Haleiwa Harbor, Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)
I have been very busy with PhD revisions, but here are some thoughts.
Religious leaders often claim to know God is true within their philosophical religious understanding. Within many philosophically questionable movements, there are very strong appeals to subjective experience and feelings and supposed revelation, physical and spiritual.
How is God known?
My argument.
1. Philosophically, it can be reasoned there is a first cause. This avoids a vicious regress of causes for which there is no solution.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
This can be reasoned without the Bible/Scripture.
2. The first cause can be equated with God.
This can also be reasoned without the Bible/Scripture.
3. God presents self in the Bible/Scripture. God existed prior to creation (matter) in Genesis 1. God existed prior to the creation of finite angelic beings or any other possible unknown finite beings. God is all that existed prior to other. Therefore God is eternal and infinite. God is spirit as in John 4: 24. God can reveal himself empirically as in walking in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3: 8, to Moses as a blazing fire in a bush in Exodus 3: 2, and with Christ. God is revealing himself empirically in a naturally limited sense.
God's physical revelation within a Scriptural revelation and all Scriptural revelation (spiritual) is intellectually reasonable. I am NOT STATING that this means that God must pass intellectual scrutiny as in Enlightenment era and beyond thinking. I am stating that divine revelation will be intellectual reasonable within reality. Adam and Eve had very good intellectual reasons to believe that the God they empirically viewed was the creator and was not for example, the devil, an alien, or another finite being. God demonstrated to them his power over reality in Genesis 1-3. Moses could see that God could set the bush ablaze and yet it would not burn (Exodus 3: 2). Moses too saw God could overcome the Egyptians and their sorcerers in Exodus 7-12. Christ, of course, verified his claims to be eternal and therefore God (John 8: 58) by his miracles and most importantly his resurrection documented at the end of each of the four gospels. Philosophically it is very likely that only God the creator would have ultimate power over life and death.
Human beings are finite and therefore cannot completely comprehend the infinite God. The finite human understanding of God is very limited and is also tainted by sin (Romans 1-5). God regenerates those (John 3) he chooses (Ephesians 1 and Romans 8) in a way that has God moulding and changing persons without coercing or forcing persons to believe. Persons are saved by grace through faith as a gift of God (Ephesians 2). Persons are indwelled and at times filled (Acts) with the Holy Spirit. This will suffice for initial salvation and citizenship in the Kingdom of God which will culminate with resurrection.
As noted in several posts:
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. I favour the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to philosophical religious claims such as the historical Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter-arguments that are superior. I reason that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Conclusion
Non-exhaustively, in general terms, within philosophical religion, this is how God can be legitimately known both intellectually and spiritually.
Two silly falls.
Magic Island, Hawaii (photo from trekearth.com)
Fiji (photo from trekearth.com)
Larry Meredith via Facebook:
ReplyDelete"Russ,
I kind of look at it along the lines of Occam's Razor, "simpler is better". Everytime I hear someone try to explain away the miracles of God as natural events their explanation gets more complicated and convoluted. The simple explanation is God did it.
I tried to put this as a comment at your site, but I got those bx error messages again. Very frustrating"
From Facebook:
ReplyDeleteI will post for you...Blogger is appreciated but such a pain at times. I had trouble working with it too. Thanks!
Larry, please feel to send the messages this way if you please. Or email. I prefer not to miss out and can post. Cheers. As well, once again as with several times before my thekingpin68 comments are not being sent to my email box. This means I have to check them at Dashboard.
End
I can agree that the supernatural events expressed in plain literal language within Scripture must be accepted as such.
They occurred even as non-typical events.
Thanks again!
Hey Russ,
ReplyDelete"2. The first cause can be equated with God.
This can also be reasoned without the Bible/Scripture."
I don't think I can agree with this premise. Which "god" are you talking about?
If by "reasoned" you mean it is not beyond the bounds of reason to come to this conclusion, then I agree. But if you are saying that "reason" actually suggests this conclusion, then I would respectfully disagree. Which "god" can be equated with the "first cause"? If we are not going to be presupposing biblical revelation or a direct, personal revelation from God, then how can we "reason" that the first cause can be equated with God?
