Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Monsters?

France-Google Images

Tet Valley, Southern France, trekearth


































Stand Up For The Truth

My Facebook friend Mark shared the following story...

Thanks Mark.

Quotes:

Headline

'MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION: “SHARING THE GOSPEL IS LIKE RAPE”'

'What does this current administration think about Christians? That we are “monsters.” The Pentagon’s new “religious tolerance guru” is none other than anti-religious extremist Mikey Weinstein, the man who wants to remove Christianity from the military. And thanks to the Obama administration, his Military Religious Freedom Foundation now has the power and backing to do just that.'

'Weinstein, who heads up the cross-crushing, prayer-prosecuting Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), is the same man who just published a blistering rant calling evangelicals “fundamentalist Christian monsters.” (And that’s the nice part!) “We must,” he writes, “vigorously support the continuing efforts to expose pathologically anti-gay, Islamophobic, and rabidly intolerant agitators for what they are: die-hard enemies of the United States Constitution. Monsters, one and all. To do any less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.”'

'Sally Quinn, who highlighted Weinstein’s meeting with the military’s brass, quoted MRFF Board member Larry Wilkerson comparing the act of rape to sharing the Gospel. “Sexual assault and proselytizing are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together… This is a national security threat,” Wilkerson insisted. “What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.” As Wilkerson probably knows, the punishment for treason in America is death. Are we to assume that MRFF would be lobbying for that as well?'

'WeinSein’s own words: Christians are Monsters Ladies and Gentlemen, let me tell you of monsters and monstrous wrongs. And let me tell you what these bloody monsters thrive on. I founded the civil rights fighting organization the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to do one thing: fight those monsters who would tear down the Constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the technologically most lethal entity ever created by humankind, the U.S. military. Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how “Papa’s got a brand new bag.” What’s Papa’s new tactic? You’re gonna just love this! These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C’mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? It would be like the utter folly of 1960′s-era southern bigots howling like stuck pigs in protest that Rosa Parks’ civil rights activism is “abusing” them by destroying and disenfranchising their rights to sit in the front seat of buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters. Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as “family values” and “religious liberty.'

End of Quotes:

An academic comparison of the concept of rape and sharing the Gospel.

Rape from The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995), Oxford.

Key Definitions

1a the act of forcing a woman to have sexual intercourse against her will. B forcible sodomy 2…violent assault, forcible interference, violation. 3…carrying off by force. 4 an instance of rape. Commit a rape on. 2. Violate assault, pillage. Page 1137.

Sharing the Gospel would often be understood as in concepts of witness and evangelism. A witness in the New Testament is one that testifies to the deeds of Jesus Christ as in his death and resurrection. Browning (1999: 396-397). One who does so would therefore be witnessing the Gospel message.

From Richard Stoll Armstrong, the word ‘evangel’ is a transliteration of the Greek word ‘euaggelion’. εὐαγγέλιον, ου, τό

Translated ‘Gospel’, in the Anglo-Saxon God-spell, and good news. The meaning is to preach the good news and evangelism would be to preach the Gospel. Evangelism is the proclamation of the Gospel. Armstrong (1999: 192).

Comparing the concepts presented the definitions of rape demonstrate that rape takes place against the will of women, females, and persons. To witness is to share the Gospel, which is to discuss it with another person. In other words, a person that knows about the Gospel, or thinks he or she knows about the Gospel and shares it with another person. Now this could be done aggressively, but even if it was, to present the philosophical, theological concepts of the Gospel very forcefully, still would not necessarily reasonably allow the concept to be equated with rape or sexual assault. Even a very aggressive Christian witness would be primarily verbal and psychological and seemingly does not equate with rape and sexual assault which has a large physical, but not only aspect.

With evangelism, the idea is to proclaim the Gospel, as in a person that knows about the Gospel, or thinks he or she knows about the Gospel and shares it will another. Even a very aggressive Christian evangelism would be primarily verbal and psychological and seemingly does not equate with rape and sexual assault which again has a large physical, but not only aspect.

What of this notion of ‘spiritual rape’? If a Christian or pseudo-Christian religious cult, or misguided Christian assaulted someone with mental attacks as a form of perverted witnessing or evangelism, I view this as psychological, mental abuse, but this even does not seem to easily fit the definition of any type of rape. It would seem to me that one would have to go far, far beyond simply witness or evangelism to spiritually rape someone. The idea of brainwashing comes to mind, possibly with the use of mind-altering drugs. Now, perhaps that could qualify as spiritual rape, among other things.

