Bosphorus Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey
Europe on the left, Asia on the right.
This will be my first attempt at date publishing an article in the month after actually posting. So it is October 27 and I will place the date as November 1. Blogger only recently has allowed the dates of my articles to be moved ahead. I tried previously on several occasions.
This is good for me as I will have to go away to Arizona and California in November or December and I still want a consistent two postings per blog per month.
Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1884-1953) is a philosopher and theologian noted for believing in a finite God. Lavely (2007: 121). John H. Lavely (2007) explains that Brightman ‘carved out’ a concept of ‘theistic finitism.’ Lavely (2007: 121). Brightman within A Philosophy of Religion (1940) calls God the ‘finite-infinite controller of the given.’ Brightman (1940: 336). Lavely (2007: 122). He developed an original view on the finite God different than John Stuart Mill, William James (both discussed in earlier posts on this blog) and Alfred North Whitehead. His view features a shift from traditional theism, but this is not a rejection of the Christian faith from his perspective. He offers from this perspective, a true Christian expression within a more reasonable approach to traditional supernaturalism. Lavely (2007: 124). Doubts concerning concepts of God within Christian theism need to be contemplated and discussed. Brightman (1930: 9).
Brightman explains in The Problem of God (1930) the new concept of God has not confined the divine creative work to a single week, and God does not cease to produce and maintain newer life forms. Brightman (1930: 68). As there is scientific evolution and progression in the material realm, he reasons there can be expansion with God as in more far reaching goals and development for the physical realm than persons had previously realized. Brightman (1930: 68). He reasons that God is not fixed but is still growing and expanding. Brightman (1930: 70). He questions traditional concepts that God is a metaphysical unity that is perfectly at peace with self, as in no struggle, instead God may not be so separate from the physical world and the struggles that go with it. Brightman (1930: 94). Brightman reasons there are struggles within the divine being and God has genuine problems to deal with in the physical realm as a finite and limited God. Brightman (1930: 94). The expansion of God means he must lack some knowledge and power, and this view contradicts those within theology that place a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as does Calvinism. Brightman (1930: 102).
According to Gordon Clark (1959) Brightman is also a noted empiricist and works out philosophy of religion along these lines. Clark (1959: 34). However, philosophical interpretations should be reasonably understood within human experience and should never be under the subordination of logic or empiricism. Every item of experience properly understood should point a person toward God and is evidence for the existence of God. Brightman (1930: 62). Persons were not to follow the logic of the rationalists, but a reasonable approach is to follow a set of empirical principles and concepts by which human beings organize their experience within the universe. Brightman subscribes to a view of ‘personalism’ as in the term referring to the ‘ultimate and irreducible unit of reality,’ and there exists no realities other than persons. Lavely (2007: 124). James Richmond (1999) notes it is the philosophical viewpoint which views human personality as the starting point, and this may include a personal God as a key to understanding the nature of the world. Richmond (1999: 443). Everything that is in existence, exists in the mind of a person, of some sort, on some level. Brightman (1958: 135). The concept of ‘person’ was a ‘concrete universal.’ Lavely (2007: 124). God was the uncreated creator of humanity, ‘the ground of all being’ and the one that sustains the universe. Lavely (2007: 124). God was also person. Personalism would include God’s creations and reality is a community of persons sustained by God, the Supreme Person. Lavely (2007: 124). The total view of human experience leads one to a belief in some sort of Supreme Being, who is also supremely good, beautiful and of reason. Brightman (1930: 63). Creation did not come ex nihilo from the hand of God, and matter is not something external from God. Lavely (2007: 124). Matter and the physical world is therefore not completely separate from God, and in a sense nature is a representation of the divine creator. God, in fact was capable of growth and can accomplish more within reality than he has presently.
Lavely reasons that Brightman’s view on omnipotence is ‘ambiguous’ and is difficult to explain within his overall description and understanding of God. Lavely (2007: 132). This is a reasonable point. Omnipotence may literally describe the quality of everything to God, in other words God is omnipotent, not in a traditional sense but rather God has all the power there is, and all the power that is available. Lavely (2007: 132). God is omnitemporal as opposed to unchanging. God is all-powerful in a sense, only within the finite realm and not beyond it, and God can also change and expand within that realm. God is ‘creative, supreme, and personal’ yet is limited and there are experiences which are eternally existent which he does not create. Nevertheless, God can control the experiences that he did not create. Any understanding of God as omnipotent would be ‘derived predominantly from abstract thought’ as the view and theory cannot be based on experience alone, although humanity does experience the power of God.
