His creation, than He usually does.
What are the purpose of miracles? According to the Gospel of John miracles were signs to show that Jesus was the Son of God. Moses used miracles to show who God is, also to show the authority that God had given to him. Elijah and Elisha used miracles to show that there God was greater than Baal. Why aren't miracles prevalent today? Well according to the parable of Lazarus in hell, he was not allowed to tell his relatives about hell because they had already ignored Moses and the prophets. Are we the same way in the US? We have ignored the teachings of Jesus about God, so what good would miracles do? Does God choose not to make miracles common because people would just ignore them as they have ignored God's revelation? I think the state of one's heart is important when discussing miracles. If one were to naturalize a miracle that God performs, this defeats the purpose behind performing the miracle. Miracles are to demonstrate that God is - I am who I am - and people choose to ignore them or explain them away, than they do not serve their purpose.
I have rambled on and forgotten what the most important thing is that I wanted to say... David Hume claims that extradinary claims require extradinary evidence. So miracles to be true require extradinary evidence - well, why? The purpose of a miracle is to point someone towards God, not to exalt humans, so a miracle should always glorify God. Hence, any miracles that praise humans are clearly not from God - but I am rambling again. How do you get extradinary evidence, do you need more people to testify, or do you need photographs or film? If God is involved in everyday events, then it does not seem to be the case that we need extradinary evidence, but I am presupposing Theism. Hmm, gonna have to think about this some more....
to be continued....
What are the purpose of miracles? According to the Gospel of John miracles were signs to show that Jesus was the Son of God. Moses used miracles to show who God is, also to show the authority that God had given to him. Elijah and Elisha used miracles to show that there God was greater than Baal. Why aren't miracles prevalent today? Well according to the parable of Lazarus in hell, he was not allowed to tell his relatives about hell because they had already ignored Moses and the prophets. Are we the same way in the US? We have ignored the teachings of Jesus about God, so what good would miracles do? Does God choose not to make miracles common because people would just ignore them as they have ignored God's revelation? I think the state of one's heart is important when discussing miracles. If one were to naturalize a miracle that God performs, this defeats the purpose behind performing the miracle. Miracles are to demonstrate that God is - I am who I am - and people choose to ignore them or explain them away, than they do not serve their purpose.
I have rambled on and forgotten what the most important thing is that I wanted to say... David Hume claims that extradinary claims require extradinary evidence. So miracles to be true require extradinary evidence - well, why? The purpose of a miracle is to point someone towards God, not to exalt humans, so a miracle should always glorify God. Hence, any miracles that praise humans are clearly not from God - but I am rambling again. How do you get extradinary evidence, do you need more people to testify, or do you need photographs or film? If God is involved in everyday events, then it does not seem to be the case that we need extradinary evidence, but I am presupposing Theism. Hmm, gonna have to think about this some more....
to be continued....
Musings...
I received The Fellowship of the Ring from Jessica for my birthday - a great birthday present - and I am now halfway through it. Once again, the movies are never better than the books... no matter how well made, and how much acclaim the movie(s) might receive.
Ang laid down the challenge today, if I don't have a tv for the fall - if I give up tv - he will give up the internet. Now there are many implications to this. First and foremost I need to discuss virtue ethics. As a Christian I hold to the theological virtues, faith, hope, and love, and as a virtuous person, I ought to exercise the virtues. Part of this exercise includes loving God - for the virtue of love - and loving man for God's sake. Since I love Ang for the sake of God (but also because he is my friend), I need to be virtuous and give up tv. This frees up Ang's time so that he might love God more, and make better use of his time. Also, Ang is helping me out because I am receiving more motivation for giving up tv, beginning in the fall. Aristotle would call this an example of friendship.
One more musing... Linda Zagzebski's book, Divine Motivation Theory, is in contrast to traditional Christian ethics - Divine Command Theory (DCT). DCT states that if God commands X, then X is good to do because it is God's command, and one is obligated to perform X. So what's the problem? The problem is the command to do X, does not take into account the Sermon on the Mount. In the Sermon, Jesus states, that it is not enough just to do the act, but to do the act for the right motivation. So, Zagzebski is correct in believing that a Christian ethic ought to utilize and emphasize motivation. Because according to Jesus, looking at a woman with lust is the same as committing the act of fornication or adultery. DCT often seems very Kantian, or are Kantian ethics an offshoot of DCT? Probably the latter, because DCT has been around much longer than Kant.