It seems to me this MRFF watchdog group is politically and spiritually anti-Christian and is opposed to Biblical Christian expression in the military, at least. As I have noted I am not an American Christian Fundamentalist, but I am a moderate conservative. As can be noted on my blog I have many theological, Biblical and philosophical differences with the radical left and right within ‘Christiandom’ but I refuse to resort to using the sort of inaccurate descriptions of Christianity and Christians that arose from the article I quoted.

ARMSTRONG, RICHARD STOLL (1999) ‘Evangelism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Google Images
Google Images

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Philosophical & Theological Reflections On Satirical Images: Sport

Liverpool-trekearth

















Your ecards

Luis Suarez Cook book from Talk Sport

Quote:

'Luis Suarez returns with a brand-new series that pushes the concept of fast, everyday food to the next level. Building on the success of Luis's Ajax Meals, 90 minute meals takes the bite-size concept further, featuring new delicious, nutritious, malicious Eastern European dishes. So even if you're rushed off your feet during a Premier League match, there's no excuse for not making a  meal out of the opposition.'

TSN

Quote:

'Suarez, who was also suspended for seven matches in 2010 while playing for Ajax after biting a player, said he has been fined by Liverpool for his "unacceptable behaviour."'

'The Professional Footballers' Association has offered Suarez the services of counsellors.'

Suarez will not face a police investigation because Ivanovic said he did not want to press charges. "He had no apparent physical injuries and did not wish to make a complaint," Merseyside Police said in a statement.

But Prime Minister David Cameron's office said it was "rightly a matter for the football authorities to consider."

"As part of their consideration, I think it would be very understandable if they took into account the fact that high-profile players are often role models," Cameron's office said.'

End quote



I wonder if at 2013 the philosophical idea of sports athletes as role models for children is desirable. I realize that children do idolize athletes often, but with the advent of greater web and net access with computers and more sports television, there is even more potential for negative news concerning sports athletes, also known as sports 'stars'. The reality of what many sports stars/athletes are actually like on and off the field is becoming more and publicized.

I do not disagree with Prime Minister Cameron's reasoning and conclusion but I think parents need to take the time to philosophically discuss this type of issue with children. This is the type of potentially difficult issue that actually takes some challenging parenting, some reflection, some thought, and this in my mind is often avoided by many parents in Western society today, for easier alternatives, such as silence and/or simply dismissing person's such as Suarez as crazy.

But there is the second commandment  that at least somewhat relates...

Exodus 20:4-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 “You shall not make for yourself [a]an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Speaking of one needing counsel and then some.

I think respect and appreciation are more reasonable and Biblical responses but philosophically, role models are potentially dangerous and idolization is sinful.

Mike Tyson-Mirror

'He reportedly told the David Glenn radio show in America: "He (Suarez) bit someone, it happens. I am sure he will make amends with this guy. "I made amends with Evander and we got on with our lives."

Tyson possibly gets 'bite attack' alerts on his phone, because he admits to starting to follow Suarez on Twitter when he heard of the Anfield nibble.

Tyson added: "I saw this guy [Suarez] on the Twitter thing and thought I would check it out and see what his journey was all about."'
This happens to my friend Bobby Buff every decade when he goes on a plane at his wife's beckoning.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Billion Dollar Football Clubs 2013

1. Real Madrid 3.300 Billion US

Forbes.com
2. 3. 165 Billion US
3. 2. 600 Billion US

I have a good friend at church, originally from Germany that supports FC Nuremberg.

But since they sit in the middle of the Bundesliga standings and are not a high financed club, he talks about the wonderful chances of Bayern Munich, especially this year, and Borussia Dortmund, winning the UEFA Champions League.

I claim he is sounding like a bandwagon supporter and he backs down.

I tell him, I can understand, it is no fun supporting a loser.

Look at the Canucks...

The rest are all under 1 Billion US

6 AC Milan 945 Million

7 Chelsea 901 Million

8 Juventus 694 Million

9 Manchester City 689 Million

10 Liverpool 651 Million

Facebook-Respect for others in general too.

Bertinoro, Italy-Facebook

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Quick Questions & Answers


Buchenberg, Germany-trekearth
Facebook

















The Questions

Very non-exhaustive short answers.