I certainly appreciate the work of Christian scholars in the philosophical discipline, but it seems to me that philosophical/evidentialist apologists (e.g. William Lane Craig) only beat around the bush (pun intended!) of "proving" God's existence. In fact, at best they (and other Classical Evidentialists) can only prove the "probable" existence of a god. This may be fine for eventually leading the philosophically immature to Christ, but anyone with a measure of philosophical understanding can offer various other "reasonable" alternatives that would effectively deny the possible knowledge of God.
Philosophically speaking, I think the Presuppositional apologist is on much firmer ground because the revelation of God in the Scripture is the foundation for his argument. Is this circular reasoning? In some sense, sure...but so is everyone's. What we presuppose is where we start--we can't get around it. I think the Presuppositionalist is in a much better position to effectively argue on philosophical grounds because he doesn't allow his opponent any measure of the autonomy that she takes for granted.
I agree with your point number 3, but it doesn't seem to me that it follows unless we claim that point number 2 is speaking of the God of the Bible (which I don't think we can do unless we presuppose Him).
According to Romans 1, God is in fact known by everyone (because we are all "image-bearers")...but this knowledge is suppressed in unrighteousness. Therefore, I believe, an appeal to philosophy in and of itself will not bring a person to acknowledge the existence of the God of the Bible, much less the ability to know Him.
Sorry to express my disagreement with your view here. Oh well, even the "choir" doesn't always agree with the "conductor" over every detail! :-)
But, of course, maybe I've completely misunderstood you and am in agreement after all.
Stirring the pot...
GGM
After such a nice compliment on the picture at my blog, please disregard my recent "diagreeing" post. :-)
ReplyDeleteI have seen what I believe to be evidence of demonic activity among Mormons, but I have never seen such among Jehovah's Witnesses. However, in my recent research over the past few days (for my latest blog article) regarding Islam and "honor killings," I now consider Islam to be the most demonic, evil religion in the world, with the possible exception of Satanism. The more I research about the religion, regarding current events, the more horrible things I find. I have also learned that "Islam" is not always necessarily the same as "Muslims," just as "Catholicism" is not necessarily always equivalent to "Catholics," because not all Catholics believe and follow exactly the same thing, just as not all Muslims believe and follow exactly the same thing. Nevertheless, an estimated 5,000 "honor killings" per year, plus terrorist acts, plus things like throwing acid on a person just because they are a Christian, or killing them because they converted from Islam to Christianity, or stabbing or shooting your daughter because she is too "Westernized," or beheading your wife for the same reason, are all reprehensible, and have become widespread among Muslims. Yet, in the midst of all this horror, tens of thousands, and by some reports millions, of Muslims are coming to Christ. Praise God for that!
ReplyDeleteSo, you have already visited Ireland!! That is awesome! How is it? Where did you go?
ReplyDeleteHey Russ,
ReplyDelete"2. The first cause can be equated with God.
This can also be reasoned without the Bible/Scripture."
'I don't think I can agree with this premise. Which "god" are you talking about?'
This is a philosophical deduction and premise. There is no definitive God that I am talking about. The Biblical God is intentionally not assumed in premise 1 and premise 2. If I did assume premise 3 with premise 2 it would greatly weaken the argument.
'If by "reasoned" you mean it is not beyond the bounds of reason to come to this conclusion, then I agree.'
Yes, basically we agree here.
'But if you are saying that "reason" actually suggests this conclusion, then I would respectfully disagree. Which "god" can be equated with the "first cause"? If we are not going to be presupposing biblical revelation or a direct, personal revelation from God, then how can we "reason" that the first cause can be equated with God?'
I think that is overstated and basically disagree. There is no need for a particular definitive God to be assumed here, in fact it weakens my argument to do so.
With your approach you risk being accused of circular reasoning by critics.
