Short audio post: Common criticism, God cannot be known by the senses and therefore cannot be known

Maple Ridge, BC

A photo I took from just outside my complex. Within a year or so it will likely be my former complex.

I need to buy a better microphone. If I make the mix too loud there is a lot of noise. However, I need to have a reasonably high volume mix to make up for the mediocre quality microphone.

I would suggest the listener turn up the volume and turn down treble/bass settings if needed.

I admit there are different types of knowledge, and that God as Spirit (John 4: 24) is not known in the same way that one human being knows another, for example. Biblically God is personally known by regeneration via election (John 3, Ephesians 1).

However my audio post presents this basic argument but not in the exact same order or way:

Common criticism, God cannot be known by the senses and therefore cannot be known.

1. Natural theology/natural religion provides a type of knowledge about God as creator (Romans 1 does mention this but is not the only source for this concept which can be deduced).

2. Philosophy of religion and concepts of first cause can provide other somewhat related knowledge which can be deduced as being a parallel truth to the creator in Genesis, although the first cause is not necessarily the Biblical God.

3. Scripture provides God's supernatural revelation through prophets, apostles and scribes.

The conclusion being the empiricism should not be completely abandoned and has uses in science, for example, but should not be viewed as the only source of knowledge. God could never been known this way in a strict sense as Spirit. The critic should therefore have an open mind.

Thanks.

Short audio post

emp.mp3

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

I did not cite these but kept concepts in mind. I have cited these in my recent PhD revisions and in blog posts.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.






Rotunda, University of Virginia

Flat Bible and Progressive Revelation

Tet Valley, Southern France

This topic was discussed previously on this blog. But, I have made some changes to the post and have more readers now.;)

Flat Bible and Progressive Revelation

Explanation

Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant in contrast to the old covenant of the Hebrew Bible. (Hebrews 12: 24). The law in particular was only a shadow of good things to come. (Hebrews 10). The law cannot save as shown in Romans 4, but persons are saved through righteousness of faith fulfilled in Christ and by grace through faith in Christ. Galatians 2 mentions the folly of following the law as persons now have Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 4-6, Jesus explains the deeper spiritual meanings of the law. New Testament revelation of Christ/apostles does not contradict the previous revelation.

The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament must be read in context, and the New Testament should not be read into the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible should be studied for original context.

I conclude that Biblically a flat Bible hermeneutical approach which does not properly interpret old covenant teaching through a new covenant amplification, should be academically rejected for one that takes a progressive revelation approach, in order for one to posses the fullness of God’s Scriptural revelation and the gospel message. Progressive revelation is defined as the understanding that God's self-disclosure is in progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96). Therefore the New Testament offers a more complete revelation. The Old Testament is to be understood in light of the fuller teaching of the New Testament. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 96).

Additionally

The gospel plan of the New Testament is God’s final Scriptural revelation for humanity. There is therefore no other means of salvation (John 14: 6, Acts 4: 12).

Theologically, as examples, Islam is rejected for reasons such as the denial of key doctrines about Christ, including his deity, and the Latter-Day Saints theology is rejected for reasons such as holding to polytheism and henotheism (belief in more than one God, or the belief that more than one God in existence is possible, although only one is worshipped) which are against Scriptural teaching. (Isaiah 43, 44, 45). Christ as the Alpha and Omega, as the beginning and the end (Revelation 1: 8, 21: 6, 22: 13) demonstrates theologically his nature as the one and only Almighty God. There is only one God in existence and only one God that should be worshipped. Mounce states that this title of Christ in Revelation sets Christ beyond the created order and Christ is also unlimited as The Son and has the same divine nature as the Father (and I would add the Holy Spirit). Mounce (1990: 393).

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

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

Georgia judge bars release of photos

I do deal with the problem of evil with research degrees and my blogs. Keeping this in mind, I placed the above link in the comments of a couple of posts and am willing to discuss it in comments, but I decided to be sensitive to my readers and not discuss it in the main body.

Again, please feel free to discuss it on here if you wish.

