On the Problem of Evil

            The definition for evil can be as follows: a.) morally repressible, b.) arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct (Merriam-Webster, evil [online]).  However, in philosophy we define evil in three different ways which are as follows: physical, moral, and metaphysical.  Physical evil would include all that causes harm to man.  Moral evil comes from any deviation of Moral Law.  “Metaphysical evil is the limitation of various components parts of the natural world.  Through this mutual limitation natural objects are for the most part prevented from attaining to their full or ideal perfection, whether by the constant pressure of physical condition, or by sudden catastrophes” (newadvent.org, Evil [online]).  Evil in essence is negative and not positive in contrast with good (opposite).  In other words, evil is the absence of some good.  Keeping what is written above in mind—it is my opinion that an act of evil with intentionality appears to come from someone or something with a mind [capable of thought] who has the capability of committing an act which entails evil.

            We don’t know specifically where evil came from, but we do know evil exists.  From a Scriptural standpoint John 8:44 seems to imply the devil was the father of lies from the beginning; as Christians we accept God is the absolute good and has no taint of evil in His being.  Christians consent to the belief that God is the absolute good which grounds Him as the Moral Law Giver.  The devil is a created creature who in Christian tradition was an angel of God.  If evil came into being through the devil or not it is not specifically described in the Bible.  We do know evil was present prior to the creation of man as the tree of good and evil was present when God advised Adam and Eve not to eat of it.  Christians believe God is sovereign and thus even evil is subservient to God.  God either allowed evil to come into being or He created evil into being.  If God allows evil to come to be through free will (i.e. the devil as an angel rebels against God as he wants to be God through free will), or God predisposes evil into creation (i.e. the devil rebels against God because he is predisposed to wanting to be like God).  In my opinion, the latter option seems to cast doubt into God’s character, because He inputs a bias on a creature and then judges the creature on a bias He bestowed on the creature to begin with.  Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense has put the philosophers’ “the problem of evil” in a chokehold.  In Plantinga’s argument he writes as follows:

A world containing creatures who are sometimes significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.  Now God can create free creatures, but he cannot cause or determine them to do only what is right.  For if he does so, then they are not significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.  To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil; and he cannot leave these creatures free to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so....The fact that these free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against his goodness; for he could have forestalled the   occurrence of moral evil only by excising the possibility of moral good (Plantinga 1974,  pp. 166-167).

            Atheist philosophers have assumed God could have created a world with free will and where evil was not present, but such assumptions are just opinions of preference which discount what Plantinga has pointed out.  In addition, these atheists have not provided good arguments as to why God should have not allowed evil into creation; rather, they have extrapolated no evil should exist if there is a good God, because then God would not be omnipotent.  What these atheist philosophers have aimed to do is attempt to hinder God’s omnipotence.  However, we note God can’t kill Himself or create a square circle, since they are logical impossibilities; which is to say, even God cannot create things which are nonsense.  God cannot kill Himself, because He is a necessary Being (the ontological argument).   Furthermore, God cannot create a square circle, because circles by nature are circles and squares by nature are squares.  Lastly, I am skeptical human beings can understand the full scope of why God allowed evil into creation, since we would lack total understanding into the inner workings of such a Being.

The Problem of Evil?

What is the problem of evil? Well, I would say the main conjecture about the "problem of evil" is the assumption that there is in fact evil [meaning evil exists and is real].  However, the assumption [there is evil] presupposes there is good. To actually believe there is evil in this world one would have to presuppose there is good to begin with.  Else, how would we know there is evil without knowing the good?  Is it possible to know evil without knowledge of the good at all?  I don't think it is possible.  Take for example if the universe were to shrink, could we come know the universe had shrunk without comparing it to something-else?  No, we would have to have something to compare [before it shrunk and after it shrunk] with the size of the universe in order to know it had shrunk.  In as much, there has to be some sort of defining factor which allows me to come to some sort of understanding of what evil is.  The only thing I can think of that would acquiesce me to differentiate evil is good.  If evil is a disruption of goodness or at the very least the opposite of good, and let's say such is the case, then good would be able to give us different defining factor(s) of what good is and evil is not.  Therefore, any human being holding to a position that commits them to believing there is evil has to also be assuming there is a certain good.

If what I said above is true, is it fair to accept the following?

[1] Evil exists.
[2] In order to know evil exists good has to also exists.
[3] Therefore, good exists.

Relationship & Responsibility

In Christian Theism human relationships are deem as important.  God created mankind in His image and God also saw the need to create a pair of humans.  Humans need each other and being able to relate to one another in a healthy manner helps the development of self; it is reasoned relationality helps develop/emerge[1] the first-person perspective in each individual.  If healthy relationships help the development of self then it's a fact relationships are important to the development of mankind.  People tend to think about themselves at times, and being concerned with oneself a lot of the time can cause harm to relationships; for example, being a selfish person can impede on relationships one tries to build with different individuals.  Inasmuch, focusing on oneself solely will affect a relationship with God as the focus on God will diminish and the focus on oneself will increase.