'In fact, at best they (and other Classical Evidentialists) can only prove the "probable" existence of a god. This may be fine for eventually leading the philosophically immature to Christ, but anyone with a measure of philosophical understanding can offer various other "reasonable" alternatives that would effectively deny the possible knowledge of God.'
Certainty by Klein's definition can be argued here and not only probability.
Other reasonable alternatives are not better ones.
'Is this circular reasoning? In some sense, sure...but so is everyone's.'
That is problematic. Mine is not circular. That is the strength of this presentation when you ponder on it, but may also be why some will find it objectionable.;)
'I agree with your point number 3, but it doesn't seem to me that it follows unless we claim that point number 2 is speaking of the God of the Bible (which I don't think we can do unless we presuppose Him).'
Premise three is the only point at which a person knows God personally, but premise 1 and premise 2 can be reasoned out by a non-believer and by a believer as reasonable and certain by Klein's definition. Premise 3 could even be reasoned reasonable by the non-believer as well. The argument is logical and reasonable.
As believers we in a sense start with premise 3 but can see with premise 1 and premise 2 that philosophy of religion as well points to the existence of a being that is not definitively the Biblical God but is in line with a reality where the God of premise 3 and theology and Biblical studies can be understood to exist as certain.
'According to Romans 1, God is in fact known by everyone (because we are all "image-bearers")...but this knowledge is suppressed in unrighteousness. Therefore, I believe, an appeal to philosophy in and of itself will not bring a person to acknowledge the existence of the God of the Bible, much less the ability to know Him.'
Of course. But, the types of knowledge in premise 1 and premise 2 are not in context identical to premise 3. But they do connect.
'Sorry to express my disagreement with your view here. Oh well, even the "choir" doesn't always agree with the "conductor" over every detail! :-)
But, of course, maybe I've completely misunderstood you and am in agreement after all.
Stirring the pot...'
Some good points, but I stand firm, I have made a good and reasonable argument that does not have circular reasoning even though I admit that one must be regenerated by God to believe in Christ.
Thanks my friend.
Russ:)
'After such a nice compliment on the picture at my blog, please disregard my recent "diagreeing" post. :-)'
ReplyDeleteNever! LOL.
'I now consider Islam to be the most demonic, evil religion in the world, with the possible exception of Satanism.'
ReplyDeleteWow, more controversy. I hope you hover around this blog to defend that point, just in case. LOL.
Thanks, Jeff.;)
'So, you have already visited Ireland!! That is awesome! How is it? Where did you go?'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Aline.
I think it is the most green place I have been perhaps, even more so than here in British Columbia. I saw Belfast and some of rural Northern Ireland. The people were very friendly in Belfast. I really enjoyed Dublin as well although I attempted to persuade a lady, that left a baby in a stroller across the street, to not jump into the River Liffey. Someone called the police and they took her away.
From her location I do not think she would have died, but she would have been hurt.
Russ:)
A point on circular reasoning.
Blackburn on page 64, notes that in a sense in any valid argument the conclusion is concealed in the premises. However, by his philosophical definition I am not using illogical circular reasoning or vicious circular reasoning as my conclusion is not 'improperly concealed in the premises' or is it 'improperly needed to get to the conclusion itself from the premises' as in begging the question.
So, I am comfortable stating I am not using circular reasoning.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Begging the question’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Because you capitalized "God" in the second premise, I assumed you were referring to YHWH. If you are simply suggesting that it is reasonable to equate a first cause with a god, then I quite agree--it is reasonable.
ReplyDelete...and if a god, then certainly the God of the Bible is able to pull off the "first cause".
But again, to know "God" (I'm assuming that your initial question "How is God known" refers to the particular God of Creation) requires direct revelation from God either in the form of the Scripture or a personal visitation. Even suggesting that it is reasonable to equate the first cause with a god is not sufficient to "know" whichever "god" that is...much less the God of creation.