I will post more later tonight...
Ang laid down the challenge today, if I don't have a tv for the fall - if I give up tv - he will give up the internet. Now there are many implications to this. First and foremost I need to discuss virtue ethics. As a Christian I hold to the theological virtues, faith, hope, and love, and as a virtuous person, I ought to exercise the virtues. Part of this exercise includes loving God - for the virtue of love - and loving man for God's sake. Since I love Ang for the sake of God (but also because he is my friend), I need to be virtuous and give up tv. This frees up Ang's time so that he might love God more, and make better use of his time. Also, Ang is helping me out because I am receiving more motivation for giving up tv, beginning in the fall. Aristotle would call this an example of friendship.
One more musing... Linda Zagzebski's book, Divine Motivation Theory, is in contrast to traditional Christian ethics - Divine Command Theory (DCT). DCT states that if God commands X, then X is good to do because it is God's command, and one is obligated to perform X. So what's the problem? The problem is the command to do X, does not take into account the Sermon on the Mount. In the Sermon, Jesus states, that it is not enough just to do the act, but to do the act for the right motivation. So, Zagzebski is correct in believing that a Christian ethic ought to utilize and emphasize motivation. Because according to Jesus, looking at a woman with lust is the same as committing the act of fornication or adultery. DCT often seems very Kantian, or are Kantian ethics an offshoot of DCT? Probably the latter, because DCT has been around much longer than Kant.
I will post more later tonight...
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Kinda an update, but more in reality, discombulated thoughts
Last night taught on Nietzsche. I don't think the class understood the significance of the following claim with reference to morality. I will call this claim the MacIntyre claim or MI for short.
MI: One can either be a theist and believe in some type of supernatural deity and have a basis for morality, OR, one can be a naturalist such as Nietzsche, deny the existence of any type of supernatural being, and hold to morality based upon instinct and emotions.
What is the significance of this claim? There's no basis for morality without belief in some type of God. One does not even have to believe in the "Christian" God. An example of this is Aristotle and Plato, neither one of them held to any type of belief in a Judeao-Christian God, yet they held to a created order in the universe that was a result of some type of deity. But for Nietzsche, everything is random and by chance, one raises one's self above the primordial ooze, so to speak. One's morality is based upon one's passions, if you have the passion to have sex and women refuse your advances, rape is acceptable, because you ought not deny your desires. If you are an artist, all actions are permissable because you are a creator. Nietzsche excuses all actions of artists because they are the closest thing in the world to a 'god.'
Well, why should the class react to this? Because you cannot be moral if you are a non-believer. If you are an atheist, and you are moral, you are moral because you are foolish and weak; you are not strong enough (or smart enough) to be immoral. If you act moral and deny the existence of God, you do not really believe that "God is dead" because you are still living as if there is a God, as if there is order in the universe.
So if I am an atheist, I do not like Nietzsce's claim... if I want to hold to some type of morality.
MI: One can either be a theist and believe in some type of supernatural deity and have a basis for morality, OR, one can be a naturalist such as Nietzsche, deny the existence of any type of supernatural being, and hold to morality based upon instinct and emotions.
What is the significance of this claim? There's no basis for morality without belief in some type of God. One does not even have to believe in the "Christian" God. An example of this is Aristotle and Plato, neither one of them held to any type of belief in a Judeao-Christian God, yet they held to a created order in the universe that was a result of some type of deity. But for Nietzsche, everything is random and by chance, one raises one's self above the primordial ooze, so to speak. One's morality is based upon one's passions, if you have the passion to have sex and women refuse your advances, rape is acceptable, because you ought not deny your desires. If you are an artist, all actions are permissable because you are a creator. Nietzsche excuses all actions of artists because they are the closest thing in the world to a 'god.'