However, I will state that I am glad Hustler was denied and that their request shows an incredible level of moral depravity.



A classic jazz-fusion piece with humorous unintended whistling and ending. I read online from Holdsworth that this album was demos and that a music company exec. came and took the tape away and soon there was an album, without the consent of the artist.

Holdsworth

'And we were actually rehearsing in the studio and they were rolling the tape while we were rehearsing on the premise that we'd be able to keep recording and also check things out, but that never happened. At the end of that day, the guy said "Thanks, see ya!" That's why a lot of those tunes don't have any endings—they were rehearsals! That was a complete rip-off.'

Now this is not Biblical.

Not Biblical

Patriotism: Canadian, American and British concerning sport and other

French Riviera (a place I would like to see)

Obviously a very non-exhaustive post.

I am Canadian, born in Canada; British my Dad was born there, and pro-American, in general terms.

1. It was good to see the Canadian pride and patriotism during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver-Whistler. A sense of community was built. This sense of community may lead to more problem solving within the Province of British Columbia and Canada and less bickering.

2. One of the things during the 1980s and 1990s that disturbed me concerning the American coverage of Olympic games was how the commentators seemed so focused on American athletes to the exclusion of those in the rest of world. From my Canadian perspective, this was philosophically attributed to American flag waving which Canadians mention.

This is one major reason as I child and younger adult, although being pro-American, I developed a strong dislike for the up and coming American hockey and soccer teams. I dreaded in the future having to view and listen to the commentators talk on and on about how America had triumphed against the odds once again as always, this time against traditionally strong nations in these sports and America was now the best in these sports just like in American sports.

Thankfully this has not as of yet happened, although the USA is a major hockey power they are not definitively the best, or usually the best. They have good soccer team, although not a top contender for the FIFA World Cup. I have serious doubts that the USA can ever dominate soccer as there are too many sports ahead of it in popularity in America that will take the best athletes. Plus there are many countries where soccer takes many of the best athletes as the number one sport.

3. Frankly, I have to admit, I think that over the last decade or so Canadian commentary has PERHAPS become more patriotic than American. I mostly watched Canadian Olympic coverage but also watched American in 2010. The American coverage on NBC seemed to spend more time on non-American significant contributors to the Olympics than did the Canadian commentators on CTV/TSN/Rogers Sportsnet. The Canadian coverage seemed intent on promoting Canada at all costs.

This became annoying to me. I think it more important to discuss the most significant athletes.

4. While living in England I certainly found the English and British to be patriotic and support their athletes, especially in regard to football. However, the close proximity to other European countries also very good at football, most notably, seemed to provide more objectively based reporting.

As a scholar I thrive on objectivity, I am not claiming to be completely objective, but I reason that lack of objectivity in one area of life could lead to lack of objectivity in other more important areas of life.

Yes, I stand on guard for thee.

My argument is that patriotism in sports, Canadian, American, and British, for example, is good. Related overzealous patriotism that lacks intellectual objectivity, may often be harmless.

However, if a primarily non-objective overzealous approach is taken within religion and philosophy, the result can be intellectual blindness.

A possible thinking pattern:

I am born in Canada (for example), therefore I support Canadian athletes.

I therefore do not support non-Canadian athletes.

I am born in this country, therefore I support my country.

I therefore do not support a different country.

I am born into this religion, therefore I support this religion.

I therefore do not support other differing religion.

I am born into this philosophy, therefore I support this philosophy.

I therefore do not support other differing philosophy.

Something to think about.


Team Canada win 2010 Olympic hockey gold.

Okay, okay, I know this guy in on my Facebook page and in the recent thekingpin68 comments (see link below), but here he is again. Version one, psychedelic and version two, perhaps the original.

Speaking of patriotism...

The Soviet Robot, Eduard Khil.

It's like his batteries were running out after about 2 minutes and 30 seconds and the Soviets had to bring the propaganda machine back in to be recharged and oiled.

thekingpin68: most recent philosophical theology post