I view the finite God as logically possible but would still leave the need for the infinite first cause. Ultimately I reason that even if human beings were created by a finite God, the ultimate first cause is the one that human beings should ultimately appeal to as this being could overrule the lesser deity. I would make any appeal for everlasting life to the most powerful good being in existence.
Brightman's finite god is logically possible.
A finite god is not Biblical. Otto Weber suggests God has unlimited capacity and unrestricted will. Weber (1955)(1981: 440). God is unrestricted in what he determines within self and outside of self. Presbyterian theologian John M. Frame admits the term omnipotence is not in Scripture, but reasons the concept is Biblical. He deduces that based on the Bible, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of what God has willed to happen. Frame (2002: 518). Also Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
Genesis 1 begins with God that existed prior to his material creation. He therefore has power over finite creation and in that sense, at least it can be reasoned, is omnipotent and infinite.
It can be reasoned God existed prior to the creation of finite angelic creatures, and once again can be reasoned as omnipotent and infinite.
Brightman’s god is hyper-speculative.
BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1930) The Problem of God, New York, The Abingdon Press.
BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1940) A Philosophy of Religion, New York, Prentice-Hall.
BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1958) Person and Reality, New York, Ronald Press.
CLARK, GORDON C. (1959) ‘Special Divine Revelation as Rational’, in Carl F.H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, London, The Tyndale Press.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
LAVELY, JOHN H. (2007) ‘Good-and Evil and Finite-Infinite God’, in The Boston Personalist Tradition in Philosophy, Social Ethics, and Theology, Macon, Georgia, Macon University Press.
RICHMOND, JAMES (1999) ‘Personalism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics,Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Blog film rating
thekingpin68
Fair enough.
satire and theology
I think not.
This is good for me as I will have to go away to Arizona and California in November or December and I still want a consistent two postings per blog per month.
Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1884-1953) is a philosopher and theologian noted for believing in a finite God. Lavely (2007: 121). John H. Lavely (2007) explains that Brightman ‘carved out’ a concept of ‘theistic finitism.’ Lavely (2007: 121). Brightman within A Philosophy of Religion (1940) calls God the ‘finite-infinite controller of the given.’ Brightman (1940: 336). Lavely (2007: 122). He developed an original view on the finite God different than John Stuart Mill, William James (both discussed in earlier posts on this blog) and Alfred North Whitehead. His view features a shift from traditional theism, but this is not a rejection of the Christian faith from his perspective. He offers from this perspective, a true Christian expression within a more reasonable approach to traditional supernaturalism. Lavely (2007: 124). Doubts concerning concepts of God within Christian theism need to be contemplated and discussed. Brightman (1930: 9).
Brightman explains in The Problem of God (1930) the new concept of God has not confined the divine creative work to a single week, and God does not cease to produce and maintain newer life forms. Brightman (1930: 68). As there is scientific evolution and progression in the material realm, he reasons there can be expansion with God as in more far reaching goals and development for the physical realm than persons had previously realized. Brightman (1930: 68). He reasons that God is not fixed but is still growing and expanding. Brightman (1930: 70). He questions traditional concepts that God is a metaphysical unity that is perfectly at peace with self, as in no struggle, instead God may not be so separate from the physical world and the struggles that go with it. Brightman (1930: 94). Brightman reasons there are struggles within the divine being and God has genuine problems to deal with in the physical realm as a finite and limited God. Brightman (1930: 94). The expansion of God means he must lack some knowledge and power, and this view contradicts those within theology that place a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as does Calvinism. Brightman (1930: 102).
According to Gordon Clark (1959) Brightman is also a noted empiricist and works out philosophy of religion along these lines. Clark (1959: 34). However, philosophical interpretations should be reasonably understood within human experience and should never be under the subordination of logic or empiricism. Every item of experience properly understood should point a person toward God and is evidence for the existence of God. Brightman (1930: 62). Persons were not to follow the logic of the rationalists, but a reasonable approach is to follow a set of empirical principles and concepts by which human beings organize their experience within the universe. Brightman subscribes to a view of ‘personalism’ as in the term referring to the ‘ultimate and irreducible unit of reality,’ and there exists no realities other than persons. Lavely (2007: 124). James Richmond (1999) notes it is the philosophical viewpoint which views human personality as the starting point, and this may include a personal God as a key to understanding the nature of the world. Richmond (1999: 443). Everything that is in existence, exists in the mind of a person, of some sort, on some level. Brightman (1958: 135). The concept of ‘person’ was a ‘concrete universal.’ Lavely (2007: 124). God was the uncreated creator of humanity, ‘the ground of all being’ and the one that sustains the universe. Lavely (2007: 124). God was also person. Personalism would include God’s creations and reality is a community of persons sustained by God, the Supreme Person. Lavely (2007: 124). The total view of human experience leads one to a belief in some sort of Supreme Being, who is also supremely good, beautiful and of reason. Brightman (1930: 63). Creation did not come ex nihilo from the hand of God, and matter is not something external from God. Lavely (2007: 124). Matter and the physical world is therefore not completely separate from God, and in a sense nature is a representation of the divine creator. God, in fact was capable of growth and can accomplish more within reality than he has presently.
