 |
| O'Connell Bridge, Dublin-trekearth |
Work is looking fairly promising at this point. Besides homecaring full-time, I have been accepted into a very short Justice Institute course at a local college which should connect me to related employment and as well I have some academic degree (PhD) related work that should be on the horizon.
Secular Philosophy: Take It & Leave It
I have commented on my blogs previously in regard to the concept that 'All Truth Is God's Truth', even without using the words necessarily.
Two examples come to mind in which from a Christian perspective, one can find philosophical and practical truth from a source but has to reject much of the information because a secular worldview is supported as opposed to the Biblical, Christian one.
Example One: Secular Relationship Coaches
I remember one incident when I emailed a blog link with a presentation from one of the relationship 'coaches' I used to listen to. He was secular and discussing attitude and like. My blog link is strongly Christian but noted that the motivational aspect of what the coach stated very much encouraged him to make some changes in his life.
However, a major moral, ethical and philosophical difficulty with this teacher and other online secular coaches often is that they do not accept Christian and Hebrew Bible morality and ethics in regard to sexuality.
This is problematic on at least two major fronts.
One, obviously with the different worldview the Christian cannot take all the advice of the coach as it would violate the conscience of the Christian listening/reading and if all the advice was taken would lead to the Christian violating Christian principles.
Two, a problem with such advice is that it is presented toward finding someone of the opposite sex that has a secular worldview.
To attempt to use certain advice with Christian women, for example, if one is a Christian man, would be disastrous and the moral contradictions to Biblical teaching would be obvious.
By the way, for those that think one should just listen to and study Christian teachers on such subjects of relationships, I would respectfully disagree.
In a similar way that I would not want to only study the Bible and Biblical Theology and ignore Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion, if I am studying subjects such as Theodicy and The Problem of Evil.
To only read and listen to Christian material would be to miss much of the philosophical information and critiques available on subjects.
As much as secular writers and presenters in regard to relationships tend to not understand the crucial theological connection between human nature and desire and fallen human nature and desire and what sinful nature produces (Genesis 3, Romans 1-3), and therefore make significant mistakes in analysis; Christian coaches can be guilty of over-spiritualizing and in supposing God will do what he may not do necessarily.
Presuming and assuming of God in the face of reality, being a major issue I have discussed online especially in regard to the problem of evil.
Christian teachers may also be guilty, perhaps in cultural naivety, or in an intentional spiritual approach for the sake of cultural pleasantries and social expectations within the Church, of overlooking and not mentioning certain information from science, psychology and secular culture which would be useful truth for the Christian.
One particular coach is an example of what I am discussing. He is a fine speaker with very good social skills. He has had significant success with younger women and been divorced more than once. He also has some significant education is psychology and some philosophy. I found his site a few years ago. I, at one point wrote him in regard to his system and a Christian worldview, but received no reply.
He has some very good insights on dating younger women, for example, he has pointed out that the typical younger woman interested in a significantly older man is more intelligent than average and somewhat rebellious. He also pointed out that this type of person may be artistic.
From my experience, online and offline I would state that this is basically accurate.
This being a person that would perhaps be frustrated by the typical young adult male that spends his weekend, using the coach's example, watching the National Football League.
Instead someone older with intellectual pursuits in common, with solid career objectives and accomplishments may be more suitable.
However, I cannot follow his system because it is in my Christian and Biblical view at points immoral and unethical.
He suggests that a man 35+ looking for a younger woman, described as 18-34 needs to start at the low of end of the beauty scale and the high end of the age scale. He prescribes 'dating and mating' with someone in her forties to start.
The assumption being that younger women will observe the man dating and mating and according to Darwinian Evolution will compete for the man that is now more attractive because he is dating and mating.
Several problems from a Christian perspective:
One, assuming Darwinian Evolution as opposed to a scientific model of microevolution (not macroevolution) that allows for creation where persons made in God's image (Genesis 1), that post-fall (Genesis 3, Romans 1-3) have a tarnished image and corrupted nature.