Now, it is entirely possible for a person who is disabled, brain damaged, etc. who will not be able to make a conscious choice when it comes to relating to God or others; if such is the case, I am assuming God will not hold the person accountable for not being able to make certain conscious choices.  It is also conceivable to me an innocent[2] person will be pardon by God, but a person that is guilty[3] will be condemn by God.  Exactly who is guilty and how much the person failed to do I leave to God and the individual.  By no means do I deny original sin, but I don't think certain systematic theologies take into account the predicament some individuals with certain deficiencies find themselves in.  What I do know is in Scripture we read about responsibility (i.e. Matthew 25:14-30), and it should be understood some people will have more responsibility than others.

__________________________________
[1] For a more in depth view see Rethinking Human Nature by Kevin J. Corcoran page 74.
[2] I use the term rather loosely as no one is innocent due to original sin.
[3] I mean here a person who is able to make conscious choices (i.e. good or bad). 

On liberalism

For the purpose of this post I'll assume liberalism for the modern Protestant Christian is:

a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

Source

It's interesting the definition of liberalism assumes "intellectual liberty."  What sort of intellectual liberty should Christians be willing to accept?  Should it be liberation from certain basic tenants of Christianity?  A lot of liberals tend to say they follow Jesus.  Okay, and where are they getting their information about Jesus from?  I mean, surely there some ramifications in breaking away from Tradition and Scripture; indeed, even liberals need to have some sort of foundational beginning.  I guess, I want to know where the starting point for the liberal begins.  Can they even have fundamental premises to adhere to?

Where are the liberals when this happens?

It appeared for a moment on Friday afternoon that SunTrust Banks had cut ties with David and Jason Benham, the two brothers who recently lost their reality TV show after activists protested their Christian views on abortion and gay marriage.

The Benhams initially said Friday that SunTrust had “pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business, which includes several [independent] franchisees across four states,” the Daily Caller reported.

Source
 

Now, I believe SunTrust has back tracked and re-listed the properties. However, where is the outcry from the liberals? There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage and being a bigot as far as I can tell. Let's see, bigot means:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Source


The emphasis should be on "dislike." If a Christian dislikes another person because [insert sin here] we have a problem, but if a Christian does not support the sin and yet loves the person, what's the problem?

Defining Skeptical Theism

LABELS  

Labels can allow an individual to compartmentalize his or her own beliefs, and these certain labels can permit others to differentiate the ideas one may hold.  In this post I will attempt to loosely explain what I think skeptical theism is.  However, in order to determine what I think a skeptical theist is or could be[1] I need to define what a theist believes in [theism] first.  Theism is a loaded word because theism can vary from theist to theist.  For example, one theist could believe in Molinism and the other theist could believe in Calvinism.  I can even entertain an instance where one theist could come from the school of Process Theism and the other theist could come from the school of Classical Theism.  So, there are particular concepts that could differ from one theist to the other.  Yet, I am content to define and categorize theism in following manner:

Theism (from Gk. Θεός, ‘God’).  The term, prob. first employed by R. *Cudworth in the preface to his Intellectual System (1678), was originally used as an opposite to ‘atheism’, and only later acquired its present definite meaning to denote a creed distinct also from *pantheism and esp. from *Deism (q.v.).  Theism, as the word is currently employed, may be said to denote a philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom.  Theism, therefore, leaves room for the Christian revelation and is in various forms the view of the world common to all orthodox Christian philosophers; it is also required by *Judaism and *Islam.  Apart from certain aberrations, usually of a pantheistic character, Theism was the basis of Christian philosophy down to modern times.  Relegated to the background by the Deistic philosophy of the 18th cent. and the *Hegelianism and materialism of the 19th, it has again found many competent and convinced exponents in the modern world.[2]

Furthermore, theism derives from the Greek word theos, which means God/god.  Theism, therefore, is a belief which adheres to the supposition that there is a God, and this God, is actively involved with whatever God created.

SKEPTICAL THEISM

I have briefly defined theism above, but what does it mean to be a skeptical theist?  A skeptical theist, of course, must be some sort of theist.  I personally use the "label" of skeptical theism, because if there is a God, and God is the greatest conceivable being—then it stands to reason I would be unable to [fully] understand everything God has done, does, and/or allows.  Some of the things God may have done might include allowing certain evil(s).  However, not being able to decipher something God allowed before or now does not mean the event will never be understood—nor does it mean God does not have a good reason for allowing or actively orchestrating the event; it just means at that moment we lack information to make an informed conclusion.  Further, the skeptical theists presupposes God's creation is ordered, designed, etc., and if the actions of God are organized and God is[3] also good; then, an event which appears as "needless evil" may actually not be.  Therefore, the skeptical theist believes he or she does not have knowledge proper, and I especially see no reason to commit to a conclusion that supposes God is responsible for needless evil when also considering the free will defense.

