What is time? Does time exist or is time an invention of man? There is no doubt we use time as a measurement of things/events of a less than greater than relationship(s). Things that we can perceive as timeless might be numbers. Time as far as I understand does not cause 1 any changes, thus we might be able to suppose that 1 has the attribute of "timelessness." Numbers then can be categorized as immaterial. We can see numbers and assume (i.e.) 1+1=2, and as time passes 1 will always be 1.
When we examine things that are material it seems that time can and does affect them. As time passes things tend to go through some sort of change. This could be tied to the entropy, but I am not sure if entropy affects everything that is material/matter. However, I am inclined to think that physical things, which are part of our perceived reality, allow us to posture time causing changes to those things.
If God does exist, can God be immaterial? If God does exist, does that mean God remains timeless? But if God is immaterial how can God relate to mankind? Can it be that God was timeless but after creation God is now enduring time? The very possibility that God is in time does not mean that God changes or has changed, but rather God endures time with God's nature remaining intact. Of course there is that possibility that there is no such thing as God. If that is true can we suppose that the universe and everything within is explainable because it is that way, or do we have to come to the understanding that we just made up concepts and presumed things are that way? I think that if there is no God then we most likely would have to take the latter position.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Shack Revisited
Several months ago I read the book The Shack. You can read about my opinions of the book in my previous post. At any rate, I thought the book was very good. I really liked how the author portrayed that God interacts and relates to humanity. On May 04, 2009 the author of the book was coming near to the area where I live. I had thought about going, but then decided not to go. However, my wife and sister encouraged me to go, and so I ended up going to the event.
The reason William P. Young (the author of the book) appeared at the fund raiser was to help a ministry which helps pregnant women who are abused or have no where to turn to have a place that would nurture them. So, to my mind the reason(s) for the author being there was a good one. I was hesitant to cough up $25.00 dollars, but the more I thought about it the women needed it more than I did (plus the support of my family helped my decision). So I went to see and hear about his testimony, and the evening ended up being very powerful as well as adding a more in-depth understanding of the book.
The first thing I learned about the book is that The Shack stands for the heart of the individual. The heart does not stand for the muscle that pumps blood in a person, but the inner part of self which allows one to love and produce the what is known as feelings. Mr. Young goes on to allude that people tend to build facades because life's experiences affect them in different ways. If you read the book you will notice the words The Great Sadness throughout the whole book. As one reads the book the reader will come to understand what the great sadness is, but during Mr. Young's testimony he says the great sadness in the book is a symbolism of when his innocence was lost as a child. In fact in the book the great sadness is when the protagonist's daughter gets murdered, and so I tend to think his innocence got severed/extinguished when he was a child. For a young child to lose his/her innocence at an early stage is a tremendous blow to the psyche. I can only imagine the effect such an event has on a child.
Mr. Young made some comments that made me ponder and take a step back as a member of the invisible church of Christ. He stated that his parents were busy "doing the things of God," but as they did they failed to see how he as a child was being affected by their "missionary work." The people who his parents were helping were the ones that took care of him. So what happens to a child when the people who are taking care of you sexually abuse you as a child? The child may think it's okay to sexually abuse others? The effects psychologically on a child has to be devastating to the well being of the individual. Hence, the psychological barriers put up by Mr. Young were of self-survival and that of learned behavior. Part of the problem is the learned behavior (sexual abuse) of the child is not healthy neither socially or mentally. In order to cope with the baggage (bad experiences) of the past the child more likely than not will create false assumptions on how to deal with certain situations.
Mr. Young talks about how he became a person who was good at impressions and making people think what he wanted about him. He became addicted to pornography, cheated on his wife, and was not able to deal with internal emotions. It took his wife catching him in lies and cheating on her in order for him to be able to deal with his past. His wife could see through the facade he made in order to protect his shameful past (being sexually abused). Mr. Young stated he could not forgive himself for what happened to him when he was a child (as if it was his fault anyways, which it was not since he was just a child). Since he could not forgive himself he ended up having a bad self-esteem which led him to adopt a personality that pretended to portray a person that was made of what he thought others needed to see.
Mr. Young testified that it took him ten years (give or take a few) to deal with his problems. Part of the healing process was writing the book The Shack, which neither he nor his wife expected to receive the support it has and continues to receive. Though he knows not everyone will like the book for "theological" and other reasons he welcomes the criticism. Moreover, his reason for writing the book was not to write a novel, but it was a healing process for him and something that he wanted to pass down to his kids. The journey has taken him into doing a self-published book and being transparent about his past as well as who he really is. I welcome The Shack not only as reading material but as a testament to how God works through imperfect people.
The reason William P. Young (the author of the book) appeared at the fund raiser was to help a ministry which helps pregnant women who are abused or have no where to turn to have a place that would nurture them. So, to my mind the reason(s) for the author being there was a good one. I was hesitant to cough up $25.00 dollars, but the more I thought about it the women needed it more than I did (plus the support of my family helped my decision). So I went to see and hear about his testimony, and the evening ended up being very powerful as well as adding a more in-depth understanding of the book.
The first thing I learned about the book is that The Shack stands for the heart of the individual. The heart does not stand for the muscle that pumps blood in a person, but the inner part of self which allows one to love and produce the what is known as feelings. Mr. Young goes on to allude that people tend to build facades because life's experiences affect them in different ways. If you read the book you will notice the words The Great Sadness throughout the whole book. As one reads the book the reader will come to understand what the great sadness is, but during Mr. Young's testimony he says the great sadness in the book is a symbolism of when his innocence was lost as a child. In fact in the book the great sadness is when the protagonist's daughter gets murdered, and so I tend to think his innocence got severed/extinguished when he was a child. For a young child to lose his/her innocence at an early stage is a tremendous blow to the psyche. I can only imagine the effect such an event has on a child.