Two, 'mating' outside of marriage would be fornication and adultery if it is with with a married person (Exodus 20, Matthew 5).
Fornication and adultery are by nature anti-family practices. Fornication being sexual practice outside of marriage commitment and no family, or a family without certain moral and ethical considerations and legal connections.
Adultery could lead to the damage or destruction of one family and possibly the formation of another.
If one was serious about a family with the highest form of Biblical love in Christ, for example, without what I view as philosophical 'out' clauses, marriage would be the approach.
Three, if one dating does not intend the woman in her forties for at least potential marriage, and intentionally dates and mates the person for the means of 'socially upgrading', it is using a person.
This would be the case even if the woman in her forties knew exactly what the man was doing, even if they were using each other, somewhat based on my point just mentioned, but would be morally and ethically worse if she did not have knowledge of the approach from the man.
Four, the philosophy worked for the coach and some students in a secular, liberal context.
But it would be quite dubious in a Biblical Christian context within a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Evangelical cultural setting because once a man of 35+ is dating a woman in her forties the cultural presumption is that this would potentially lead to marriage.
I seriously doubt that younger women for the most part within the Christian Church in some Darwinian Evolutionary model are going to attempt to steal this man away from an older woman. More likely they will assume he has decided to go along with cultural expectations and date someone closer to his age with the hope of potential marriage.
By the way, this is one ethical reason I totally refuse to date someone menopausal or close, in her forties or with older children!
The much larger reason however, being lack of significant overall attraction.
Five, this coach also assumes, too often, incorrectly within his system that significant attraction for women in their forties would exist with men 35+. He acknowledges that many men do lack this desire to date older women, however.
But his system would rely on this attraction and if it lacks with significant numbers of men this approach has questionable practical use, even apart from moral and ethical consideration.
Six, if the 'upgrade' approach suggested by this coach ever became public knowledge within the Church and local churches, the man practicing this would basically be dead in the water in regard to dating and a potential relationship.
And rightly so.
Example Two: Philosophy of Religion
I have already alluded to this issue.
Within my PhD and MPhil theses writing and research, non-Christian philosophers such as J.L. Mackie and Anthony Flew were very helpful in me being able to better understand and document some of the difficulties with libertarian free and incompatibilism in regard to God, the origin and creation of humanity, theodicy and the problem of evil.
Even though I do not agree with their philosophical disbelief in Christianity and as well their explanations of compatibilism were not the same as my theistic compatibilism, their critiques along with ones from Christian compatibilists helped me to better understand serious theological and philosophical difficulties with views often held by the apparent majority of Christians in regard to free will.
This was backed up by my statistical research with the Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Non-denominational churches.
D. Z. Phillips, another non-Christian philosopher was also significantly helpful in me further understanding some of the difficulties of theodicy approaches that were too optimistic, or lacked significant theological and philosophical support from theists.
With secular philosophers of religion there are even legitimate criticisms of some Christian theology and philosophy. Intellectual findings within Philosophy of Religion can complement those found within Biblical Studies and Biblical and Philosophical Theology in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. However, overall worldview which disbelieves Christian faith and philosophy is rejected.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
End
This just emailed to me:
'The Procrastinator's Ten Commandants
I believe that if anything is worth doing, it would have been done already.
I shall never move quickly, except to avoid more work or find excuses.
I will never rush into a job without a lifetime of consideration.
I shall meet all of my deadlines directly in proportion to the amount of bodily injury I could expect to receive from missing them.
I firmly believe that tomorrow holds the possibility for new technologies, astounding discoveries, and a reprieve from my obligations.
I truly believe that all deadlines are unreasonable regardless of the amount of time given.
If at first I don't succeed, there is always next year.
I shall always decide not to decide, unless of course I decide to change my mind.
I shall always begin, start, initiate, take the first step, and/or write the first word, when I get around to it.