________________________________

[1] What I mean to say there is that I am trying to define what I understand a skeptical theist to be.  However, I think or I am open to the idea that people who would label themselves as skeptical theists could have certain variations in their beliefs from that of other skeptical theists of what it means to be a theist.

[2] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 1608.

[3] Some examples of God's goodness are God's incarnation and revelation in Jesus Christ.

Final Conclusions About the Heart

I wrote Part 1 and Part 2 of the Biblical applications/conceptions of the word “heart.”  Below are excerpts from my (first draft) class evaluation essay, which includes the conclusions I have come to embrace for the time being.  I wrote as follows:

There were classroom discussions and dialogues with regard to the meaning(s) of the “heart” in non-physical terms.  For example, we examined the word “lēb” which, according to the professor, signifies “man's spiritual and intellectual life” (2).  The definitions seem to form propositions for what could be labeled as the inner nature of man.  The professor claims the following about the heart: (a) it is at the “seat of emotions” and (b) it is also at the “seat of understanding and knowledge, of rational forces and powers” (2).  These two claims are vital in understanding what the heart really is, because the right and left parts of the brain are actually attributed with those specific characteristics.[1]  Emotions and logical thinking are mental abilities, and that means these abilities are controlled by the brain and what we also call mind.  Further, it is also important to note “lēb” and “lēbāb” could mean “heart, understanding, [and] mind” (Harris et al. 466).

In the Old Testament and New Testament the heart denotes a person's thoughts, which is a trait of the mind. The following entry on “Mind” encapsulates the discussion of heart, mind, spirit, and soul argument:

Since in the OT there was no separate word that could be used for the human mind, translators of the English versions have supplied other words (“soul,” “spirit,” or “heart”), as the context dictates. Thus, precise distinctions among these terms are hard to define. A person is a soul, having a spirit and a heart. Any of these terms may represent the mind. This means that the widely held distinction between the mind as the seat of thinking and the heart as the seat of feeling is alien to the meanings these terms carry in the OT.

It goes without saying there are linguistic challenges when translating the Hebrew Scriptures into English.  To make matters worse those who would like to differentiate between the heart and the mind have a major hurdle to overcome since soul, spirit, and heart can represent the mind.  It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use precision in distinguishing between the heart and mind, because they are used interchangeably.  In addition, the presumptions of attributing the heart as the originator of emotions and the mind as the instigator of logical thinking are not only absent from the biblical model, but they are distinctions that render ad hoc explanations of sorts—when taking science and the Bible into account.  Moreover, as one studies the Bible one sees progression and expansion in the meaning(s) of “heart,” which includes allusions to or descriptions of what is now known to be the mind.[2]

Let’s take Deuteronomy 6:5 as a great example of what I am talking about in the paragraph above.  Deuteronomy 6:5 states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (NASB 95).  There are several things about this verse that I would like to draw attention to.  When one reads, “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” “the pairing of לבב, “heart,” and נפשׁ, “being, soul-life,” suggests that a distinction of some sort is being made between mental and emotional energy and activity.  In terms of modern depth psychology, we would say that our love for God is to embrace the whole of our mind, both conscious and unconscious.  Self-discipline is required, in that we are to love God with all our might (מאד) as well” (Christensen 143).  Yet, when we look at the New Testament (i.e. Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30) the formula in Deuteronomy 6:5 has been changed.  It is as Keil and Delitzsch note,

In quoting this commandment, Matthew (Matthew 22:37) has substituted δαίνοια, “thy mind,” for “thy strength,” as being of especial importance to spiritual love, whereas in the LXX the mind (διάνοια) is substituted for the heart. Mark (Mark 12:30) gives the triad of Deuteronomy (heart, soul, and strength); but he has inserted “mind” (διάνοια) before strength (ἰσχύς), whilst in v. 33 the understanding (σύνεσις) is mentioned between the heart and the soul. Lastly, Luke has given the three ideas of the original passage quite correctly, but has added at the end, “and with all thy mind” (διάνοια). Although the term διάνοια (mind) originated with the Septuagint, not one of the Evangelists has adhered strictly to this version. (Dt. 6:5) 

It seems to me the writers of the Bible present conceptual ideas of what will later define and/or form what is purported when one uses the term mind.