It seems that your premise #3 would be valid only to those who believe that "God presents self in the Bible/Scripture". Even if I accept that "The first cause can be equated with (a) god", I would still have to accept that a particular god has revealed himself in a book; and then I would have to accept that a deity called YHWH has done so, and that He is the "god" of the First Cause (premise 2).
It seems to me that your conclusion is still very much founded upon a presuppositional paradigm. The "evidence" that you are using (premise 3) has already been interpreted by God Himself in the Scipture.
Even if I accept that a God called YHWH has revealed Himself in the Bible, that does not mean that He is the "god" of the first cause--He very well might be, but that's as far as we can go. I don't think this amount to "knowing God" because there are other "gods" who people claim to know who can be sufficient as a "first cause". And, of course, here we are dealing with the nuances of the concept of "knowledge".
But I still don't think that you've gotten around the presuppositional paradigm of "knowing". Without presupposing revelation, that YHWH has revealed Himself in the Scripture, we wouldn't have a basis for knowing Him even according to this formulation because premise 2, by your own admission, doesn't necessarily prove or speak of the God of the Scripture.
I just can't seem to reconcile your conclusion with the argument. I'm sure I'm probably missing something and if you don't want to spend the time guiding me through it, I understand. I know you have a lot of work to do and that you don't need to get sidetracked.
Oh well...life goes on--at least for those of us who aren't endlessly working on revisions! :-)
Of course, if you want to waste your time on this, I'll give you the last word and then I'll just spend some time mulling it over.
GGM
'Because you capitalized "God" in the second premise, I assumed you were referring to YHWH. If you are simply suggesting that it is reasonable to equate a first cause with a god, then I quite agree--it is reasonable.'
ReplyDeleteIt can still be the first cause, God. I have seen that in philosophy texts and journals, for example.
'But again, to know "God" (I'm assuming that your initial question "How is God known" refers to the particular God of Creation) requires direct revelation from God either in the form of the Scripture or a personal visitation.'
Yes.
'Even suggesting that it is reasonable to equate the first cause with a god is not sufficient to "know" whichever "god" that is...much less the God of creation.'
Yes. But, premise 3 introduces a different level of knowledge.
'It seems that your premise #3 would be valid only to those who believe that "God presents self in the Bible/Scripture". Even if I accept that "The first cause can be equated with (a) god", I would still have to accept that a particular god has revealed himself in a book; and then I would have to accept that a deity called YHWH has done so, and that He is the "god" of the First Cause (premise 2).'
A good point.
'It seems to me that your conclusion is still very much founded upon a presuppositional paradigm. The "evidence" that you are using (premise 3) has already been interpreted by God Himself in the Scipture.'
Every premise in an argument presumes something.
'Even if I accept that a God called YHWH has revealed Himself in the Bible, that does not mean that He is the "god" of the first cause--He very well might be, but that's as far as we can go. I don't think this amount to "knowing God" because there are other "gods" who people claim to know who can be sufficient as a "first cause". And, of course, here we are dealing with the nuances of the concept of "knowledge".'
No, I think it is certain and 'might be' is far less likely. Although it is possible that a lesser finite being did exist prior to angels and matter, it would not be the first cause but would be caused as well. This avoids a vicious regress.
Again, the knowledge of God in premises 1 and 2 are reasonable on their own and I can connect my premise 3 to those.
'Without presupposing revelation, that YHWH has revealed Himself in the Scripture, we wouldn't have a basis for knowing Him even according to this formulation because premise 2, by your own admission, doesn't necessarily prove or speak of the God of the Scripture.'
As explained, it is a different but related level of knowledge, but as believers we can have a spiritual and intellectual knowledge of God as in all three premises.
'I just can't seem to reconcile your conclusion with the argument. I'm sure I'm probably missing something and if you don't want to spend the time guiding me through it, I understand. I know you have a lot of work to do and that you don't need to get sidetracked.'