I will never put off tomorrow, what I can forget about forever.'
End
Somewhat humourous but that is the type of thinking that does not lead to success...
What is next 'The Procrastinator's Bible?'
Would a liberal be someone that does something today that is on the mind?
Two examples come to mind in which from a Christian perspective, one can find philosophical and practical truth from a source but has to reject much of the information because a secular worldview is supported as opposed to the Biblical, Christian one.
Example One: Secular Relationship Coaches
I remember one incident when I emailed a blog link with a presentation from one of the relationship 'coaches' I used to listen to. He was secular and discussing attitude and like. My blog link is strongly Christian but noted that the motivational aspect of what the coach stated very much encouraged him to make some changes in his life.
However, a major moral, ethical and philosophical difficulty with this teacher and other online secular coaches often is that they do not accept Christian and Hebrew Bible morality and ethics in regard to sexuality.
This is problematic on at least two major fronts.
One, obviously with the different worldview the Christian cannot take all the advice of the coach as it would violate the conscience of the Christian listening/reading and if all the advice was taken would lead to the Christian violating Christian principles.
Two, a problem with such advice is that it is presented toward finding someone of the opposite sex that has a secular worldview.
To attempt to use certain advice with Christian women, for example, if one is a Christian man, would be disastrous and the moral contradictions to Biblical teaching would be obvious.
By the way, for those that think one should just listen to and study Christian teachers on such subjects of relationships, I would respectfully disagree.
In a similar way that I would not want to only study the Bible and Biblical Theology and ignore Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion, if I am studying subjects such as Theodicy and The Problem of Evil.
To only read and listen to Christian material would be to miss much of the philosophical information and critiques available on subjects.
As much as secular writers and presenters in regard to relationships tend to not understand the crucial theological connection between human nature and desire and fallen human nature and desire and what sinful nature produces (Genesis 3, Romans 1-3), and therefore make significant mistakes in analysis; Christian coaches can be guilty of over-spiritualizing and in supposing God will do what he may not do necessarily.
Presuming and assuming of God in the face of reality, being a major issue I have discussed online especially in regard to the problem of evil.
Christian teachers may also be guilty, perhaps in cultural naivety, or in an intentional spiritual approach for the sake of cultural pleasantries and social expectations within the Church, of overlooking and not mentioning certain information from science, psychology and secular culture which would be useful truth for the Christian.
One particular coach is an example of what I am discussing. He is a fine speaker with very good social skills. He has had significant success with younger women and been divorced more than once. He also has some significant education is psychology and some philosophy. I found his site a few years ago. I, at one point wrote him in regard to his system and a Christian worldview, but received no reply.
He has some very good insights on dating younger women, for example, he has pointed out that the typical younger woman interested in a significantly older man is more intelligent than average and somewhat rebellious. He also pointed out that this type of person may be artistic.
From my experience, online and offline I would state that this is basically accurate.
This being a person that would perhaps be frustrated by the typical young adult male that spends his weekend, using the coach's example, watching the National Football League.
Instead someone older with intellectual pursuits in common, with solid career objectives and accomplishments may be more suitable.
However, I cannot follow his system because it is in my Christian and Biblical view at points immoral and unethical.
He suggests that a man 35+ looking for a younger woman, described as 18-34 needs to start at the low of end of the beauty scale and the high end of the age scale. He prescribes 'dating and mating' with someone in her forties to start.
The assumption being that younger women will observe the man dating and mating and according to Darwinian Evolution will compete for the man that is now more attractive because he is dating and mating.
Several problems from a Christian perspective:
One, assuming Darwinian Evolution as opposed to a scientific model of microevolution (not macroevolution) that allows for creation where persons made in God's image (Genesis 1), that post-fall (Genesis 3, Romans 1-3) have a tarnished image and corrupted nature.
Two, 'mating' outside of marriage would be fornication and adultery if it is with with a married person (Exodus 20, Matthew 5).
