Velvet Bell: Repainting Cartesian Anxiety

As the title implies I will be looking at Rob Bell and some of his statements in his book Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. But first I want to establish some lines of thought. In too many mediums there is very little time to make a point. Fortunately, blogging allows for much more time and space to think things through so I ask for some latitude before I get to my critique.

"I think therefore I am," was the famous revelation of Rene Descartes after he decided to stuff himself into a stove to cut off his senses. I cannot doubt that I am thinking without first positing an "I" to begin with. From this axiom he set out his defense for Theism and other postulates. Not long after his declaration came a startling revelation from some in the philosophical community: There is no good reason to assume that thinking requires a thinker. What? In a note of irony, after I wrote that sentence, my daughter asked me what time it was and when I told her, she said, "Oh good that means it's time to take my watch off." The irony was lost on her. I wonder if it was lost on those who who said thinking requires no thinker. Their point was not that thinking was not CAUSED by a thinker, but rather that in order for there to be substance there must actually be something there that was material, some "datum" (As Frederick Copleston puts it in his History of Philosophy Vol. 4). If this required thinking then Descartes must have been assuming a substantive, materialistic existence. How does it follow that he need a material body for this to be the case? I can point to things in the world and question whether they exist, but what happens when I point at "I"? Would I not have to say "it" like every other object that can be doubted? "I" comprises much more than "it" so thinking is not a necessary component for existence, the "I" could be an illusion and therefore is not necessarily a self referential object. Perhaps humans could be an apparatus for which thoughts from another occur. Regardless of the viability of these claims the point is that the methodological doubt of Descartes, known as Cartesian Anxiety, demonstrates that what it takes to establish warranted knowledge is far more rigorous than what it takes to establish warranted belief.

In fact, beliefs/worldviews commonly precede knowledge (although there are occasions where they are lateral). If a Materialist and a Buddhist are having a conversation the Materialist could present a cup of water the Buddhist could claim it is an illusion. The Materialist could say that it was actually hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The Buddhist could then retort that they also were illusions. No matter where the discussion leads from there, the history of scientific progress, feelings, what ever, there must come a point where the conditions and the constituent components of the worldview are examined and determined to be internally consistent to tell us if it is an accurate summation of what it claims to represent as the truth. Does it have sufficient explanatory power? Is it logically coherent? Can one live consistently with the view they claim is true (existential consistency)? At some point some things must be assumed to be true, even if it can't be proven to be true. The question will have to be if it is a warranted belief. It is my contention that historical Christianity meets the above criterion with satisfaction better than any other worldview. I do not believe that it is in need of retooling or a Cartesian process. Rob Bell disagrees with this assertion. To repaint a worldview is to bring challenges to the consistencies of its assumptions. The assumptions are its foundations, its doctrines. If the doctrines are off the worldview is in jeopardy. If its foundations are contradictory it is a false worldview. I love the example of Ravi Zacharias who said that if you go to a border patrol agent and give him contradictory answers about where you are going you can expect him to believe you have falsified your destination and he would be right to think so. Worldviews do not get a pass and this includes Christianity. Contradictions imply falsehood and when we challenge our doctrines we need to have good reasons. This does not mean that we can answer every question or that we can't have doubts. What I am arguing for is that we can assume our position to be true while we explore the validity of its assertions. Is this not expected of all who love thought? This is what Rob Bell is claiming that he is doing, I disagree. I believe he is whittling away foundational components to the Christian worldview. I am not guessing what his motives are. I may guess at them if I feel he has tipped his hand or I'm confused in some way, but to guess at his motives and not dealing with his thoughts is ad hominem; don't mistake some of my musings on his motives as a substitute or even a supplement to his arguments, unless I give a reason why I think it is important.

In "Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith," Rob Bell does not explicitly come down on a side opposite of historic Christianity. I believe that this is the net effect. His thoughts are exoteric so I'm confident that even if you have not read his book you may still gain from reading this post. I do recommend reading it though, it is well written and entertaining. I would like to mention that I have read other reviews of this book and I think much of the criticisms levied are unfair. I will try to show when he qualifies a statement and why I think it does or does not work.