I am stating these are three premises by which we have intellectual (all three) and spiritual (premise 3) knowledge of God. Unlike the cultic leaders that I was watching that claimed testimony and subjective knowledge based on questionable revelation, this is how I know God. Yes, my worldview starts with premise 3 and backtracks, but the logical and reasonable argument does not in order to avoid the claim of vicious circular reasoning and a claim that I just quote the Bible to prove the Bible.
The bottom line is the argument is a very speculative attempt within the context of secular philosophy of religion and Christian theology to demonstrate my rational Christian faith without the overuse of subjectivism (as with cultic leaders) or just quoting the Bible to prove the Bible.
Thanks, Jason.
Russ
Thanks for your always-thoughtful response, Russ.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing the "beautiful" people stumble when I get a chance to watch the clips.
Thoughtful and hopefully correct, but I live and learn.
ReplyDeleteThe argument will more than likely be revised over the years but I reason I am on the right track.
Thanks for assisting me in thinking things through.
Cheers, GGM.
"Within many philosophically questionable movements there are very strong appeals to subjective experience and feelings and supposed revelation, physical and spiritual."
ReplyDeleteand Jeff's "I now consider Islam to be the most demonic"
Sort of off topic, but not too bad. I'm reading the book "Among the Cannibals" about modern cannibalism (not about weird serial killers though- like about cultures and sub-cultures that practice it such as the Korowai and Joseph Kony's war tactics in Uganda)- wonderful book but terrifying.
The book talks about this movement in India, Aghor (a Hindu sect) and the author talks to some Aghor holy men. One holy man practiced cannibalism and to become holier had, um, "relations" with a dead body in the Ganges.
The author asks, "Why do such a thing?" He responds, "That is why I did it, because it's not monstrous, that judgment is just an illusion in people's minds. By overcoming this I came closer to enlightenment."
In my limited experience, it seems like Eastern religions tend to be less about "subjective experiences and feelings" and more about transcending them- another dangerous tilt. And I would argue that Aghor-ism is pretty demonic.
I know this was off topic, but it is an interesting book that made the normally strong-stomached me very queasy and made me seriously think about evil in the world.
I mean, how do you reconcile the fact that God is God and the fact that Joseph Kony has forced hundreds of children in Uganda, some as young as 6, to kill their playmates (beating them or even biting them to death), made them eat them, and then turned them into child soldiers?
I know the philosophical reasons. I have to, as you pointed out, realize I can only know God "Non-exhaustively." As you said: "I am NOT STATING that this means that God must pass intellectual scrutiny as in Enlightenment era and beyond thinking."
While I am allowed to express my true feelings to God as evidenced by the strong language towards God in the Psalms, it is important for me to remember God's superiority as evidenced in the end of Job. Basically, I have to able to say, "I have no idea why God allows this to happen and that is why I am not God." But, one has to admit, sometimes it is damn hard to do!
In summary, good post as usual. It is nice to have this blog to rant to. :)
Ms. Facts, thanks very much for the essay. Always appreciated.
ReplyDeleteHmm, the last time I can remember cannibalism being mentioned on my blogs was on thekingpin68 with young Satanists in Russia. Not a nice story.
russia
'The author asks, "Why do such a thing?" He responds, "That is why I did it, because it's not monstrous, that judgment is just an illusion in people's minds. By overcoming this I came closer to enlightenment."
Hmm, a candidate for (present) demon possession?
'In my limited experience, it seems like Eastern religions tend to be less about "subjective experiences and feelings" and more about transcending them- another dangerous tilt.'
Reasonable conclusion based on my limited studies on Eastern religion, as well.
'I know this was off topic,....'
That is allowed on satire and theology and thekingpin68.
'I mean, how do you reconcile the fact that God is God and the fact that Joseph Kony has forced hundreds of children in Uganda, some as young as 6, to kill their playmates (beating them or even biting them to death), made them eat them, and then turned them into child soldiers?'
Yes, I have no specific answers, but persons are under sin (Genesis 3, Romans 1-5) and temporal death, and all kinds of temporal death is a result.
