Cut & Paste?

Facebook: Thanks Uncle Chuck

Facebook

King

King

Facebook

Heads together?

Brief Spring Thoughts

Google+

A bizarre philosophy job posting viewed this week:

'Philosophy Specialist - Bloomington, IL Coty Inc. 9 reviews - United States $10 an hour : Represent philosophy image by always wearing supernatural philosophy make up and clothes. Attend philosophy education workshops....'
---
@ Paul McCartney concert...twenty somethings think a 74 year old is cute.

This ties into my theories on social rules. So, Mr. McCartney is very popular and successful, therefore showing true thoughts and feelings is acceptable.

Hmm...

Opine:

I musically preferred much of the Rush setlist, especially from R40 last year, over McCartney's choice of more 'pop' material, as he has material that is a bit more sophisticated that I generally have on iTunes.

However, as far as a 'show as entertainment' and interaction with the fans, it was the best live show I have attended. And some very good songs were played. 

Also interesting was the hysterics by one young lady (one that stated Paul was cute) when he mentioned John Lennon. She went into tears for minutes. This and some of the shenanigans around reminded me of watching Beatlemania on documentaries.

I never thought I would see McCartney live, as I like the Beatles and Wings and have songs on compact disc and iTunes, but have none of his own material in my collection. However, a deal with tickets arose. Due to the entertainment value, if he performs enough Beatles and Wings material and the price is cheaper again, I may consider attending his next tour stop in Vancouver in years to come.

---

Paul McCartney

Paul McCartney

April 15 2015

'The Reasons Why Single Men & Women in Their 40’s Have a Hard Time Connecting'

Cited

'The very first thing you should know is that men in their 40s who are serious about relationships tend to want something very different than women in their 40s.' 'It’s a little shocking to women to hear this because they expect the men in their peer group to want similar things as they do.'

Cited

'Now before you get upset that men are judging you for your age and fertility, let me remind you that you’re judging them as well. There are men in their 40s who don’t want kids. But many of them are in categories YOU don’t find attractive....These are the guys who are actively looking for you, but you don’t want to date them.' 'For example, an older man, maybe in his 50s, may not be so focused on having kids. He may have them already and might be looking for someone who doesn’t have kids or who isn’t feeling pressured to start a family.'

End citations

I am in the 35+ year old group that would like my own family.

To be blunt, in the few supposed age appropriate group functions I have been to I have found sadly some of the leaders even, closed to reality assuming everyone should basically follow the norm for women described by the author and echoed by some men that are divorced and/or do not want children.

Feminism is correct (Genesis 1-2) that men and women are equal made in the image and likeness of God, but reason tells us not 'equal' in the sense of procreation potential at 35+ years of age. Therefore, those in 35+ year old ministry need to chill out and be more Biblical (1 Corinthians 7) with the likely minority Christian men 35+ year old that still would like their own biological family. No, many of us in that minority, will not accept that we have to adopt, implying any potential wife must not have child-bearing potential. I believe one person de-friended me over the issue on Facebook. Seriously, that is a case of making secondary issues, primary in a Christian, Biblical context.
---

Novemeber 15 2013

'Why men are withdrawing from courtship.'

Cited

'To better understand why men are withdrawing from courtship we need to consider the roles men and women play in the process and how the sexual revolution has impacted the landscape. Men foot the searching costs in the marriage and sexual marketplace (MMP & SMP). This means bearing most of the risk of rejection and expending the bulk of the resources to facilitate the process of meeting and getting to know one another. As the ones who bear the costs of courtship, men have a strong incentive to minimize the number of women they court and the overall duration of time spent in the process. However, as the consumers of courtship, women have an incentive to draw the process out as long as possible and to receive courtship from as many men as possible.'

Cited

'The problem with women’s complaints about courtship is easier to understand if you consider the needs of the man. He needs to manage risk vs reward. When courting, there are two fundamental risks. These are the risk of wasting resources on the wrong women, and the risk of rejection harming the man’s reputation/MMV. Risk of wasting resources on the wrong women. There are three subcategories of resource risk: Expending courtship resources on women not interested in marriage (in general). Expending courtship resources on women who are interested in marriage, but not interested in marrying him (aiming too high). Risk of aiming too low.'