My personal opinion regarding the tradition of how the word “heart” is used in the Bible is that it is used to illustrate the mind where it represents the inner-self, but also, the word is used metaphorically, presenting spiritual imageries.  For example, the Bible introduces the ideas of hardness or softness relative to the heart.  If a heart is “hard,” the individual rejects the things of God and remains locked in stubbornness.  If the heart is “soft,” that means God softens or is present in the person’s life to where the individual’s negative nature does not impede on the self, and he or she is able to “act” within the scope of a “soft” heart.[3]  Further metaphors and allegories are erected by way of the allusions to pureness or darkness of the heart.[4]  Interestingly, we also read in Scripture about renewing your mind (Romans 12:2).  Perhaps, this renewal means cleanliness and purity (soft heart), whereas depravity leads to a hardening of the heart (Romans 1:18-32).  As we can see then, the Bible also paints spiritual illustrations with the word “heart,” and in these “illustrations” we see a depiction of the status of man’s inner being.

So, what did I learn about the heart?  The “heart” in the Holy Scriptures is used as abstract concepts, which gives us a descriptive picture of the condition of the human mind.  The heart signifies the predisposed state of a person’s inner being.  Therefore, the heart is not only the collective wisdom and experience of who you have been and are now, but also at life’s end.

  

__________________________________

[1] There have been studies on the functions and development of the brain that show the different roles of the right and left parts of the brain.  See Thompson 33-36.

[2] Theological richness in the biblical model expands from the time of the Old Testament to the New Testament.  We see a clearer picture of who God is and an ethical leap in the New Testament from that of the Old Testament.  While the Old Testament brings a sort of foundational basis to the New Testament—the New Testament provides growth on the thoughts of the Old Testament.

[3] Ezekiel 36:26 provides a great inference point with regard to hardness and softness in the heart, as well as alluding to God’s intervention in a person’s heart.

[4] The ideas about pureness and darkness can be found in Matthew 5:8 and Ephesians 4:18, respectively.

Biographic Notes

Thompson, Curt. Anatomy of the Soul. Carrollton, TX: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2010. Print.

Bibliography

Christensen, Duane L. Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002. Print.

Course Syllabus. VA, 2011. Print.

Harris, R. Laird, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Electronic ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. Print.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Print.

“Mind.” Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale Reference Library. 2001. Print.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Print.

Studying The Meaning Of Heart In The Bible (Part 2)

I contend here that the heart is to be distinguished from the soul and mind, but I also argue for the premise(s) which alludes that the word "heart" is used interchangeably with mental faculties.  The question I have before me is, "How does the heart differ from mind and soul?"  Here are several things I would like to consider:

• The heart is an actual physical organ.  As a physical organ the heart is important to the continual living of a person, because the heart provides the power needed for life.  Without a physical heart a person would not be able to survive.  Thus, the heart as a physical organ is vital to the very life of a person.

• The heart is an immaterial part of man.  As an immaterial form the heart is at the center of man's spiritual life.  What comes from the heart flows to the passions, desires, thoughts, affections, purposes, and endeavors of men.  Consequently, the heart as an immaterial part of man is at the core of man's self, and thus, the heart is the controlling factor of what represents that specific individual in his or her inner being ([as in person-hood] 1 Peter 3:4).

For an example of this dual (physical and immaterial) idea of the heart I offer the Greek word καρδία, which proposes that the heart "denotes the seat and centre of all physical and spiritual life."[1]  The Greek word captures the essence of what I am trying to communicate on how the Bible (2 Corinthians 5:12) depicts the meaning(s) of heart.

As I try to differentiate between "heart" and "mind", I would like to consider different versions of the Old Testament (OT) and how each one uses "heart" and "mind."  Psalms 38:10-11 states the following:

• My heart pants, my strength fails me; as for the light of my eyes, it also has gone from me.  My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague, and my relatives stand afar off. [New King James Version] 

• O Lord, You are aware of all my entreaties; my groaning is not hidden from You.  My mind reels; my strength fails me; my eyes too have lost their luster. [Tanakh]

Notice how the Tanakh utilizes "mind" instead of "heart," but most if not all Protestant interpretations of the verse use the word heart.  The difference in the usage of the two different words could come from The Tanakh drawing from Masoretic Texts as its main source, and the Protestant version of the OT using The Septuagint as its main source.  It could be the linguistic differences between Hebrew and Greek that encapsulate the nuances of the word "heart."  With regards to a verse like Deuteronomy 6:5 the Tanakh is similar to the Protestant versions of the verse.  However, I would like to consider the following:

בכל לבבך ובכל נפשׁך ובכל מאדך, “with all your heart and with all your being and with all your might.” The pairing of לבב, “heart,” and נפשׁ, “being, soul-life,” suggests that a distinction of some sort is being made between mental and emotional energy and activity. In terms of modern depth psychology, we would say that our love for God is to embrace the whole of our mind, both conscious and unconscious. Self-discipline is required, in that we are to love God with all our might (מאד) as well.[2]

as well as,

In Old Testament anthropology, the seat of the intellect, equivalent to the mind or rational part of humankind.  The “soul” (better, “being” or “essential person” in line with commonly accepted understanding of Heb. nepeš) refers to the invisible part of the individual, the person qua person including the will and sensibilities.[3]

and finally,

The heart is mentioned first, as the seat of the emotions generally and of love in particular; then follows the soul (nephesh) as the centre of personality in man, to depict the love as pervading the entire self-consciousness; and to this is added, “with all the strength,” sc., of body and soul.