'While I am allowed to express my true feelings to God as evidenced by the strong language towards God in the Psalms, it is important for me to remember God's superiority as evidenced in the end of Job. Basically, I have to able to say, "I have no idea why God allows this to happen and that is why I am not God." But, one has to admit, sometimes it is damn hard to do!'
Agreed, it is very difficult to do.
'In summary, good post as usual. It is nice to have this blog to rant to. :)'
Welcome.:)
Wow, more controversy. I hope you hover around this blog to defend that point, just in case. LOL.
ReplyDeleteWell, it seems that odd facts may have presented a strong case to challenge my assumption. That information regarding cannibalism is disturbing.
I was just now doing a little research on terrorism, which is bad enough in itself. I have spent the past several days researching "honor killings," which has been very disturbing, since it usually involves a Muslim man murdering his daughter(s) or wife. Listening to the 911 call by 17-year-old Sarah Said on New Year's Day, 2008, who, along with her 18-year-old sister, was shot multiple times by her father, merely because they were dating non-Muslim boys, was so disturbing that it has haunted me and depressed me for days. And then, reading about the gruesome and horrific torture, mutilation and murder of a couple by 4 men, apparently considered to be a 'race crime,' was also very disturbing. So now I can add cannibalism, shockingly within the realm of Hinduism, to the list of horrible and very disturbing things I have been learning over the past several days.
All I can say is, PRAISE GOD that my name, along with each person who has been regenerated in Christ, is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, and that we will one day be in Heaven, where none of these horrible, terrible occurrences will ever happen again!
BTW, regarding what odd facts said about God's superiority, in the past few days, I have wrestled with God's sovereignty possibly as never before, since learning about the disturbing murders of Amina and Sarah Said by their Muslim father. I even saw a photo of Amina reading the book, "The Inferno of Dante Alighieri," which is very tragically ironic to me. Assuming that Amina and Sarah were not saved, how could two gorgeous and beautiful teenage girls, only 17 and 18 years old, who had been raped and beaten by their father over the years, and were finally shot to death by him, spend eternity in Hell, just because they never accepted Jesus? (Of course, I do not know for certain that they never accepted Jesus, but, coming from a Muslim family, and in my research, not finding anything that said they ever became Christians, I am assuming this.) After wrestling with this horrible thought, I came to the conclusion that their eternal destiny is really none of my business, and I am not qualified to determine or judge where they are spending eternity. Not only am I very limited in what I know about their lives and hearts, but I do not have the infinite wisdom that God has. I am a corrupted sinner, and God is holy and perfectly just and fair. So my vision and thoughts and prejudices and opinions are tainted and imperfect and incomplete in knowledge. All I can do, at the end, is realize that God is sovereign, and leave it up to Him. I must also realize that each and every one of us fully deserves to suffer eternally in Hell, so therefore, God is not at all unjust to send a person to Hell, no matter what injustices or horrors they may have experienced on this earth. And just because a person is young, or because they are beautiful and gorgeous, is no reason to excuse them from what they fully deserve as sinners, no matter what I may feel emotionally. After all, God is the One Who gave them that beauty in the first place. And God is the One Who gave them their life in the first place. And we are all mere creations of God, so we belong to Him, and He can rightfully and justly do with us as He pleases, because He is the One Who created us in the first place. And even our understanding of the concepts of justice and fairness originate from God, anyway.
A well presented essay, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThe problem of evil at its most gross does not make me lean toward atheism, deism or another worldview. It does make me sad, frustrated and angry. I stay with the God that revelation and reason had brought me.
Speaking of eternity (or maybe no one was speaking of it...oh, well...), here's a poem someone sent me:
ReplyDeletePoor old Granddad's passed away, cut off in his prime,
He never had a day off crook - gone before his time,
We found him in the dunny, collapsed there on the seat,
A startled look upon his face, his trousers round his feet.
Any Australian readers out there should understand the language, but I had to look up "crook" and "dunny," which are slang.
Well, I guess we needed that after the murderers, cannibals, and cultists under discussion the last day or so.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the discussions though.