Lavely reasons that Brightman’s view on omnipotence is ‘ambiguous’ and is difficult to explain within his overall description and understanding of God. Lavely (2007: 132). This is a reasonable point. Omnipotence may literally describe the quality of everything to God, in other words God is omnipotent, not in a traditional sense but rather God has all the power there is, and all the power that is available. Lavely (2007: 132). God is omnitemporal as opposed to unchanging. God is all-powerful in a sense, only within the finite realm and not beyond it, and God can also change and expand within that realm. God is ‘creative, supreme, and personal’ yet is limited and there are experiences which are eternally existent which he does not create. Nevertheless, God can control the experiences that he did not create. Any understanding of God as omnipotent would be ‘derived predominantly from abstract thought’ as the view and theory cannot be based on experience alone, although humanity does experience the power of God.
I view the finite God as logically possible but would still leave the need for the infinite first cause. Ultimately I reason that even if human beings were created by a finite God, the ultimate first cause is the one that human beings should ultimately appeal to as this being could overrule the lesser deity. I would make any appeal for everlasting life to the most powerful good being in existence.
Brightman's finite god is logically possible.
A finite god is not Biblical. Otto Weber suggests God has unlimited capacity and unrestricted will. Weber (1955)(1981: 440). God is unrestricted in what he determines within self and outside of self. Presbyterian theologian John M. Frame admits the term omnipotence is not in Scripture, but reasons the concept is Biblical. He deduces that based on the Bible, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of what God has willed to happen. Frame (2002: 518). Also Weber (1955)(1981: 440).
Genesis 1 begins with God that existed prior to his material creation. He therefore has power over finite creation and in that sense, at least it can be reasoned, is omnipotent and infinite.
It can be reasoned God existed prior to the creation of finite angelic creatures, and once again can be reasoned as omnipotent and infinite.
Brightman’s god is hyper-speculative.
BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1930) The Problem of God, New York, The Abingdon Press.
BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1940) A Philosophy of Religion, New York, Prentice-Hall.
BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1958) Person and Reality, New York, Ronald Press.
CLARK, GORDON C. (1959) ‘Special Divine Revelation as Rational’, in Carl F.H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, London, The Tyndale Press.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
LAVELY, JOHN H. (2007) ‘Good-and Evil and Finite-Infinite God’, in The Boston Personalist Tradition in Philosophy, Social Ethics, and Theology, Macon, Georgia, Macon University Press.
RICHMOND, JAMES (1999) ‘Personalism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics,Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Blog film rating
thekingpin68
Fair enough.
satire and theology
I think not.
Here is an article somewhat related to this one from satire and theology:
atheistic praxis and other
55 comments:
I like the blog rating images. I think you should keep one of them as a permanent fixture on the sidebar.
I rated my blog, and it was NC-17! LOL!!
Odd that S&T was rated for a younger audience than thekingpin68.
I was going to put my "NC-17" image on my blog site, on the sidebar, but it was too big to fit, and I see no way to resize it. I figured it might attract more attention!
I appreciate the quick comments, Jeff.
'I like the blog rating images. I think you should keep one of them as a permanent fixture on the sidebar.'
I have used the ratings previously and will use them in articles every now and then.
thekingpin68 was previously rated NC-17:
thekingpin68
So was satire and theology:
satire and theology
'I rated my blog, and it was NC-17! LOL!!'
I knew that fact.:)
'Odd that S&T was rated for a younger audience than thekingpin68.'
It should have at least been rated as high as thekingpin68 in my view, in light of some of the 'experimental' humour.
Thanks my friend.
I have to read your post again as I need to understand about 'finite God' which is different from what I've heard from many religious leaders that God is infinite...