Fornication and adultery are by nature anti-family practices. Fornication being sexual practice outside of marriage commitment and no family, or a family without certain moral and ethical considerations and legal connections.
Adultery could lead to the damage or destruction of one family and possibly the formation of another.
If one was serious about a family with the highest form of Biblical love in Christ, for example, without what I view as philosophical 'out' clauses, marriage would be the approach.
Three, if one dating does not intend the woman in her forties for at least potential marriage, and intentionally dates and mates the person for the means of 'socially upgrading', it is using a person.
This would be the case even if the woman in her forties knew exactly what the man was doing, even if they were using each other, somewhat based on my point just mentioned, but would be morally and ethically worse if she did not have knowledge of the approach from the man.
Four, the philosophy worked for the coach and some students in a secular, liberal context.
But it would be quite dubious in a Biblical Christian context within a Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Evangelical cultural setting because once a man of 35+ is dating a woman in her forties the cultural presumption is that this would potentially lead to marriage.
I seriously doubt that younger women for the most part within the Christian Church in some Darwinian Evolutionary model are going to attempt to steal this man away from an older woman. More likely they will assume he has decided to go along with cultural expectations and date someone closer to his age with the hope of potential marriage.
By the way, this is one ethical reason I totally refuse to date someone menopausal or close, in her forties or with older children!
The much larger reason however, being lack of significant overall attraction.
Five, this coach also assumes, too often, incorrectly within his system that significant attraction for women in their forties would exist with men 35+. He acknowledges that many men do lack this desire to date older women, however.
But his system would rely on this attraction and if it lacks with significant numbers of men this approach has questionable practical use, even apart from moral and ethical consideration.
Six, if the 'upgrade' approach suggested by this coach ever became public knowledge within the Church and local churches, the man practicing this would basically be dead in the water in regard to dating and a potential relationship.
And rightly so.
Example Two: Philosophy of Religion
I have already alluded to this issue.
Within my PhD and MPhil theses writing and research, non-Christian philosophers such as J.L. Mackie and Anthony Flew were very helpful in me being able to better understand and document some of the difficulties with libertarian free and incompatibilism in regard to God, the origin and creation of humanity, theodicy and the problem of evil.
Even though I do not agree with their philosophical disbelief in Christianity and as well their explanations of compatibilism were not the same as my theistic compatibilism, their critiques along with ones from Christian compatibilists helped me to better understand serious theological and philosophical difficulties with views often held by the apparent majority of Christians in regard to free will.
This was backed up by my statistical research with the Evangelical, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Non-denominational churches.
D. Z. Phillips, another non-Christian philosopher was also significantly helpful in me further understanding some of the difficulties of theodicy approaches that were too optimistic, or lacked significant theological and philosophical support from theists.
With secular philosophers of religion there are even legitimate criticisms of some Christian theology and philosophy. Intellectual findings within Philosophy of Religion can complement those found within Biblical Studies and Biblical and Philosophical Theology in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. However, overall worldview which disbelieves Christian faith and philosophy is rejected.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
This just emailed to me:
'The Procrastinator's Ten Commandants
I believe that if anything is worth doing, it would have been done already.
I shall never move quickly, except to avoid more work or find excuses.
I will never rush into a job without a lifetime of consideration.
I shall meet all of my deadlines directly in proportion to the amount of bodily injury I could expect to receive from missing them.
I firmly believe that tomorrow holds the possibility for new technologies, astounding discoveries, and a reprieve from my obligations.
I truly believe that all deadlines are unreasonable regardless of the amount of time given.
If at first I don't succeed, there is always next year.
I shall always decide not to decide, unless of course I decide to change my mind.
I shall always begin, start, initiate, take the first step, and/or write the first word, when I get around to it.
I will never put off tomorrow, what I can forget about forever.'
End
Somewhat humourous but that is the type of thinking that does not lead to success...
What is next 'The Procrastinator's Bible?'
Would a liberal be someone that does something today that is on the mind?