I was the guy that picked the problem of evil as a topic...
Heck, I have my first cell phone coming. Thank you, Lord.
Thanks my friend.
...I think I'll stick to chicken...
ReplyDeleteYes, the Colonel's not the Colonel.
ReplyDeleteGGM, how do you know it's chicken? Don't you know almost everything "tastes like chicken". If you're going to stick to something, stick to fish...
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Friday night 'smart***'.
ReplyDeleteLarry King interviews Beatles' guru
ReplyDeleteIts difficult walking in heels, and this woman's wobbling legs are comical like a cartoon, and very funny. I enjoy how your blog is intellectually stimulating and humerous too, especially the guy going down the slide into the pool of water, woa baby!
ReplyDelete-Wilma T. Franklin-
Murderers, cannibals and cultists! Oh, my!
ReplyDeleteGGM:
...I think I'll stick to chicken...
A little on the sick side, but funny!
Chucky:
GGM, how do you know it's chicken? Don't you know almost everything "tastes like chicken". If you're going to stick to something, stick to fish...
LOL! Chucky's in a feisty mood, I see. "Gentlemen, to your corners!"
It's the Friday Night fights!
Russ:
Thanks for the Friday night 'smart***'.
LOL!
'Maharishi Mahesh Yogi'
ReplyDeleteA high-pitched guru that makes sense only some of the time.
Peace.
I praise God that he answered my prayer today, as well as the prayers of many others. Rifqa Bary, a 17-year-old Muslim girl from Sri Lanka who became a Christian, whose family came to the U.S. for medical help because she was blind in one eye from an "accident" (most likely her father beating her), ran away from her father and family in Ohio, and took a bus to a church/Pastor in Orlando, FL. Her second court hearing was today where, against all odds that I've heard, they determined she will, for now at least, stay in Florida with the foster family that the DCF placed her with. Her next court hearing is Sept. 3rd, but for now, God has answered prayer in what I see to be a miracle. The reason she fled her father was because, when he found out she became a Christian, he told her she was no longer his daughter, and he said he would kill her. This was no idle threat, and there are many cases of similar killings of daughters and mothers by Muslim men in the U.S., Canada, and of course elsewhere. Most of these "honor killings" are for much less serious things, but in Rifqa Bary's case, she has committed the worst crime there is, according to Islam. In countries run by Shari'a law, Muslims who convert to any other religion have committed a capital crime, punishable by death. And I can cite verses from the Qur'an instructing Muslims to kill and behead non-Muslims, and that apostates (Muslims converting to another religion) must be killed. There is even one verse specifically mentioning that female apostates must be killed.
ReplyDeleteWilma, thanks.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that being a model is not always an easy job.
I was asked to be a foot model once.;) I said no, as the job stunk.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWe're off to see the whizzer the wonderful whizzer of ahhhh.
More Friday night smart***.
Yeah, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has much to say about nothing. His gobbled garbage is a lot of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIslam can be brutal within the Qur'an, and is well-documented.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good news, Jeff.
'Yeah, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has much to say about nothing. His gobbled garbage is a lot of nonsense.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. He is laughable at points.
More Friday night smart***.
ReplyDeleteYou ain't seen nothin' yet! : )
Hey, it's 3 AM Saturday morning here, so it's 'No Holds Barred,' baby! Let the party begin! LOL!
OK, if you refuse to Approve this comment, Russ, I completely understand. If you refuse to Approve it, it will probably save me from having everyone lose all respect for me anyway (that is, if anyone ever had any respect for me in the first place! LOL!). Or, maybe it's your own reputation that you're concerned about! LOL! Again, if that is the case, don't feel obliged to Approve this comment. But I just can't let Chucky and GGM outdo me (and, after all, this is "SATIRE and Theology"), so I'm including the following story (for better or for worse), which was just now e-mailed to me:
"I was in the pub yesterday when I suddenly realized I desperately needed to fart. The music was really, really loud, so I timed my farts with the beat.
After a couple of songs, I started to feel better. I finished my pint and noticed that everybody was staring at me.