'I have to read your post again as I need to understand about 'finite God' which is different from what I've heard from many religious leaders that God is infinite...'
I agree. This is a review of Brightman from my PhD. Thanks, Miel.
Russ,
If this was to post on Nov. 11, it didn't wait. I am responding to it on Oct. 28.
Last week I looked out and the trees were swaying mightily back and forth. I went outside and what hair I have left was tousled, my clothes rippled and I felt a force pushing against me. I could not see this force itself. But I could observe there was a force by seeing it's effects on material about me, in a paper flying through the air, in the pressure against my body. That was the extent of my empirical knowledge of this force. Thus I can certainly acknowledge the existence of wind.
I can then form some logical ideas. It has a power. It can move objects. If can increase and decrease from one moment to another. It can exert enough pressure to make me work harder to walk. But within what I could observe that morning, I could not conclude much more about it.
I could go online or get a science book and read more about wind. It might explain about hurricanes and tornadoes; even give an explanation of why sometimes we have such storms, sometimes we only have a light breeze or sometimes we have just stillness. These explanations are the logical conclusions of people who have studied wind within the confines of a finite world and the so-called natural laws dictated by physics.
I can accept what they say if I have faith in them. I cannot necessarily prove they are correct. And chances are very good that fifty years from now what they say will have been changed by someone else.
Scientific explanations of our world constantly change, yet, for the most part, these people can observe nature within defined boundaries and can also conduct experiments in labs. Still, they continue to change their explanations.
Like wind, I can observe God in this world. I may experience him in some unusual way. I can see the complex design of all that exists that I can see or experience and conclude a superior mind does exist.
I cannot actually fully understand God from these observations. I can know more about God by getting a book, called the Bible by we Christians, and it will tell me more about God, but only what God wants to reveal to me about Himself. I have to except this on faith, not blindly, but by how much of this book corresponds to the reality of my observable world compared to other philosophies and religions.
But I am limited to what I can observe. What I can observe logically tells me the Bible is correct.
I begin to fail when I begin to try and pin down God based on my observable universe because my physical makeup is limited to a small portion of the whole. I cannot see the principalities of God's universe.
These people limit God because they are limited.
X=4 if 2x+2=10 only if we can see the entire equation. If part of the equation if kept from us we cannot know the true answer at all. If the equation is actually 2(2x+2)=10, then x is not 4 and we can never know that unless we can see the full equation. God controls the equations of existence and He has chosen not to provide us with all the expressions.
We are forced into making leaps of faith. This is probably a safeguard for us for who could really endure the full majesty of God?
Larry E.
thekingpin68 was previously rated NC-17
Ah, so I'm not the only one! OK.
Somewhat similar to what your mom said in the linked thekingpin68 article comments, and to what "Bobby the Blog Bungler" said in the linked S&T comments, you can see all kinds of trash on TV, DVD, cable, satellite, movies, etc., yet blogs about the truth of God/Christ Jesus are rated NC-17, (simply because of certain words they include, which are not curse words, BTW).
Similarly, the world often allows any other religion all sorts of leniency and soap boxes, but when it comes to Christianity, the world too often censors the message. Of course, this makes sense, in light of the fact that Satan is the god of this world, and therefore, the world hates God.
Audio: Pamela Geller Interviews Wafa Sultan, the (Muslim apostate) author of A God who Hates, including discussion on the Rifqa Bary case, Islamic head covering for women, the Qur'an, terrorism, etc.
'Russ,
If this was to post on Nov. 11, it didn't wait. I am responding to it on Oct. 28.'
That is cool, Larry, I dated it November 1.
'These explanations are the logical conclusions of people who have studied wind within the confines of a finite world and the so-called natural laws dictated by physics.
I can accept what they say if I have faith in them. I cannot necessarily prove they are correct. And chances are very good that fifty years from now what they say will have been changed by someone else.
Scientific explanations of our world constantly change, yet, for the most part, these people can observe nature within defined boundaries and can also conduct experiments in labs. Still, they continue to change their explanations.'
Concepts can seem reasonable, but have aspects that are also open to revision.
'I cannot actually fully understand God from these observations. I can know more about God by getting a book, called the Bible by we Christians, and it will tell me more about God, but only what God wants to reveal to me about Himself.'
Yes.
'I begin to fail when I begin to try and pin down God based on my observable universe because my physical makeup is limited to a small portion of the whole. I cannot see the principalities of God's universe.'
It can become hyper-speculation as well.
Thanks my friend.