If you doubt the validity of my diatribe about Rob Bell's Cartesian efforts just read the back of the book, "We have to test everything." He won't test everything in this work, from the title of the book one can tell what he'll be testing, rather he is appealing to the need to doubt. Why? What do we gain from this? I'm not saying he's wrong, but he gives no reason for why this should be. Does he mean we should be cynics? Cautious? What? Forgive me for critiquing what he has chosen to put on the back of his book, but this is an apologetic for his work and I think very informative. He goes on, "I thank God for anybody anywhere who is pointing people to the mysteries of God. But those people would all tell you to think long and hard about what they are saying and doing and creating." Obviously, fallacious comments in defense of a treatise does not give one confidence that the content will be stellar. There is no group of people where all will do the same thing, even if that thing is good. There are plenty who would not invite critical thought. I wish Rob Bell was right here, but he is not. The list at the end makes one wonder: What are these people creating? Are we creating doctrine? Doctrine that might not even be true about God until we establish it as humans? Even if it is true doctrine, perhaps we can live without it just like people who lived without it before. I'm not assuming here, I am summing up some of his thought in the early pages, and it seems to fit in his defense. He goes on to tell us to think critically about his book (we should be doing that for all books anyway) and that he is simply contributing to a conversation. I wonder if he thinks, and of course I don't know, that our culture is so touchy about Christianity that it requires him to convince his reader that he is not like what our culture is rejecting: Christians who think they can know about God. Sound Post-Modern? Again, these are the foundations of our worldview and are substantiated within the view (if it has sufficient explanatory power), not by social opinion. There is some ground that once given up moves from Christian to Post-Christian. Sure you can call it Christian, but once investigated it cannot be factually consistent with biblical or historical Christianity once its roots are denied. I will further demonstrate that once its fundamentals are disturbed it is subject to attacks from other views and is thus synthesized into an illogical pluralism as the Hegelian assumptions are inserted to retain a misplaced notion that it can somehow be valuable among a myriad of options. Finally, in a hallmark move for Bell he states, "God has spoken, and the rest is commentary, right?" So, we must test everything, does this include the statement that God has spoken? He assumes God's existence and that he has spoken. Is he trying to appeal to the unbeliever that they will find answers or to Christians that he has not abandoned to faith. I don't know, however, I believe that neither is true. One cannot maintain the Christian worldview and undermine it at the same time. It is so subtle I can imagine a believing Christian not having one problem with anything he writes, which is what led me to write this. There is certain ground that worldviews cannot give up on. They must maintain the assumptions. They can be attacked and defended, but to reinterpret them is another ballgame. It is a subtle attack with potentially good intentions and yet damaging, thus requiring a defense (despite Bell's objections to defending the faith in chapter 1). I will be spending most of my analysis on the introduction for the rest of his argument is founded there and builds upon the premise he attempts to establish. I believe it finds no cerebral purchase and appeals to emotion.

INDOCTRODUCTION

In his indoctrination/introduction Bell seems quite interested in the mystery of God, but Bell himself is a mystery. What are his goals in this work? To be honest, this is what makes him such an engaging writer. He captures your interest. The problem is that the subject is so important that one wonders whether he is being cryptic as a writing style or if he wants to keep his cards close to his vest. I will explore this more as we proceed. Sometimes he uses cult tactics. What do I mean by "cult tactics." Cults are the masters of ambiguity. Ever have a talk with a Mormon missionary? One may think they believe the exact same thing about God as any Christian. But they don't. They believe in something radically different, and they have fooled many in the process. Let me give an example of how Bell does this:

"The challenge for Christians then is to live with great passion and conviction, remaining open and flexible, aware that this life is not the last painting [pg.11]."