I have been editing and attempting to load the videos for hours! My apologies.

I am going to take the suggestion of Darren, Richard and Leroy and try You Tube, turn those comments off and link and paste it to my blogs.

Mr. Trevor Hipp

Q. What is art?

Q. It is ethical/moral for people to drive slowly in the left lane?

Mr. Matt

Q. What's a spurious argument within Calvinism.

Q. If the Vatican contained an article stating Jesus was gay, would this make it true?-On second video

Note: I understand that God the Son, Jesus Christ, chose to be celibate. His mission was to be the atonement for humanity and provide resurrection, as the King of the Kingdom of God, not to procreate or be involved sexually.
My comments represent human nature.

Uncle Chuck

Q. The church has tried to survive by watering down its theology, to the point where many respected theologians (e.g. Hick) do not support the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God. What do you see as the effects of this?

Q. Why did God make dogs and cats so egotistical?



Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Will versus Omnipotence

 F/A-18 Super Hornet-Facebook
















From: 2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University

5. God’s Love Within his fourth chapter, A Loving God?, McGrath presented the traditional problem of evil, God being almighty and loving, yet evil remained in his creation. He stated that these ideas are not contradictions unless God can eliminate suffering all together, or there are no good reasons for God allowing suffering. He noted: "If either or both of these could be shown to be right, a serious problem with the Christian view of God might well have been exposed. But they have not been shown to be true." McGrath (1992: 23). McGrath does not go into detail on these two points since, as he stated earlier, he was not writing a philosophical defence of God; however, I believe that God could eliminate suffering and evil from the world but he wills not to. That is bound up in his will and promises but, as I stated, it is not a matter of lack of omnipotence, nor is it a matter of his lack of benevolence. For human development to take place the way God planned it, it would likely have something to do with human beings’ ability to freely choose or reject God. Evil is part of God’s creation, not in its original state, but in its present functional state. People suffer through it, yet God works his ultimate good purpose within a creation that contains evil. J.S. Feinberg stated: God can remove evil if that is all He wants to do in our world. However, I will argue that God cannot remove evil without (1) contradicting other valuable things He has decided to do, (2) casting doubts on or directly contradicting the claim that He has all the attributes predicated of Him in Scripture, and/or (3) performing actions that we would neither desire nor require Him to do, because they would produce a greater evil than we already have in our world. Feinberg (1994: 126). I agree with the general idea in Feinberg’s quote. It is very possible that if God were to remove evil from his fallen creation, it would interfere with other valuable things needed for human development. Both Feinberg and McGrath indicated this could contradict things stated in Scripture--Feinberg mentioned attributes, and McGrath mentioned promises. As well, greater evils could occur if God ridded the world of certain evils at this point. I think there are certain human developments, a type of human spiritual evolution which experiences certain evils for a set period of time before complete restoration through Christ occurs. So from this idea, I would conclude that God is still omnipotent, but yet he wills the continuation of the problem of evil for the greater good, and he remains holy, without sin. As well, with McGrath’s second point, he is correct. It has not been shown that there are no good reasons for God allowing suffering. As Feinberg’s idea points out, there is definitely some logical theological reasoning for evil existing within God’s creation. 

McGrath noted in this chapter, that God allows suffering, and I think this is true in a sense, in that demonic beings and human beings make conscious decisions to sin against God. Thus, God does not force people to sin against him. John Calvin stated concerning human sin, that human beings were not forced to sin against God: "If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that the choice is free, and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic." Calvin (1543) (1996: 68). He again noted: "So it follows that the will with its self-determined movement comes from nature, wickedness from the corruption of nature, . . ." Calvin (1543)(1996: 115). He also stated: "Now no one can claim that anything else is responsible for his sinning except an evil will. Moreover, the evil character of the will has no other source but its inherited corruption." Calvin (1543)(1996: 169). However, at the same time, I believe that the buck ultimately stops with God. All things can ultimately be traced back to him for he created the beings that he knew would turn against him, but he did this for the greater good. John Calvin, in Chapter Two of this thesis, described how God could will evil for the greater good without being tainted by sin himself. He mentioned that God could use even bad tools well. Calvin also discussed in The Institutes the case of the Chaldeans attacking Job, that God, Satanic beings and human beings can all participate in the same evil acts: How can we attribute the same work to God, to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan’s plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder. Such diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. . . . We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity. Calvin, (1539)(1998) Book II, Chapter 4, Section 2.