'Similarly, the world often allows any other religion all sorts of leniency and soap boxes, but when it comes to Christianity, the world too often censors the message.'
Often sad, but true.
Cheers.
Oh no! Sir Chucklins videotaped at work...
No Chucky, no!!!
Please Chucky, stop!!!
Remember what you were taught at Menno school!
Is this Chuck's cousin?
Chucky needs to quit picking on those poor computers.
Then again, Chucky just may be the hero of all those who have ever had computer problems.
I need to find out what type of "fighting" computer that is in the last video, so I can be sure to avoid ever using that one. I don't want to use any computer that fights back!
Let us see... My first modern computer was a UMAX, and the hard drive had to be replaced. I still have the computer for games. My first PC was stolen in Manchester, England. I still have the British replacement and use it for games, but the original motherboard was blown in a storm in Manchester. My next PC is downstairs and in use by my dear Mother. It has been reformatted more than once.
Please remember there will be people here Friday night...;)
"I like traditional British and Irish style pubs, and love Fish and Chips properly done."
I must be great! Here, where I live, we don't have this kind of bar. But I have already seen these 'pubs' on american and british movies and it seems to be very nice.
They can be. I personally prefer them over sport bars.:)
I've been snowed under for a couple of days and haven't gotten around to my blog reading, but after a very quick perusal, I can say that anyone who quotes Gordon Clark (favorably or unfavorably!) is ok in my book! :-)
I look forward to giving this a thorough read this weekend.
Hope you enjoy your trip!
GGM
'I can say that anyone who quotes Gordon Clark (favorably or unfavorably!) is ok in my book! :-)'
Success...finally.;)
Thanks.
Funny, I don't remember having THAT much weight.
Then again, that last episode probably caused some damage to my memory synapses.
(no, that wasn't my cousin)
Dear Chucky,
Would you survive as the last man on earth?
Depends if I have to fight off zombie-vampires or not...
If there are women around it wouldn't be so bad...
Depends on the women.;)
What a 'wild' Halloween party. I had two Dos Equis, and they were spaced out in time, and we played NFS Carbon and watched The Last Man on Earth (1964 film) with Vincent Price. We also ate Greek Pizza.
Last
From the link:
"The Last Man on Earth (Italian: L'ultimo uomo della Terra) is a 1964 Italian horror/science fiction film based upon the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend."
Interesting. I own "I Am Legend" with Will Smith, and watched it again just the other week. It's probably the only "horror"-type movie I own, but I like the Science-Fiction aspect of it.
I play CounterStrike on the Internet, and in some of the maps, you have to fight against zombies.
For the Halloween weekend, they had "Champions Online: Bloodmoon" free weekend, which I thought meant that you could play it for 3 days just by downloading that from my Steam account. Apparently, you have to buy "Champions Online" first, and then play "Bloodmoon" free for those 3 days. So, I did not get to play it. But "Champions Online" is an Internet game where you are a superhero, and in "Bloodmoon," you fight zombies and werewolves, and some of the old, dead superheroes have been turned into zombies. I don't care for zombies and werewolves (even though I used to write horror stories for the school newspaper in Jr. High School, before I got saved), but I do like superheroes.
On Halloween, I went to a 4-hour class on Islam in the morning, taught by a missionary to Muslims who grew up in Pakistan as a Muslim, and then came to Christ, and escaped from Pakistan after his family and community tried to kill him for becoming a Christian.
After the class, I stopped at two large store parking lots and placed gospel tracts on a number of the cars. I also placed gospel tracts on a few shelves in a store that I stopped in. Though many of those tracts might be thrown away or discarded, I prayed that the Lord would use them for His glory, and that He would prepare the hearts of some through those tracts, and that He would lead some to read the tracts that He wanted to read them, and that some might be saved, or at least that a seed would be planted, through reading those gospel tracts. I also prayed that, if anyone read them who was already saved, that they would be motivated, inspired and encouraged to be bolder witnesses for Christ. Even if one person gets saved by reading those tracts, that will have made it worth it.
Sat. night, there were approximately 130 or so kids that came to my door, and I gave each a sandwich bag filled with 2 small candy bars and 3-4 gospel tracts (some were comic tracts; some were million-dollar bills with Frankenstein's picture on them that included the gospel; some were collectible coins that had the Ten Commandments on them; some were coasters that had the gospel or Ten Commandments; etc.). Some of the kids said, "Cool!" when they saw what I was putting in their bag or plastic pumpkin.