Why should this be a challenge? I am flexible as a Christian parent, but I have convictions as well. Not too hard to separate the wheat from the shaft there. But maybe he is talking about something else, maybe he is talking about what it means to have convictions in the first place, say, oh, I don't know... doctrinal convictions? This would be a challenge, especially if your going to have to reinterpret what you once thought God was all about or, more to the point, if you thought the bible presented sufficient information and now were going to have to reinterpret some of those things. And maybe if your not willing to let some of these historical interpretations go, well then, maybe your not what it really means to be a Christian. But I digress, let Bell speak for himself.

"The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation [pg.11]." He is picking up on a question that few have challenged. Because we see progress in some areas does it follow that all aspects in human life engage in progress? I was talking to a friend who said that the Old Testament violates all of our modern notions of ethics. Anyone who can be quoted as saying "modern notions of ethics" knows very little about ethics. One of the challenges of ethics is trying to find a static rule by which ethics may engage. Obviously Christianity has no problem there, but secular ethics are trying hard to get out of forms of relativism because it cannot deliver the authoritative goods that ethics demands. The evidence for my friends progress? Human knowledge. So if there is progress in one part of the human experience there must be progress in all parts? This is a violation of the law of the excluded middle. Just because things are similar in some ways, human experience, it does not follow that they are the same in all ways, progress. More to the point, because the Christian life is filled with some changes it does not follow that there are broader changes required. This is the language of the cults. Get one hooked on some ideas and if the masses nod their head in agreement, then maybe they will follow the rest of your ideas, even if it leads to places one would normally consider mistaken. For the record, I don't believe that Mars Hill is a cult, but Bell's argumentation are full of the same rhetorical tactics that cults use and I need to be honest about that.

This next section in the introduction is well worth taking note of because it will be a guiding principle for the rest of Bell's book. "Times change... and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus [pg.11]" Its funny, I recall a time when Christianity WAS the agent for change, now, in our time, it is not a world tainted by sin that needs to change, now IT is our barometer for how Christianity should be. And notice how he carefully weaves a dichotomy for us that if we don't change, then we are not really following Jesus. Again, on the surface, this could be a true statement, but the question is, what? What is it that needs to change? After all, I don't want anything to get in my way when it comes to Jesus. If one allows the direction the book is already going to be how one should think, one will end up worshiping something completely different than what the bible prescribes. You will change, but the greatest change the world has ever seen will be moving on the direction it has been for the last 2,000 years and it will be you that is left behind.

IN CHURCH HISTORY THERE HAS BEEN CHANGE

THEREFORE CHANGE IS WHAT GOD WANTS

So Bell continues his Cartesian Anxiety (excuse the hyperbole) toward Christian doctrine. On the Reformation, "Shedding unnecessary layers and at the same time rediscovering essentials that had been lost [pg.11]." What were the "unnecessary layers?" And what was he "rediscovering?" Conveniently, Bell doesn't say so I will tell you. He equates the reformation with doctrinal change which it wasn't, this was about ecclesiastical change and doctrinal RECONSTITUTION. There was doctrine that had been instituted that Luther was obviously opposed to, but he didn't progress doctrine, he reestablished it. It is a very important distinction. One that he glosses over and hopes you will forget about as he continues to establish his methodological doubt. Was there doctrinal change at the reformation? You bet. Was it progressive? Absolutely not! Given his assumptions in this section of the book one would think that Bell thought that the doctrine was right when it was the doctrine that was being enforced at the time. But Bell is a smart guy, he must know that this type of induction is absurd. Maybe he doesn't actually believe that the Reformation was about God's doctrines at all, maybe he thinks they are all man made. Was Luther wrong? Bell doesn't say, Luther was just a part of change and change is what really matters. Even if the supposed change was actually reconstituting biblical doctrine, this is nonsense. What Bell really wants is for us to think that change is more important than doctrine, if doctrine changes so what? At least there was change and change is our guide for determining if we are close or far from Jesus. On the heels of the Reformation he puts his cards on the table and admits that the changes he wants to make are theological and that they will be about the bible, salvation, Jesus, and the future. What happened to his admission that the reformation was "rediscovering what had been lost?" It is missing in the rest of his argument. Should we not be making sure that we also preserve what the reformers had rediscovered? Apparently that is not as important as change. Has he established that this is actually what God wants from us? Is there warrant in church history, no. Has he given good philosophical reasons, no. Biblical, no. Soteriological, no. Theological, no. All he gave us was a partial version of the Reformation that should have actually been an example for honoring and preserving the bible and a Velvet Elvis in his basement. I have all kinds of worthless crap in my basement too, can I write a book about that? So, Bell's introduction is really a seminal effort to indoctrinate into a mind set that change=following Jesus, and his argument is that there have been changes and that means change may be the single most important thing within Christendom. This is based on a violation of the law of the excluded middle: because there have been changes (historical and existential) it does not mean that change is what matters. Additionally, he appeals to emotion by pitting the act of following Christ against static doctrine. This, of course, is not necessarily the case. If he can get you to feel that this is the error your making then perhaps you will change your mind about things you otherwise wouldn't. See why I think this has cult elements to it? The bible as a guide is not even a secondary thought even though he quotes from it throughout Velvet Elvis. Why not change to the point of ignoring what is quoted? Perhaps that is a little too Cartesian.