(In quoting this commandment, Matthew (Matt. 22:37) has substituted δαίνοια, “thy mind,” for “thy strength,” as being of especial importance to spiritual love, whereas in the LXX the mind (διάνοια) is substituted for the heart. Mark (Mark 12:30) gives the triad of Deuteronomy (heart, soul, and strength); but he has inserted “mind” (διάνοια) before strength (ἰσχύς), whilst in v. 33 the understanding (σύνεσις) is mentioned between the heart and the soul. Lastly, Luke has given the three ideas of the original passage quite correctly, but has added at the end, “and with all thy mind” (διάνοια). Although the term διάνοια (mind) originated with the Septuagint, not one of the Evangelists has adhered strictly to this version.)[4] [5]

Therefore, the idea the heart is interchangeably used with mental abilities, and the heart is also seen as the controlling feature to man's soul appears to be true.  Furthermore, it seems as if in the LXX (Septuagint) the word mind is "substituted" for heart on certain instances.  I find it interesting that the formula used in Deuteronomy 6:5 is also employed in the New Testament (NT) (i.e. Mark 12:30), but we find the NT writers expand on the concepts of the formula.  For example, Mark 12:33 alludes to the heart first and then it goes onto understanding.  Recall I explained lēb can mean heart, understanding, and mind, which in this instance could be interpreted as:  the heart controls [the action of loving] the soul (person-hood) of man—man will gain understanding, and thus be strengthened.
        

cont.

______________________________
[1] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889). 325.
[2] Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 1-21:9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002). 143.
[3] Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001). 164.
[4] Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). Dt 6:5.
[5] The paragraph I put in parenthesis is from the Commentary on the Old Testament from footnote 10, which comes as a later part of the quoted material from footnote 4 above.

Studying The Meaning Of Heart In The Bible (Part 1)

So, I am taking a class where we explore the meaning of heart in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  The class has caused me to pause and question my assumptions about what the word means.  I would like to note in passing that I think the heart is interwoven and/or part of this thing that I label as the mind.  In the class I am currently taking the professor alluded that the "heart" is to be distinguished from the mind and soul (i.e. Deuteronomy 6:5; 26:16; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30, 33; Luke 10:25-27).  I am going to attempt to flesh out certain ideas about the word "heart" in order to assess the essence of the word.  

One has to ask, “How is the word 'heart' used in the Bible?”  Perhaps I can propose the following in order to distinguish the definitions for the word heart: 

(lēb), לֵבָב (lēbāb). Heart, understanding, mind (also used in idioms such as “to set the heart upon” meaning “to think about” or “to want”).

Concrete meanings of lēb referred to the internal organ and to analogous physical locations. However, in its abstract meanings, “heart” became the richest biblical term for the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature. In biblical literature it is the most frequently used term for man’s immaterial personality functions as well as the most inclusive term for them since, in the Bible, virtually every immaterial function of man is attributed to the “heart.”[1]

There are several things to consider here: (1) "heart" is used to describe an internal organ, and (2) "heart" is also used to describe something that lies within man.  It also must be noted that inner nature of man is categorized as immaterial.  Furthermore, the heart appears to cover every immaterial function from the nature of man.[2]  Thus, the "heart" is the center of the internal nature of man (Exodus 36:2; Deuteronomy 28:47; Jeremiah 4:14; 4:19; Proverbs 10:20; 14:30; 1 Kings 3:12; 4:29; 8:17).  However, I would also like to recognize the word "heart often refers to the mental faculties,"[3] which is important to establish, because it shows the heart is used interchangeably, metaphorically, and allegorically with the mind.  Which begs the question:  in what way is the heart different from the mind and soul of man?

cont.

______________________________
[1] R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999). 466.
[2] There are different conceptions of what the nature of man really is.  Some Christians hold to a tripartite nature of man, and others support a dualistic nature of man, and finally there are those who maintain a materialistic nature of man.
[3] NET Notes.