Cited

'Risk of rejection harming the man’s reputation/MMV. This basic risk can in turn be broken down into two subcategories: Risk of nuclear rejection. Cumulative risk of rejection.' Cited from linked post ' It isn’t just the threat of nuclear rejection which has raised the cost of traditional dating for men however, it is the additional uncertainty which men experience as women move more and more towards full fledged choice addiction.'

Cited

'Picture your ideal husband. Do you want him to propose to you after having been rejected by numerous other women? Of course not. You don’t want to feel like the consolation prize, and you don’t wan’t to marry a man whom other women are known to have rejected. In order to avoid this, the man you ultimately marry must be careful with how freely he expresses interest in women who aren’t signaling an interest in him. On the question of wasting resources, do you want your future husband to divide his courtship resources between you and many other women? Or do you want all of his available courtship investment to be devoted solely to you?'

Cited

'For a man who is managing the risks of courtship outlined above, the age of a woman is very important. The older a woman is, the more likely it is that she is very picky and/or not seriously looking for a husband. Older women also are less attractive from a courtship perspective because they have used up more of their most attractive/fertile years, and while their attractiveness for marriage has declined their expectations for courtship have only increased. In short, the older a woman gets the worse a bet she becomes (on average) when it comes to courting her.'

Cited

'Put simply, the extended delay of marriage by women has placed marriage minded men in a dilemma; older women are (generally speaking) known bad bets for courtship, but half of early twenties women are also poor bets for courtship. And this is before the man in question starts to consider which of the good bets for courtship (in general) would be a good bet for him personally to court. It is also worth noting that it isn’t just in delaying marriage that women are extending the period of expected courtship. Women are also driving our divorce revolution, and even with a track record of being the worst possible courtship risk (the kind who marries and then gets unhaaaapy) they still expect to be courted all over again.'

Cited

'Given the large numbers of women not actually interested in marrying at any given time and the opportunity cost of focusing on a non serious candidate, traditional men will do best to greatly limit their courtship efforts and expenditure until around the time of an engagement,...'

End citations

The younger women that in haste, reject, dismiss and do not thoroughly consider a man in discussion with him because it is not the career, social, family agenda, type of Christianity, age considerations on both sides, she is too young, etc..; How can this reasonably be explained as God's perfect will when rather it is most assuredly God's permitted will? With consequences.

In other words, putting God in a box with personal agenda as finite and sinful does not = a true pursuit of God's perfect will.

There seems to be an aversion to risk in the Western World church:

For men this can be an unwillingness to risk female rejection and not pursue.

Perhaps giving into lust and pornography as opposed to improving social life.

For women this can be an unwillingness to seek a man outside of socially established cultural, family and church norms in order to limit risk and extend the time of singleness as the second author wisely documented.

These approaches strike me as coming from a human nature, via consciousness and will, not willing to risk God's perfect will, but instead falling back on less risky approaches. In Matthew 5, Jesus Christ stated that those that lust commit adultery and obviously theologically extended singleness promotes further lust. To me there is a theological and philosophical clash between what is implied is the right thing to do in Matthew 5 and the Western Christian church following modern social norms in regard to the avoidance of marriage until it is 'convenient'.

I am one to talk...although my nature and will are not the only factors involved in my life. 'It takes two to tango...', is a relevant.

But I realize the consequences and Matthew 5 is correct.

Lex Luthor's Problem Of Evil

Time Warner

1. Lex Luthor's Problem Of Evil

Special thank you to my good friend Darren Morrey, for the idea for section 1, via a phone call, Sunday evening.

IMDB

'Lex Luthor: See, what we call God depends upon our tribe, Clark Joe, 'cause God is tribal; God takes sides! No man in the sky intervened when I was a boy to deliver me from daddy's fist and abominations. I figured out way back if God is all-powerful, He cannot be all good. And if He is all good, then He cannot be all-powerful. And neither can you be.'

Clark Kent/Superman in the fictional Time Warner universe is finite and therefore is not infinite and all-powerful.

I will deal with the God question in the context of the non-fictional, actual universe.

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Edited

C.E.B. Cranfield (1992) comments that although God can will grievous and evil things to occur, God in Christ works these things towards the greater good, in particular in the context of salvation for those that know Christ. Cranfield (1992: 204). Evil and sin are not to be confused with goodness and obedience within Reformed traditions, but as God willingly allows evil things to occur, his purposes and motives are pure.