Then I suddenly remembered... I was listening to my iPod."
LOL. I heard that one recently.
ReplyDeleteMy Uncle Einar many years ago went into a bar in San Francisco. He needed to use the washroom, but it was chained up. Einar asked the bartender about it, and the bartender went and unlocked it and stated that it was locked so people would not get raped.
When I was in Castro, by accident thanks to Chuck, we decided to briefly tour as learning experience. We went for lunch. I went to the washroom. I had to use a stall because the urinal was non-existent or occupied, I do not recall. A guy knocked at the stall door once, and I said 'occupied', he then knocked again and I said 'occupied'! He then said something along the lines of 'sorry'.
Thanks for those "washroom stories," Russ.
ReplyDeleteBTW, that first 'runway model' video had me laughing hard.
The second one, where the kung fu guy did the sword dance (wushu?) and the model fell in the hole he made, well, that was actually a kung fu technique called, "Monkey digs hole to trap pretty lady." I think Jackie Chan did that technique once. (j/k)
Here's a video of a martial artist who is so devastating that, even if you (Russ), Chucky and Rick all 3 teamed up against this incredibly-skilled martial artist, this terrifying opponent would take you down and take you out! I suspect that the widely-feared martial artist in this video probably kills opponents just for pleasure!
Deadly Martial Arts Master
; )
She would destroy me with her cuteness.:)
ReplyDeleteCheers.
BTW, I have seen a model fall through a runway floor previously on YouTube.
Jeff that was funny about the martial arts girl. I am not sure about a link, but google the new movie due out next year called, The expendables. It's jam packed with action stars. Rick b
ReplyDeleteThanks, Rick.
ReplyDeletelink and stars
Thanks for your posts Russ. Though I grew up studying at Catholic schools and studied at a Jesuit University, even began a masters in Theology but never finished the first semester, I am very poor and low at it. I have learned a lot in your posts though I have to reread them more often to understand wholly. The videos were hilarious and the second one was pretty nasty, if it were me, i dont think I would be able to stand and walk straight! hehe
ReplyDeleteThanks, Miel.
ReplyDeleteI too have much to learn, not only in the fields of theology, Biblical studies and philosophy of religion, but in all sorts of disciplines in order to improve my general knowledge.
I appreciate your support.
Russ:)
just passing by again ^_^ I think I haven't linked the comic book blog yet...
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ReplyDeleteI do not bother with reciprocal linking or taking comments with that blog. I just use it to post my comic collection.
I hope you are well, Miel.:)
Beautiful Hawaiian pictures Russ!
ReplyDeleteHuman beings are finite and therefore cannot completely comprehend the infinite God.
When our spirits leave this carnal body we will no longer be limited to finite understanding but infinite understanding....True?
'When our spirits leave this carnal body we will no longer be limited to finite understanding but infinite understanding....True?'
ReplyDeleteGod alone is infinite (and eternal).
Human beings have a beginning.
Human beings will continue to learn from God in paradise and after resurrection.
So, the answer is false. It is impossible for a finite being to become infinite.
Sorry, Tamela.:)
Thank you as always.
That water jump was cool, fake or not it was cool. If it were real theirs not enough money in the world to pay me to do that, if you miss the pool, oboy thats gonna hurt.
ReplyDeleteWell just thought I would share with everyone, I am looking to go back to school, I have been cooking and baking for 22 years and still love it, I am looking to refine my skills and get better.
I will be taking a 15 month course at the famous Le Cordon Blue culinary school. It will cost about 42,000 dollars. I'm trying to get Scholarships, grant and loans.
All will be tough to do, so I am also having business cards made to help sell my dry spice to help pay for school. If I get into school and it looks really good like I will, I will be posting the story as I go on my food blog. Rick b
'I will be taking a 15 month course at the famous Le Cordon Blue culinary school. It will cost about 42,000 dollars. I'm trying to get Scholarships, grant and loans.'
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, Rick.
May you succeed!