My last comment on the introduction covers some important ground.

"I don't mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music... I mean theology [pg.12]."

"The painting works for their parents ... it is no longer relevant... it doesn't have anything to say to the world they live in every day. It's not that there isn't any truth in it or that all the people before them were misguided or missed the point. It's just that every generation has to ask the difficult questions of what it means to be a Christian here and now, in this place, in this time. And if this... isn't done, where does the painting end up? In the basement [pg.13]." Oh no! That's where the Velvet Elvis is! Anywhere but there! Since he is not talking about cosmetic changes, why does he use an example from aesthetics? What is the painting in this scenario? Theology? Doctrine? He has already established that it was not aesthetic. He contradicts himself when he states that their parents are not misguided, if the doctrine needs to change then how could it have been right at any time? For example, the Trinity. How will this change today? I think it is possible that by being a synthetic theologian (common among post modern thinkers) that he has a hard time recognizing that contradiction is highlighting falsehood. If God is perfect then it means there is no potentiality in him, he is actual. If he is actual then he cannot change for perfection does not lead to the possibility for change. I have used this illustration before, but it will help here. If you are painting my house and I said you did a perfect job and then began to paint over the house or remove paint, then the reality of perfection was never realized, there was some potential for change remaining. Since God is perfect there is no such potential. So what was true for my parents was true for them and true for their parents and so on. And since the change is not cosmetic then he is left with the change he said he was gunning for which is doctrinal, like the trinity or virgin birth. Truth is not relative, otherwise its just opinion. "If it is true, then it isn't new [pg.14]." So the contradictions are clear. Also, he is using a false analogy. Doctrine is not the same as art. Doctrine is about what is true, art is about aesthetics. Art can very much be a product of its own time and become outdated. Doctrine cannot. It is either true or false. There is no room for change. What may express those truths could change, but that is not what he's talking about. He tried to make his example as malleable as possible which in turn makes it very deceptive, but the example is not an effective smoke screen, his claim is that doctrine is true when it is declared true for its own generation. This would mean that God changes and is not perfect and in turn makes him a God far from worthiness of worship. He is like the Mormon god or a pantheistic god that is subject to fault. If doctrine is true in its own time then the churches that abandoned the Jews in the 1930's Germany were not at fault, they just changed with the tide. Can Rob Bell really stand for this to be our conclusion, that doctrine is true in its own time? Too bad Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn't have a Velvet Elves to teach him how to fit in with the times. Why won't he just say that he thinks the bible has false doctrine? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it is due to his irrational postmodernism, but I'm tempted to believe that he thinks this will discredit him among Christians, but take that with a grain of salt, I can't know his motives for sure.