After the kids stopped coming (they started coming around 6:30 PM or so, and the last ones came around 10:00 PM or so), I got online and played "Day of Defeat" with a friend in California and a couple other people. We played a WWII-type gun game with Americans vs. Germans.
Sunday morning at church, they had booths outside, where the 80 ministries that the church has, advertised themselves, so that you could find out about the various ministries of the church and join one or more. Though I talked to several people and got various information, the one I am definitely planning to participate in is a sort of prison ministry. You don't actually go to the prisons, but prisoners who participate in a correspondence Bible study course send in tests that they take, and you grade their papers, and also write to them with words of encouragement, as well as answer any questions they may have. I got a booklet and DVD which will explain to me what I need to know, and after I watch and read all that, I then will fill out an application form. I have been praying about a volunteer ministry to get involved with, and this may be it.
'I don't care for zombies and werewolves (even though I used to write horror stories for the school newspaper in Jr. High School, before I got saved), but I do like superheroes.'
That is not surprising to read.:)
I am glad that your Halloween went well, Jeff.
interesting.. My conclusion is that God is whatever He desires and or wills to be :)There is no limit to His being
God bless you Russ!
Thanks, Tamela.:) God's limitations are by nature, as in he cannot cease to exist, and he is bound by self-limiting features, as in promises in Scripture. The first limitation would be to avoid an illogical contradictory God. If God could cease to exist he would not be infinite. The second limitation would not be due to a lack of divine power, but would come from his will. God remains, infinite in a sense.
Some related articles I have presented:
Mill
James
McGrath
Infinite
Love the blog rating!
Thanks, my friend.:)
Brightman believed that God is part of the physical world and is finite and limited. This is contrary to what Scripture teaches as well as traditional Christian Theism, which James W. Sire states in his book, "The Universe Next Door" that God is infinite, that God is beyond all scope or measure, no other being can challenge Him in His nature, that He is in fact the only self existent being.
-Theology 101-
Thanks for the Sire quote. I cited him in my PhD.
A few questions for fans of the Prosperity Gospel.
Televangelists should be totally exposed for who and what they truly represent. Which is, money, greed, and lies.
This video is very helpful in exposing the truth of televangelism.
-The Truth be Known-
Popoff
Poppoff %&*% off. You are a scam and a sham. Quit taking money from little old ladies, and I mean it!
WTF
Thanks my friend for the good discussion here in my loft, the You Tube search and comments.
Televangelists that are crooked will receive a harsh judgment, either in or outside of Christ.
Randy Stonehill Keep me Running
Music and humor
RANDY STONEHILL - Shut De Do' (1990) Christian Rock
Thanks, Jeff.
Did you watch the U2 show? Just take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZfUAMehb24
My heart beats strongly everytime I watch this video. It's amazing!!!!
Thanks, Aline.
Cuban blogger beaten
November 9 - Cuban blogger and government critic was detained and beaten by state security agents, she says. Hobbling with the help of a crutch, swelling beneath her left eye and a few minor bruises, Yoani Sanchez is considered to be a counter-revolutionary in the pay of foreign governments just because she wrote things that were critical of Cuba (she says this has been the argument of the government for decades). Security agents threw her in the back seat of a car, upside down, and began hitting her. Her blog, 'Generation Y,' has earned international acclaim. Despite the attack, she says she will continue to write and get her views out to the world.
Blogging can be risky in some places...
Russ, I would like to post some comments regarding Islam, if you don't mind, for the purpose of educating your readers a bit on Islam (because I think it is desperately important that Americans, Canadians and Europeans be educated about the truth of Islam).
In one of his speeches, Obama said, "In the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to insure that they can fulfill zakat."
The 'zakat' is a charity tax (obligatory giving of 2.5% of a Muslim's wealth), but charity inside of Islam is quite ... Read Moredifferent from what most of us think as charity. First of all, Muslim charity goes to Muslims; it does not go to kafirs (unbelievers).
There's another difference in Islamic charity. Money given to an Islamic charity can support Jihad. It can support the creation of Jihad, and it is also specifically for helping those whose family members have died in Jihad.
Obama said, "It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit."