Mr. Young made some comments that made me ponder and take a step back as a member of the invisible church of Christ. He stated that his parents were busy "doing the things of God," but as they did they failed to see how he as a child was being affected by their "missionary work." The people who his parents were helping were the ones that took care of him. So what happens to a child when the people who are taking care of you sexually abuse you as a child? The child may think it's okay to sexually abuse others? The effects psychologically on a child has to be devastating to the well being of the individual. Hence, the psychological barriers put up by Mr. Young were of self-survival and that of learned behavior. Part of the problem is the learned behavior (sexual abuse) of the child is not healthy neither socially or mentally. In order to cope with the baggage (bad experiences) of the past the child more likely than not will create false assumptions on how to deal with certain situations.
Mr. Young talks about how he became a person who was good at impressions and making people think what he wanted about him. He became addicted to pornography, cheated on his wife, and was not able to deal with internal emotions. It took his wife catching him in lies and cheating on her in order for him to be able to deal with his past. His wife could see through the facade he made in order to protect his shameful past (being sexually abused). Mr. Young stated he could not forgive himself for what happened to him when he was a child (as if it was his fault anyways, which it was not since he was just a child). Since he could not forgive himself he ended up having a bad self-esteem which led him to adopt a personality that pretended to portray a person that was made of what he thought others needed to see.
Mr. Young testified that it took him ten years (give or take a few) to deal with his problems. Part of the healing process was writing the book The Shack, which neither he nor his wife expected to receive the support it has and continues to receive. Though he knows not everyone will like the book for "theological" and other reasons he welcomes the criticism. Moreover, his reason for writing the book was not to write a novel, but it was a healing process for him and something that he wanted to pass down to his kids. The journey has taken him into doing a self-published book and being transparent about his past as well as who he really is. I welcome The Shack not only as reading material but as a testament to how God works through imperfect people.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Shack
I recommend that especially in Western Theological circles The Shack be read. For the most part Western Theological thinking is fixated on the wrath of God and the sinfulness of man. However, the book thrust is to highlight God’s nature when it comes to relationships. The attribute of love and man’s independence is stressed throughout the book. Man’s independence is the reason why humanity is in the fallen state they are in. The way the Trinity is portrayed is very unique. I suggest that even if you do not like the way the Father is represented throughout most of the book you understand why it is being shown in the manner that it is. As the book explained God is neither male nor female, and God explains to Mack why He revealed Himself as the Father to Abraham.
One of the negative critiques the book is getting is that it espouses Universalism. Several things to keep in mind: (1) the author of the book addressed that issue and stated he did not believe in Universalism (2) in the book it is plainly stated that God tells Mack that He finds believers in whatever situation they are in. It was not stated in that exact manner, but I have concluded as much. I might be accused with equivocation, but I think that is a false charge when one considers the meat of the book.
Not everyone is going to like the book. You will either love it or hate it! The hyper-fundamental folk will most definitely have a field day with the book. Most of the time these people will beat their chests to expound God’s sovereignty to the point where God’s attributes are most certainly lessened, but these individuals just propose that “we don’t understand how it all works,” and/or the Bible says God “loves” and so that settles it. These people seem to not understand when they have a contradiction in their hands and just chalk it up to mystery. The book dealt rather well with a lot of these “issues,” because in the end it is a novel and so people just need to chill. Personally speaking, I highly recommend the book.
One of the negative critiques the book is getting is that it espouses Universalism. Several things to keep in mind: (1) the author of the book addressed that issue and stated he did not believe in Universalism (2) in the book it is plainly stated that God tells Mack that He finds believers in whatever situation they are in. It was not stated in that exact manner, but I have concluded as much. I might be accused with equivocation, but I think that is a false charge when one considers the meat of the book.
Not everyone is going to like the book. You will either love it or hate it! The hyper-fundamental folk will most definitely have a field day with the book. Most of the time these people will beat their chests to expound God’s sovereignty to the point where God’s attributes are most certainly lessened, but these individuals just propose that “we don’t understand how it all works,” and/or the Bible says God “loves” and so that settles it. These people seem to not understand when they have a contradiction in their hands and just chalk it up to mystery. The book dealt rather well with a lot of these “issues,” because in the end it is a novel and so people just need to chill. Personally speaking, I highly recommend the book.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Criticized
It appears William Lane Craigs' cosmological argument is stirring talk within the philosophical community.
Rasmussen states:
For additional references read here (Pruss):
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/infinite-numbers-of-objects.html
and here:
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-kalaam-argument.html
Enjoy!
Rasmussen states:
I'll wrap up. My sense is that the Kalam argument is more likely to appeal to the common man or woman than to your average philosopher. From the common man's perspective, beginnings obviously have causes; science reveals a beginning to our universe; and surely only God would be the cause of our entire universe(I've conducted informal surveys). But philosophers recognize a lot of complexity beneath first appearances. They ask: Does science reveal that our universe popped into being, or merely that it has existed for a finite amount of time? Is our intuition that all beginnings have a cause, or is it rather that everything that comes to be is made out of pre-existing materials or is preceded by a past? Must the cause of our universe be a supernatural God, or might it instead be a more natural phenomena? Questions like these often motivate skepticism among philosophers concerning the Kalam argument. At least that is so for Wes and me.http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/04/more-reflection.html
For additional references read here (Pruss):
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/infinite-numbers-of-objects.html
and here:
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-kalaam-argument.html
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)