Blog Changes

Well, since cl from TWIM queried about my blog I have changed some things, added links that interest me, and made some of my older posts a little bit more presentable.  It’s not much but hey…

Entertainment

There is this thing that tends to grab the attention of people. The thing I am thinking about is entertainment. By observing other people and myself it appears to me we spend part of our time searching for something to entertain us; whether it be a movie, card games, video games, or what-have-you. I like being entertained for some reason or another. The experiences of being in a different world whether it be movie(s), book(s), or video game(s) take me out of my reality.  In these "experiences" I am not physically in them, rather, my mind through my imagination takes me to a specific place.  I might even be able to travel to a different place on a whim, but I am not physically in these places.

Why do I like being entertained? Could it be that I am trying to escape my daily life, because it's too hectic and/or am I searching for something more?  For those of us who are insecure and/or tend to be loners, are we looking to fill the void of something?  What are we missing from our lives?  Or, perhaps we are not missing anything but we just like experiencing the process of going through being entertained.  What is it about these experiences that we like?  Is it because it takes us to a world we would like to be in but we cannot be a part of?  I am not entirely sure, but I know there have been times where I have watched a specific movie that made me feel this emotional anguish, which came over me as if I were missing something in my life.

...

Could it be that I miss God?

The Meaning of Prophet?

I did a search on the word "prophet(s)" on my Logos Bible Software and it gave me 2,455 results in 2,265 verses. These results included: prophet, prophets, prophetic, prophetically, and prophetess.  Here are the definitions of prophet: man of God (2 Kings 4:9) and seer (1 Samuel 9:9 and 2 Samuel 24:11). The word prophet contains the idea that the individual has been called (Jeremiah 1: 4-5) by God. Thus, you have "man of God" literary meaning God’s man. Keeping the suggestion of a prophet being God’s man we must remember the proposal that a prophet is also a "seer." The meaning of seer assumes the prophet has some sort of new power. Let us consider the following:

In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb "to see" is used also of understanding ("I see what you mean") and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things ("He sees things very clearly"). In the case of the prophets, their powers of "perception" were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.[1]

Let us consider Matthew 3:3.  The word prophet in Greek is (προφήτης) and it means: "An interpreter or forth-teller of the divine will."[2]  Let me even go further and quote what my digital commentary states:

A fixed feature of the early Christian tradition, Isa 40:3 is quoted in all four Gospels (John lacks the last line) to describe the function of John the Baptist. All four Gospels identify the words as those of Isaiah the prophet. The use of the quotation by Matthew is consonant with his stress on fulfillment; although he does not here employ a characteristic fulfillment formula, he does make use of a pesher-type formula ("this is that"), which points to fulfillment (cf. Acts 2:16). Of the Synoptics, however, Matthew most emphatically calls attention to the identity of John as the one spoken of by Isaiah with οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν, "this is the one."[3]

John the Baptist was considered the prophet which Isaiah wrote about. And, John the Baptist also brought forth the "good news" (see Isaiah 52:7 & 61:1). Therefore, John’s role as a prophet was composed of prophecy and the proclamation of God’s good news.

As I stated in class I believe the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Moreover, the church believes Jesus holds three offices (prophet, priest, and king) as we can read about these different offices throughout Scripture. Further, Christ is the pinnacle of each office which includes prophecy (Ephesians 2:20). Since Christ is the fulfillment of the message of the prophets, and because the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament; I have no reason to suppose there is or will be some sort of prophet who "prophesied" or will "prophesy" to the point where he or she would add anything new to the Bible. The canonization of the books of Bible assumes God’s revelation is "closed." Else, why canonize and close the canon of Scripture?

Now, I am certainly not going against the New Testament when it claims that some bear the fruit of prophecy. Indeed, God gave/gives the gift of prophecy to some, but this prophecy cannot add to what has already been revealed, rather, it confirms what has already been revealed. In fact, in thinking about what an office of prophecy might entail now we should consider Ephesians 3: 5-7:

Now this secret was not disclosed to people in former generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus. I became a servant of this gospel according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the exercise of his power.[4]

Please note that verse 5 claims the "secret" has been revealed revealed here means to "uncover." Meaning, the revelation has already happened or has been fulfilled. So, while I might be able accept there are people who [currently] hold the office of a prophet; I would be wise to question anything that is or seems outside of Scripture. For further references I point to 1 Corinthians 14:29, 32, 37-40. Is it possible the role of the prophet [now] is mainly to proclaim the good news that has already been revealed?

_______________________________
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, 2001), p. 1085.
[2] Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: Updated Edition (Anaheim, 1998).
[3] Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, 2002). 48.
[4] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006). Eph 3:5–7

On Purpose

*If* we are here by accident or for reasons other than being brought about without the intent of usefulness, do we really have a purpose? 