David Ray Griffin (1976) critically disagrees with this concept of John Calvin and others, but correctly defines the idea that God’s will must be regarded as righteous, even when we as human beings cannot fully understand the rightness of his judgments, since God is the definition of righteousness. Griffin (1976: 129).

Wright (1997) reasons the problem of evil can be solved in a straightforward manner by proposing that God predestines evils to occur for a particular purpose, and that persons do not have an answer back for God. Wright (1996: 197). This comment from Wright is accurate from a Reformed perspective. I can interject and state that academically solving the logical and gratuitous problems of evil by tying them back to God is an ultimate intellectual solution, but there are still practical ramifications to deal with, such as why certain evils occur.

The fact that a sovereignty theodicy can logically and reasonable solve its problem of evil, does not mean that suffering often comes with an explanation. This is where practical and empirical theology can be very helpful when they offer practical assistance to those suffering under the problem of evil. I reason that free will theodicy in the case of Augustine and Plantinga (reviewed within Chapter 2 of my PhD and in Dr. Russell Norman Murray website archives) can logically and reasonably solve their problems of evil, but more difficulties remain than with a well-constructed sovereignty theodicy which accepts compatibilism. Concepts of free will and libertarian free will, are connected to concepts of incompatibilism.

drrnm.blogspot.ca

I can understand the dismissive and negative attitudes towards theodicy of some within academia, but do not think that all theodicy are equal, or should they be necessarily all judged as failures. Theists and atheists debate the problem of evil, and it is safe to state that no particular theodicy will ever be accepted by all theists and atheists, or even acknowledged as logical or reasonable by all critics. I see no conclusive reason to abandon theodicy as an intellectual practice. I rather agree that a theodicy needs to be supported by Biblical revelation and must be for it to be theologically sound.

Within a sovereignty perspective human sin does oppose God, but God will use sin for his purposes and regenerate and mould those he chooses towards salvation. As long as one can accept the idea that a perfectly moral God wills and allows evil within his plans for the greater good, Calvin (1543)(1996: 37-40). Edwards (1729)(2006: 414), there is a degree of intellectual certainty with sovereignty theodicy that free will theodicy lacks.

God could inevitably bring about, through the use of the regeneration and the resurrection of elected human persons, the end of human corruption, and even Plantinga’s concept of transworld depravity. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53). If God willed and created a finalized Kingdom of restored persons that had experienced the problem of evil and were saved from it, then it could be reasoned that with God’s constant persuasion through the Holy Spirit and human experience and maturity, transworld depravity would never take place again. No human wrong decision would need to occur as God always determines otherwise, without force and coercion; restored human beings do not lack experience as did the first humans (Adam and Eve) who rebelled against God causing corruption. I speculate that theological praxis of sovereignty theodicy is more certain and comforting than free will theodicy, as transworld depravity is overcome by taking the primary choice (secondary human choice remains as simultaneously caused by God) of human belief in God away from corrupted human beings. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). Plantinga (1982: 184-189). Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 2, 7). Luther (1516)(1968: 31). Feinberg (1994: 126-127).

It is placed in the hands of a sovereign God.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950a) Christus Victor, Translated by A.G. Hebert, London, S.P.C.K.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books.

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

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. http://www.jonathanedwards.com

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

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

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GRIFFIN, DAVID RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

WRIGHT, R.K.McGREGOR (1996) No Place for Sovereignty, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

Vancouver

2. Review of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

From my Facebook Personal Blog

Edited

Preface

My bias is I have been looking forward to this Batman v Superman since it was originally cancelled years ago and I thought many reviews were likely more negative than mine would be.

I do not expect superhero films to be real world realistic and reasonable. This is the same for Star Wars, Harry Potter and so on.

Negatives:

I agree with my friend that I viewed the film with that it was too long. A half hour could be deleted. There was no need for Batman origins once again. As well, Doomsday following Luther in violence just because Luther was his semi-creator is far-fetched. There is no certain motive.

Positives:

I thought the action, again agreeing with my friend was very good and I agree with him that Ben Affleck was very good in the film. The film fused, from my limited knowledge of comics, the 1986 comic, 'The Dark Knight Returns' story with the 1992 Superman comic story featuring Doomsday (title would be a spoiler) and with the formation of the Justice League.