Muslims "practicing religion as they see fit" can include jihad. Jihad narrowly escaped becoming the 6th pillar of Islam, but it is still considered to be a duty. Just like the five pillars of Islam, jihad is incumbent upon all Muslims, without exception. All Muslims are supposed to participate in jihad. But just because a Muslim is supposed to participate in jihad does not mean that he's actually involved in the jihad of the sword (although 'jihad of the sword' has been happening in the U.S. quite a bit for years now, though the news media, of course, never calls it terrorism or jihad). Jihad can be done with the sword, with the mouth, with the pen and with money. This can include da'wa (Muslim missionary activity), taquiyya (lying to protect Islam, which can include deceiving non-Muslims in comments made on websites, lying in court, and lying to Congress, in order to deceive kafirs/unbelievers) and kitman (lying by omission). Jihad with money can include supporting terrorist groups, promoting Islam by buying endowed chairs at universities in order to teach positive things about Islam, paying for positive messages about Islam on billboards and sides of buses, etc. Jihad is both religious and political.
Stages of Jihad:
Stage 1: The weakened stage: Cooperate with your enemy. Befriend your neighbor. Da'wa (Muslim missionary activity), taquiyya (lying to protect Islam and to deceive non-Muslims) and kitman (lying by omission) are practiced. (This is when Muslims are in the minority.)
Stage 2: The preparation stage: Recruit outside help and build your arsenal. Prepare for war.
Stage 3: Jihad of the sword. Attack and conquer. (This is when Muslims are in the majority and/or have political or military power. In other words, this is when Muslims are in a position of power or strength.)
Every Muslim believes the world is divided into two realms: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam literally means the house or abode of Islam. It is a term used by Muslim scholars to refer to those countries where Muslims can practice their religion freely. Dar al-Harb means "house of war," also referred to as Dar al-Garb, "house of the West" (i.e., where Muslim law is not in force).
The two requirements for a country to be part of Dar al-Islam are, according to the founder of this concept, Abu Hanifa:
1. Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country.
2. It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries.
If the former does not apply then physical means such as Jihad can be used to correct the situation and in the latter case, individuals are required to do hijra [migration, for the sake of Allah] to where they can practice their religion.
For much of Islamic history, the preferred term used to describe non-Islamic societies has been dar al-Harb, emphasizing various Islamic countries' aspirations to conquer such territories and render them part of dar al-Islam.
A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim.
Dar al-Dawa ("house of invitation") is a term used to describe a region where the religion of Islam has recently been introduced. Since the population had not been exposed to Islam before, they may not fit into the traditional definition of dar al-Harb. On the other hand, as the region is not yet Muslim, it cannot be dar al-Islam either. The most frequent use of the term dar al-Dawa is to describe Arabia before and during the life of Muhammad commonly referred as the Jahiliyyah period, or era of ignorance of divine guidance.
More recently, the term dar al-Dawa has been proposed by Western Muslim philosophers to describe the status of Muslims in the West.
Remember that Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison swore into office on the Qur'an.
95% of mosques in the U.S. and worldwide conduct or support terrorist activities.
Obama criticized the Bible and called the Qur'an 'holy.'
Progressive writer and Cairo University lecturer on the sociology of religion, Sayyed Al-Qimni, wrote in an article in the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Youssef, that the curricula of Al-Azhar University encourages extremism and terror. This is the university that Obama praised so highly when he gave his Cairo speech.
The 9/11 terrorists, just before committing their horrendous acts, went to bars and consumed alcohol (even though Islam forbids this), bought porn mags, etc. This was not a last-minute giving-in to temptation, because these were devout Muslims who were willing to die (and kill others) in order to be assured of Paradise. They were practicing taquiyya (deceit for the sake of Islam), in order to deceive kafirs (infidels/unbelievers/non-Muslims), to try to insure that Islam would not be blamed for these acts. And the politicians and news media completely fell for it.
In the same way that the 9/11 terrorists could do things that are completely opposite of Islam, for the sake of protecting Islam (i.e., taquiyya), Obama, assuming he is Muslim (which, in my studies of Islam, I am becoming convinced of, more and more), can claim that he is a Christian, and can even attend a (albeit hate-preaching) so-called 'Christian' church (which, of course, he quit as soon as it became a hindrance to his campaign). Likewise, for the same reason, he can support gay marriage for the purpose of taquiyya (Countries under Shari'a Law hang gays, throw them off a cliff, behead them, or stone them to death).
Concerning the recent shooting at Ft. Hood, the personal Web site for a radical American imam living in Yemen who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised Hasan as a hero.
Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."
Classmates who participated in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college told The Associated Press that they complained to faculty during the program about what they considered to be Hasan's anti-American views, which included his giving a presentation that justified suicide bombing and telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.
The shooter's former mosque in Maryland is controlled by the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a Saudi-funded worldwide jihadist movement which controls many of the mosques in America.