A Postmodernist always needs a handful of contradictions to qualify their statements, to cover their tracks as it were. He thanks God for those churches that don't want to change and then basically says that its only true for them, this book is for a fresh look at Jesus. What will that fresh look be? It will be doctrinal disguised as arbitrary jostling for a new time and a new people. Frankly, I think that this is not biblical Christianity. I think to believe that the bible is the word of God, his revelation and truth, is in conflict with the teaching of Rob Bell. It is well disguised no doubt, but it is not biblical Christianity. As we move on I will have to demonstrate the value of infallibility and innerancy of scripture and the logical consequences of rejecting these positions. You can bet it will entail a collapse of a worldview. It's really not even methodological doubt so much as it is an effort to be open even if it means rejecting what is true. Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith is a light, implicit, pseudo-Cartesian methodological doubt, with the fatally flawed Hegelian Dialectic as his apparatus. It is about rejecting doctrine on the one hand and replacing it in the other, then, claiming that your honoring it all. Welcome to Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis, an experiment in Postmodern Christianity.

Faith Class: The Already and Not Yet

Revelation 20:6

"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

Romans 1:16-32 can be confusing. It may seem unlikely that one can clear it up by appealing to the book of Revelation. However, there is an apostolic theme that runs through the New Testament that is called "The Already and Not Yet" by scholars. There is an eschatological (the end) reality that is coming, but there are many things that are described in the present tense and are just as real now. If we attribute these spiritual realities only to the end times then we have made an error because the apostles did not always do that. They saw many of these things as just as real today as at the end. For example (pay strict attention to the past tense which is meant to implicate the present):

Colossians 3:1-4

"If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."

Christ is already our life in one sense and not yet in another. So there is a contemporary reality that has yet to come to fruition but never the less is true and real right now. So real, it is worthy of setting our current thoughts on, over and above the things of this world. It is already and not yet.

So the Revelation passage is about those who are raised with Christ now, resurrected now. They have believed on the person of Christ to have accomplished the payment of their sin on the cross. They are resurrected now. Why? Because the second death, which is a spiritual reality that is yet to come has no power over those who's sin has been paid for by the sacrificial lamb. In fact, he was the only lamb that actually ever paid for sin, Hebrews tells us that the blood of no animal ever actually paid for sin. So why the animal sacrifices? In their time they were the sign of a reality yet to come by way of the cross. If they believed that God was going to pay for their sins then God did, but he did it on the cross. But they believed his promise and demonstrated it in the sacrificial system. So the Old Testament has a sense in which the already and not yet may apply. It may seem that I have chased a rabbit here, but I have not, the lamb is how John refers to Jesus in Revelation much of the time. What is interesting, and instructive about this particular Revelation passage is how the 1st resurrection implies the 2nd and 2nd death implies the first. The spiritual and physical are being clearly itemized. The short of it is: 1st resurrection=salvation (already), 2nd resurrection=physical (not yet), 1st death=physical (already), 2nd death=spiritual (not yet). One could make an argument for spiritual death being already, but I would say that given the eschatological impetus of the Lake of Fire we are better off, hermeneutically, to categorize it as not yet within this context, but certainly it is a reality now for those who will not believe, but that would be chasing a huge rabbit way outside of the purpose of this post. So Revelation teases out this principle pretty well and I think we should have it in mind as we look at the Romans passage.

Okay, so what in the Lake of Fire does this have to do with Romans 1:16-32?

Romans 1:16-17

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

So God reveals his righteousness in the salvation of his people today. Salvation is a spiritual reality that demonstrates a moral attribute of God (his righteousness) that can be perceived in the physical world, presumably by unbelievers.

Psalm 98:2

"The LORD has made known his salvation;
he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations."

Concomitant to Paul's thought are the following versus, 18-23:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

You want to know another reason I can't stand faith healers? Because they do not understand that the natural punishment that accompanies sin reveals something about God. It reveals his wrath against sin. It reveals it already and not yet. The punishment that is with sin also reveals that there is still wrath yet to come, a second death. So the church is to show the righteousness of God in the salvation he offers for we are no better than those who do not believe, yet we are confident in the mercy offered at the cross. The righteousness revealed "already" is effective for what is required "not yet." The world shows its own unrighteousness because of their suppression of what is made so manifestly clear. If one rejects what is clear then one must side with what is foolish. So as they continue this reorganizing of God's revelation, sin will continue to reveal what is to come and so will the church.

