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.