Well, why should the class react to this? Because you cannot be moral if you are a non-believer. If you are an atheist, and you are moral, you are moral because you are foolish and weak; you are not strong enough (or smart enough) to be immoral. If you act moral and deny the existence of God, you do not really believe that "God is dead" because you are still living as if there is a God, as if there is order in the universe.
So if I am an atheist, I do not like Nietzsce's claim... if I want to hold to some type of morality.
Monday, April 12, 2004
How long?
Well, here is a survey question I have for all my readers: I do not currently own a tv and when I start school at the University of Oklahoma I do not plan on purchasing one. How long can I go w/o a television? So far I have had guesses of two weeks and four weeks. I think I can go for the whole year w/o a tv, but I am not sure. Part of the reason for not wanting a tv is so that I will read more and not procrastinate as much... I would like to study somewhere between 8-10 hours a day. I figure if God has put me in this position then I need to do my best to honor God w/ the abilities that He has given to me.
I found out that my philosophy of religion seminar topic is probably going to be changed. Dr. Zagzebski emailed me and asked me if I would mind switching from religious epistemology to religious ethics. The reason being that her new book, Divine Motivation Theory, is coming out on July 31. This will be cool b/c this book may very well be widely discussed by ethicists and philosophers of religion. So, I am very excited b/c I will be able to be in on the cutting edge of something that might possibly have wide ramifications and be influential. WOO-HOO!!!
I found out that my philosophy of religion seminar topic is probably going to be changed. Dr. Zagzebski emailed me and asked me if I would mind switching from religious epistemology to religious ethics. The reason being that her new book, Divine Motivation Theory, is coming out on July 31. This will be cool b/c this book may very well be widely discussed by ethicists and philosophers of religion. So, I am very excited b/c I will be able to be in on the cutting edge of something that might possibly have wide ramifications and be influential. WOO-HOO!!!
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
UGH
There is nothing worse than being tired, knowing you won't get much sleep, then not being able to sleep. This sucks.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Procrastination produces results.
Well, as I was preparing this nights lecture on David Hume, I was procrastinating and found this great quote by one of my favorite philosophers...
"Christian philosophers live in an intellectual atmosphere pervaded by a curious double standard: Christian belief is judged and condemned under an epistemic standard that very little of what anyone believes could satisfy." --Peter van Inwagen
I will explain this later, but it is sheer greatness by Van Inwagen.
"Christian philosophers live in an intellectual atmosphere pervaded by a curious double standard: Christian belief is judged and condemned under an epistemic standard that very little of what anyone believes could satisfy." --Peter van Inwagen
I will explain this later, but it is sheer greatness by Van Inwagen.
Monday, April 05, 2004
LOTR and classes
Dr. Robert Koons, a philosophy prof. at UT Austin, taught a class titled Phl 361K: Tolkien and Mythopoeia. Koons is a evangelical Lutheran and a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also presented a paper on Tolkien, titled, Tolkien's Wizardry: How Metaphysics Molded Middle-Earth. I think it's fascinating that a prof, such as Koons, would find Tolkien so valuable. This really makes me want to read LOTR this summer. So I will.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Class schedule
I register for classes tomorrow at the University of Oklahoma. I am taking 10 hours. On Monday I am taking philosophy or religion seminar with Linda Zagzebski, on Tuesdays & Thursdays I am taking symbolic logic 1, then I think on Wednesdays I am taking philosophy of mind, and on Thursday night I am taking philosophy as a profession.
It all starts on August 23.
It all starts on August 23.
Don't you hate it when...
Don't you hate it when you think you had something significant to say, but forgot what it was. That happened to me yesterday, I was thinking about the Divine foreknowledge and human freewill debate, and I think I had a good point. Alas, I forgot what I wanted to say... maybe it wasn't that important after all...
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Swallowing determinism, but not all of it.