For example, if I make a robot for a specific function (i.e. cleaning my house) the sole purpose of the robot is to clean my house.  Now, I suppose I can use the robot to hang my wet clothes on, thus, one can say the robot has another purpose because I used it for such.  However, when I made the robot I specifically made it for the sole purpose of cleaning my house.  It seems apparently clear to me that when I originally made the robot my original plan was for it to clean my house, but along the way (as time passed) the robot was additionally used with a different purpose from the one initially intended.  So then, the robot's purpose was and still is to clean my house.  The very fact that the robot's purpose changes or broadens to something bigger does not overthrow the fact that the robot has a purpose.  I already acknowledged the fact that my purpose for the robot changed from my initial concept when I made the robot.  If I had foreknowledge[1] of the fact that I would also end up adopting an additional purpose for the robot; the robot would have been built for the purposes of cleaning my house and hanging my clothes.  One then could and should conclude that the robot serves a purpose because it was made for a specific reason.  However, one cannot conclude the robot gave itself purpose, because it served an additional purpose to what it was otherwise intended for.     

Now, suppose the robot had made itself (at face value such an idea seems absurd) or somehow through time the robot came to be (again, such an idea seems absurd) it cannot just decide that it was made with intention, because it was not made for a specific purpose.  Rather, the robot has/had the ability to not be and be at the same time or came about as an accident of nature, but it certainly was not made for a specific purpose.  Should the robot assume to itself it can give meaning or purpose to whatever it wants?  I guess the robot can give meaning to different things, but let us keep in mind the robot itself was not made with intention.  So how can the robot assume it serves some sort of purpose?  I do not think the robot can conclude that it was made with a purpose since it seems it came about accidentally/absurdly.  Therefore, anything the robot gives meaning to is just as absurd as its existence.


_____________________________
[1] While I as the maker of the robot am limited in terms of knowledge God is not.  Therefore, God has facts that allow Him to make non-arbitrary decisions as He has the broadest of information available.

Tortured Soul

The darkness surrounds me,
it grabs me,
it has a grip on me.

I have no where to go,
I have no where to run.

I am a tortured soul...

Book Review of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

David Berlinski is an agnostic mathematician and appears to be well versed in philosophy. It seems to me that Berlinski’s criticism of the New Atheism and atheistic scientism is well placed, or at least he challenges the presumptions that atheists affirm in their supposed “reasoned” worldview. First, I liked how Berlinski challenged the atheists from a teleological point of view. If we really are a mistake and come from some sort of valueless origin it is an illusion to assume some sort of meaning. Second, in the book the author talks about how physicists suppose that the physics of the universe break down at a singular state prior to the Big Bang, but they also like to assume some sort of hypothesis based on mathematical schemes that are suspect as Berlinski points out. Why? Well if the physics prior to the Big Bang are unknown to us (as physicists seem to think), or if there were no "physics" (at least as we understand it) at all, how can we affirm that a multiverse is more parsimonious? Sure, the mathematician can provide some sort of theory based on mathematics, but it will certainly not be about physics that are unavailable to us. The author takes the time of engaging other aspects of atheistic scientism throughout the book which is well received by me. I recommend the book, because it’s informative, funny, witty, and a critical assessment from a person who has no personal stake in theism.

Opinions Vary

Just about everyday we get to hear and read people's opinions.  I attempt to understand what people are implying when they say or write such and such.  I may ask, what about this, or what did you mean by that?  Although, I might also respond to the opinion(s) in order to show that there could be another possibility.  Some people do not like to read or hear what I have to say.  But, do they not open themselves to the scrutiny of others when they decide to voice what's on their mind?  On various occasions an individual may engage the discussion by erecting false dilemmas, straw man arguments, and other sorts of fallacies in an attempt to rescue their position(s).  If they get called out on these fallacies they attack my character, because it appears to me that they cannot give a reasonable response.

The more I think about it, I tend to conclude that maybe these people who cannot take constructive criticism are insecure in someway.  On the surface it seems as if they just do not want their assertions challenged.  Maybe it's better for me not to waste my time?  I mean, a person like I have described is going to want to keep living the illusion in order to protect their view(s).  A person like that (as described above) is not willing to be pragmatic (it's not the same as relativism, btw) about their beliefs.  The interesting thing about all this is: these people are relativists in their worldview, but they want to present an authoritarian position when it comes to what they think.

My Review of A Discourse On The Method

René Descartes is considered one of the fathers of modern philosophy. As you read the book you will understand why. The book contains an introduction section where it gives the reader a concise biography of Descartes and of the time period in which he lived. The book of course contains the Discourse On The Method and the explanatory notes by Ian Maclean.

Descartes understood that the human senses while good were prone to error. So, Descartes thought to inject a principle where if anything gave him a slight hint of doubt it would have to be deemed as false. Descartes' aim in his project was to attain conclusions that gave him absolute certainty. Descartes concluded that since he was able to doubt "he existed!" Thus, he rationalizes "I think therefore I am."