My idea is that the term allowing evil is too weak with regard to God’s ultimate sovereignty in his creation. God wills evil for the greater good and, as Calvin noted, God’s motive is perfectly good, not sinful and contradictory to his nature, while his fallen creation can still choose to disobey him freely. Their nature is fallen and they cannot do good work without the help of God. Left to their own means, their evil nature leads to evil actions. Blocher stated: "One may as well take one’s position from the stern candour of Scripture: if evil occurs under the rule of God, then his will is involved." Blocher (1994: 95-96). I am not stating that God predetermines the evil actions of demonic and human beings but he has foreknowledge of their choices and can create situations in which beings will choose to sin. With ultimate power, God can use the sin of opposition towards the greater good. God wills evil, not in the sense of coercion, but he has the ability to use actions for the greater good. For example, the Romans with the help of the Jews, execution of Christ was an evil and a sin. God did not force this but he foreknew this would occur and with this death worked out salvation for humanity. It would, however, be too weak to say that God simply allowed the execution of Christ because as an infinite, omnipotent being, he had the power to prevent the execution as he has the power to prevent all sin. So, in this sense, God wills evil, but he does not force people to sin, nor does he sin himself.

Later addition to website:

God predetermines all things in a sense, but does not force or coerce human or angelic rebellion. This is what is meant in the above paragraph.

BLOCHER, HENRI. (1994) Evil and the Cross, Translated by David G. Preston, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press. CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN(1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.  

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1996) Evil, Problem of, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Bridge-Building, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

Facebook
No, it was bad drivers too...
Maybe Norris sleeps on nails?

Friday, April 05, 2013

Philosophical & Theological Reflections On Satirical Images: The Bible

Not being political at all, but there is apparently an issue on this. Please see my documentation.
The Bible 2013

Quote from Wikipedia

 'Controversy

There have been claims of a resemblance of the actor that plays Satan with current US President Barack Obama. Glenn Beck was among the first to publicly note this on Twitter.[28] This has led the History Channel to announce, History [C]hannel has the highest respect for President Obama. The Bible series was produced with an international and diverse cast of respected actors. It's unfortunate that anyone made this false connection. History’s "The Bible" is meant to enlighten people on its rich stories and deep history."[29]

Burnett and Downey responded in a joint statement, This is utter nonsense. The actor who played Satan, Mehdi Ouazanni, is a highly acclaimed Moroccan actor. He has previously played parts in several Biblical epics – including Satanic characters long before Barack Obama was elected as our President.[29] Downey added separately, "Both Mark and I have nothing but respect and love for our president, who is a fellow Christian. False statements such as these are just designed as a foolish distraction to try and discredit the beauty of the story of The Bible.[30]'



Image from



 A key in my view in dealing with such a message, I reason after dealing with MPhil and PhD Theodicy degrees is to not just deal with the goodness with God, but also with the overall results of sin, Biblically and in the known reality. The evangelical church often correctly emphasizes the saving nature of the Gospel, but tends to be theologically and even more so philosophically weak in areas of theodicy and the problem of evil. In this life and the next, in the Western world, this life can seems pretty good for many as a Christian. But for a starving child in Africa, even with the Gospel and a loving God, the harshness of a fallen world in this life can be even more apparent. In can soon be over for some. As I have noted, from embryo to elderly any person can die in this realm and reality, Biblically justly within a Christian worldview because of sinful nature (Genesis 3). God has the right to take life, even regardless of the level of sinfulness of a person, or in the case of a very young child, one that does not have an adult, rational understanding and developed sinful choices, there still is an inherited sinful/sin nature via the human race. I realize this is harsh, but it is Biblical and explains many things. This is an example where a strong appeal to human free will really does not suffice, in my opinion, because even if the free will of the African leaders, for example, is primarily blamed for the starvation of their children in some theological attempt to defend God, human beings are still only a secondary cause of all thoughts and actions, whereas God would be the primary cause of all thoughts and actions, but God would have still willed and caused with perfect motives all actions or lack of. I do not reason God damns those without an adult understanding, and related limited free will to hell/Hades, and I reason such persons shall be regenerated and resurrected in Christ.



Went for lunch after church today and this was on a car's windshield. As if, with the nose appliance...