What is our role in our actions, i.e. what responsibility do humans have for their own actions? I chose to go to North Texas, study hard the first year, goof around for three years in a row (i.e. party), and then study hard the last year. Was it God's plan for me to party? I know that some good happened because I partied, because all things work for the good of God, or do they? Am I appropriating that text for my own usage? So what if God's plan was for me to not party the middle three years, now am I paying for that because I am finally going to get an M.A. in philosophy when I am 28 (my birthday is on April 10, so when I begin school in the fall I will be 28). Now I began at SWBTS when I was 23, and spent 5 years here, 3 on an MDiv, and 2 on a PhD that I will leave uncompleted, which is not a bad thing. Was it God's plan for me not to complete my PhD? How do I know what God's plan is; what if it's God's plan for me to stay at SWBTS or go to another school for an M.A. in philosophy? Does this mean that I foiled God's plan? Or is everything determined such that we have no role in our decision making process?
Dr. E. Earle Ellis, claimed that there were two types of will for God, there was (1) God's ordained will, and (2) God's will. God's ordained will, will happen, e.g. the devil will be punished and Jesus will return (the parousia). God's will is what He wants to happen but it probably won't, e.g. for all people to be saved. So how does this relate to my discussion, it might have been God's will for me not to party, but I did, and somewhat delayed God's plans for my life... I have to believe that we have some control over our own decision making process otherwise God is responsible for all our actions and then God is responsible for sin. God is perfectly good and cannot be tempted - as I stated in a previous entry - so we are responsible for our own actions. Yet, conservative evangelicals always talk about how God "has a plan" for their lives. Does this plan have to take place? If so then it doesn't matter what we do, and those who obey God should not be rewarded and those who do not obey God should not be punished, because they have no role in their own decision making process. I have to conclude that while God may have a plan for our lives, we don't always follow His plan.
I think we fool ourselves into thinking that whatever we do God will bless, because it's what God wants us to do. God blesses it because we are believers and follow Him and He loves us. So God will use bad situations that we are in to teach us lessons about who He is so that we might make a wiser decision in the future. How do we know what God wants us to do? We read His word and learn about who He is. Unless we know God, how can we know how to follow? We can't. We often rely upon emotions to learn what God is telling us, but we learn what God wants us to do by reading the scriptures. We can make mistakes but they can be corrected. When we do make mistakes we can learn from them to get back on path. I think the will of God is kinda like the Yellow-Brick Road, in the sense that we can leave the path and can be attacked on the path, yet God has shown us the way to follow Him in His word, which would be the equivalent to the Yellow-Brick Road. So, we can stray from the will of God and can leave God's plan but if we do, God will teach us lessons through our disobedience and we can either choose to learn from our lessons or rebel even further.
Dr. E. Earle Ellis, claimed that there were two types of will for God, there was (1) God's ordained will, and (2) God's will. God's ordained will, will happen, e.g. the devil will be punished and Jesus will return (the parousia). God's will is what He wants to happen but it probably won't, e.g. for all people to be saved. So how does this relate to my discussion, it might have been God's will for me not to party, but I did, and somewhat delayed God's plans for my life... I have to believe that we have some control over our own decision making process otherwise God is responsible for all our actions and then God is responsible for sin. God is perfectly good and cannot be tempted - as I stated in a previous entry - so we are responsible for our own actions. Yet, conservative evangelicals always talk about how God "has a plan" for their lives. Does this plan have to take place? If so then it doesn't matter what we do, and those who obey God should not be rewarded and those who do not obey God should not be punished, because they have no role in their own decision making process. I have to conclude that while God may have a plan for our lives, we don't always follow His plan.
I think we fool ourselves into thinking that whatever we do God will bless, because it's what God wants us to do. God blesses it because we are believers and follow Him and He loves us. So God will use bad situations that we are in to teach us lessons about who He is so that we might make a wiser decision in the future. How do we know what God wants us to do? We read His word and learn about who He is. Unless we know God, how can we know how to follow? We can't. We often rely upon emotions to learn what God is telling us, but we learn what God wants us to do by reading the scriptures. We can make mistakes but they can be corrected. When we do make mistakes we can learn from them to get back on path. I think the will of God is kinda like the Yellow-Brick Road, in the sense that we can leave the path and can be attacked on the path, yet God has shown us the way to follow Him in His word, which would be the equivalent to the Yellow-Brick Road. So, we can stray from the will of God and can leave God's plan but if we do, God will teach us lessons through our disobedience and we can either choose to learn from our lessons or rebel even further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)