Witnesses say the devout Muslim officer jumped up on a desk and shouted, "Allahu akbar!" – Allah is greatest – before opening fire and spraying more than 100 bullets inside a crowded building where troops prepared to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq.
When a Muslim in the West for no apparent reason violently attacks non-Muslims, a predictable argument ensues about motives.
Notice some of the absurd lengths to which the mainstream media and law enforcement authorities will go to avoid saying the politically incorrect words "jihad" or "terrorist," and to avoid insulting Muslims for the sake of multiculturalism, afraid of being called Islamophobic, or being accused of a hate crime:
• 1990: “A prescription drug for ... depression” (to explain the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane)
• 1991: “A robbery gone wrong” (the murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney)
• 1994: “Road rage” (the killing of a random Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge)
• 1997: “Many, many enemies in his mind” (the shooting murder atop the Empire State Building)
• 2000: A traffic incident (the attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris)
• 2002: “A work dispute” (the double murder at LAX)
• 2002: A “stormy [family] relationship” (the Beltway snipers)
• 2003: An “attitude problem” (Hasan Karim Akbar’s attack on fellow soldiers, killing two)
• 2003: Mental illness (the mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam)
• 2004: “Loneliness and depression” (an explosion in Brescia, Italy outside a McDonald’s restaurant)
• 2005: “A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member” (a rampage at a retirement center in Virginia)
• 2006: “An animus toward women” (a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle in 2006)
• 2006: “His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed” (killing with an SUV in northern California in 2006)
If a Muslim is praying, and a donkey, a black dog, or an adult woman passes in front of him, his prayer is invalidated (according to Islam).
‘Aa’ishah (one of Muhammad's wives, whom he married when she was 6 years old), said about this: “What a bad thing to liken us to donkeys and dogs.”
If a camel or a sheep passes in front of a praying Muslim, those do not invalidate his prayer.
Also, if the dog is not black, that does not invalidate his prayer. Or, if a little girl passes in front of him (who has not reached puberty), that does not invalidate his prayer. But it is prescribed for the one who is praying not to let anything pass in front of him.
Mohammad deliberately put women, dogs and donkeys in the same class, with an attempt to humiliate the Muslim women. Mohammad never had high regard for women's intelligence, a disrespectful attitude perceived by many followers of Mohammad.
It takes the testimony of two women (in Islam) to equal the testimony of one man.
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: "I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "(Q-2.282) Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence" (Sahih Bukhari).
Islam teaches that most of those in Hell will be women:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas: The Prophet replied," ... I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women." (Sahih Bukhari).
"America needs to awaken from its sleep and its unwillingness to face the issue of fundamentalist Islam in our midst which undoubtedly is the cause of the tragedy in Fort Hood," said Walid Shoebat, a former Islamist terrorist.
"Some very serious decisions need to [be] made when it comes to having Muslims protecting our country, as it is impossible to know whether they may be honorable or foxes in the hen house."
'There's another difference in Islamic charity. Money given to an Islamic charity can support Jihad. It can support the creation of Jihad, and it is also specifically for helping those whose family members have died in Jihad.'
A bothersome possibility, although as we have agreed previously, not all Muslims are involved in violent activity.
When I lived in Manchester, for example, my acquaintance and restaurant owner Max was a Muslim and seemingly was committed to peace with his neighbours.
'But just because a Muslim is supposed to participate in jihad does not mean that he's actually involved in the jihad of the sword (although 'jihad of the sword' has been happening in the U.S. quite a bit for years now, though the news media, of course, never calls it terrorism or jihad). Jihad can be done with the sword, with the mouth, with the pen and with money.'
Interesting.
'Stage 3: Jihad of the sword. Attack and conquer. (This is when Muslims are in the majority and/or have political or military power. In other words, this is when Muslims are in a position of power or strength.)'
This is obviously dangerous from Christian and secular perspectives.
' "America needs to awaken from its sleep and its unwillingness to face the issue of fundamentalist Islam in our midst which undoubtedly is the cause of the tragedy in Fort Hood," said Walid Shoebat, a former Islamist terrorist.'
Interesting.
Cheers.
I am not a fan of Chicago, per say, but here is an interesting full version of a classic.
Time is such a fascinating subject.
One I ponder on much.
Time
Walter Martin provides a good talk on the SDA.
Seven Day Adventism
Romans 13-14
Colossians 2:16-17
1 Corinthians 16
Philippians 1
2 Corinthians 12
Post a Comment