The film was as entertaining with action and story as the Marvel Cinematic Universe/Avengers films, but many critics would not agree, I reason based on the reviews.

I thought it was very good. The three heroes from Batman v Superman will be back in the quote 'DC Extended Universe'.

Mac Sabbath Scalds McDonalds

The Piratescove.us

After viewing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice for a second  time, Saturday night courtesy, Jamie,  Mr. Zombie mentioned the band Mac Sabbath to me and Pope Chuckens. I am neither a fan of Black Sabbath or McDonalds, but the captioned lyrics in regard to McDonalds we found humourous, as well as the costumes. 'Ronald/The Joker', substantially creepy. A musical, philosophical and satirical scalding of a fast food chain.

.

Inherit The Earth?

NASA/Google

The philosophical question of the day from my Facebook Personal Blog page is...When a Facebook Personal Blog article is no longer 'quote' an 'Engaging Post', does it become a 'Divorced Post?'

Just wondering.

I watched on Knowledge Network, roughly the last half of the following program:

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson

I could not remember Mr. Thompson being mentioned in the media and news recently and remembered his name mentioned in what seemed classic contexts. I knew he was a famous writer of a sort. This reasoning and his documented lifestyle had me awaiting the train wreck.

Wikipedia

Cited

(Thompson my add) 'was an American journalist and author, and the founder of the gonzo journalism movement.'

Wikipedia

Cited

'Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first-person narrative. The word "gonzo" is believed to have been first used in 1970 to describe an article by Hunter S. Thompson, who later popularized the style.'

Back to first Wikipedia article

'He was also known for his lifelong use of alcohol and illegal drugs, his love of firearms, and his iconoclastic contempt for authoritarianism. He remarked: "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

After a bout of health problems, Thompson committed suicide at the age of 67. In accordance with his wishes, his ashes were fired out of a cannon in a ceremony funded by his friend Depp...'

Cited

'On August 20, 2005, in a private funeral, Thompson's ashes were fired from a cannon. This was accompanied by red, white, blue and green fireworks—all to the tune of Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" and Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man".[50] The cannon was placed atop a 153-foot (47 m) tower which had the shape of a double-thumbed fist clutching a peyote button, a symbol originally used in his 1970 campaign for Sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado.'

End citations

I reasoned this interesting person was probably critical of religion and so I briefly researched his name and found the following.

Goodreads

Cited

'Hunter S. Thompson

Quotable Quote Hunter S. Thompson

“I have never seen much point in getting heavy with stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I...'

Hunter S. Thompson, The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time'

'They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I...'

That statement intrigued me as classic secular empirical (the senses) reasoning. In other words, Christians and religious people cannot empirically and scientifically demonstrate that they will inherit the earth, and no one can demonstrate thus empirically.

Therefore no one will ever inherit the earth.

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344).

From Oxford

Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).

I admit not knowing Mr. Thompson's work in-depth, but the reasoning in regard to the comments may be using a form of empiricism and scientism.

In regard to the apparent type of reasoning presented (non-exhaustive):

Empiricism, scientism and like approaches are limited epistemological and academically, even as empiricism and science are essential for gaining types of  knowledge, including academic.

Rationalism/deductive reason, theology, religious studies and philosophy of religion are limited epistemological and academically, even as these are essential for gaining types of knowledge, including academic. But these disciplines are not being considered as reasonable sources of knowledge.

Documented scriptural revelation within the religious studies discipline is dismissed.

Therefore, I do not find the statement, 'They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I...' as conclusive epistemologically and academically against a proposition that Christians in Jesus Christ through the trinitarian, Biblical God, shall (ultimately) inherit the earth.

Further, empirically in the present realm, humanity has inherited the earth. It is a finite, temporal realm where human death is extant, but in a sense humanity has already inherited the earth gaining dominion and rule.

Therefore, it is not rationally, theologically and philosophically unreasonable that God, the philosophical first cause creator (Genesis 1-3) gave humanity dominion/rule over the earth (Genesis 1: 26). This almighty deity can also recapitulate creation, the universe and planet earth (Matthew 5: 5, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 21-22)..

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

English Standard Version (ESV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

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

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Warpednerdversity: ???

Hyper-social status Christianity, a new theological term.