Perhaps even more intriguing is the fact that Descartes set to make a system that broke away from Scholastic-Aristotelian thought, which was the predominant philosophy in Descartes' time. In the book you will find all sorts of information about a man that set his standards so high it changed the world of philosophy forever. A good book and very much worth the read.

René Descartes (3)

In A Discourse On The Method Descartes writes about how he wants to fashion a method. Descartes claims that the method is composed of four parts. The four parts have the following characteristics: "certainty in the distinction in truth and error, ease of application, fruitfulness, and wisdom or the production of true knowledge." I will try to briefly examine these four characteristics in Descartes' method.

Being able to distinguish between truth and error is vital to any sort of reasoning schema. If one cannot discern what is true and what is false then the system will not and could not work. The law of non-contradiction is evident for example if something exists it cannot not exist at the same time. Perhaps, that something did not exist at some point in time, but it did come to exist at a later point in time. However, a distinction ought to be made that something does not exist and exist at the same time, and if something can exist and not exist at the same time we are part of an absurd world. If the world we live in is absurd then logic and philosophy are futile.

When Descartes alludes to "ease of application" I think he is proposing Occam's Razor or the Law of Parsimony. Occam's Razor is defined as follows: "a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities."[1] I agree with Descartes, because most of the time (if not always) we should attempt to analyze the things we are trying to understand by positing the simplest composition that fits the theory.

I assume that when Descartes talks about "fruitfulness" he is proposing that given the definitions of the law of non-contradiction and ease of application—both should produce a meaningful insight into what is being explored. Since we have established a system that is not absurd or illogical we can proceed in the investigation, because it is prosperous to do so. Since the system is "logical" then it ought to yield fruitfulness regarding the matters that are being probed. Keeping everything I have discussed so far in mind--we should be able arrive at wisdom or the production of true knowledge.

While Descartes is not claiming absolute knowledge he certainly purports a method that constructs possibilities. From these possibilities Descartes deduces what might fit best in the construct. I would like to mention in passing that Descartes thinks skepticism of our own bias is the best way to arrive at conclusions. For example, Descartes concludes that because he doubts he knows with certainty he exists. However, it is hard to establish how much we ought to doubt since the three laws of thought are merely accepted and not established empirically. That said, I do not intend to exhaust Descartes' system, but try allude to what I think Descartes is trying to achieve by giving us an explanation of his approach.

____________________
[1] Occam's Razor

René Descartes (2)

In Discourse Descartes alludes to the mind as immaterial. We also find that Descartes states reason, imagination, and memory do not reside at given locations, but rather are present to interact with the body. I think Descartes is distinguishing thoughts from physical interactions of the body. What does it mean for our thoughts to be immaterial?

When I use my mind I do so in a realm that cannot be touched, but it can be accounted for. Descartes points out what we perceive is immaterial (the mind), because we cannot account for it physically but we know the event happened. I think Descartes at the very least succeeds in establishing the possibility of the reality of immaterialness. For if he fails to demonstrate that the mind is immaterial and it is not real, then we cannot account for our thoughts. If we cannot account for our thoughts we have been plunged into an abyss of irrationality. Thus, no amount of reasoning will be equalvalent to ultimate meaning.

René Descartes (1)

I will try to analyze part of the philosophy in the book titled René Descartes A Discourse On The Method (A new translation by Ian Maclean). I am not sure I can do Descartes justice, but I will try to examine some of Descartes' philosophy nonetheless. My assessment will be in different parts as I attempt to tackle different subjects and would like to break it up into different posts.

Descartes speaks of good sense, which is described or alluded to as "universal wisdom." Descartes states that humans have this good sense,[1] and the way it is applied might reveal different results. The results could vary due to the fact that people apply or see things differently. Since people's thoughts are "directed differently," what is important is that the correct process (being able to distinguish what is truth and what is false) is applied. Finally, Descartes proposes one can arrive at a more accurate conclusion if the application of the process is taken at a slower pace.

I think Descartes is implying that as long as one has a mind that is able to work properly, this good sense is available to all. If that is what he means I do agree with him. I would venture to say that this good sense is part of what we deem to be evident/apparent. However, as Descartes distinguishes, we need to test or examine this good sense. Moreover, Descartes is right to point out that if the individual uses a slower thought process, chances would increase to detect incorrect assumptions through the method. For example, if I write a paper and attempt to correct it at a fast pace more errors are likely to be made than if I slowly took the time to make the corrections. Regarding good sense Descartes is dead on if you ask me...

_____________________
[1] Interestingly enough, Descartes claims that this good sense is available to "all men." In other words, Descartes is assuming that everyone has access to this good sense.