Here we enter a commonly misunderstood section of Paul's writing. He is accused of "gay bashing." Writing this section off as gay bashing demonstrates an ignorance to Paul's point. It would be better to understand Paul then critique him rather than dismissing him 1st and then misunderstanding him or dismissing him due to misunderstanding.

vs. 26-27

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty." The parallels between this and Sodom and Gomorrah are striking. Note that he makes mention of the penalty that is a result of error against the natural order. What should have been obvious (compatibility of opposite reproductive organs) was ignored and was allowed by God to continue in earnest and , like all sin, one should expect a penalty. So, homosexual activity is an example of a mind that does not recognize what is obviously contrary to the natural order. The natural order should have led to thankfulness and worship, but it did not.

Those opposed to the message of scripture misunderstand and wrongly criticize Paul rather than wrestling intellectually with the text. On the other side, many who claim to love the text misunderstand and think of themselves as better (contrary to what scripture explicitly commands) than those described here, this is also to their shame, for they are no better than the homosexual activity described, for all sin is going against the natural order, we have all made this mistake in some sense. Homosexual activity is an EXAMPLE of God's revelation of wrath and an autocratic anthropological revelation tainted by sin. Otherwise we have to take th list at the end of this section and say it applies to all homosexuals and that is simply not true, that list encompasses everyone. Additionally, in verse 18, he says ALL UNGODLINESS. Paul is far from "gay bashing." I suspect that those who say this are engaging in ad hominem.

These passages should not lead to hatred for homosexuals. There is no place in Christianity for signs that read "God hates fags" or other forms of vulgar intolerance. If we believe what Paul is saying then this should lead to outreach and compassion (despite the fact that this may not be well received). A complaint about Muslims is not being more aggressive in condemning terrorism done in the name of god, maybe we should be more vocal about the hatred and the attempt to terrorize homosexuals by those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ. There is a judgment going on here that Jesus clearly condemned. Paul was not judging, he was discerning (which is a healthy form of judgment as opposed to the judgment which condemns in which we are commanded to avoid) and his point was that God reveals his righteousness in his salvation and in his wrath. What else do these people think is being accomplished by holding these signs? God's wrath against evil is already being displayed. Perhaps we are allowing politics to take a more prominent stage in our thinking and are applying our political objections of the corporate homosexual movement to the individual instead. This is wrong, we should have compassion for the individual (even if our compassion would be considered an offense) despite our political opinions. Yes it is true that those who hold these signs are so far removed from the Christian message that they cannot even be considered fringe, one could then say we are being corporately as well. My response to this is to love your enemies, we should not respond in kind.

So what is Paul's point here? It's interesting, Paul is linking incorrect worship with homosexual activity because, like the obvious compatibility between the reproductive organs, God is obviously supposed to be worshiped rather than what he has created, worshiping the creature is functionally incorrect because the creature is naturaly supposed to lead one to the creator. But he gave them over to a debased mind (not just homosexuals, they are merely an example of ignoring what is supposed to be, all who suppress the truth are ignoring what is clear) so they do not do what is obvious, similar to the obvious compatibility between male and female as revealed in nature, "the dishonoring of their bodies." vs.24. Paul, then, offers a list of further examples of what ought not to be and it is doubtless that any of us can escape being included. If you doubt this, the one that says "disobedient to parents" should cover all of us. So, wrath revealed from heaven against sin, righteousness revealed in the power of his salvation for those who faithfully believe. Paul adds later, also, that God does not condemn "not yet" (for the time being), but rather "already" because that reveals his patience, which also is meant to lead one to belief; this is exemplified well in the story of the Prodigal Son where there is only one clear place to go and one clear person to be made right with. When one gets to this point they have a loving Father eager to be reconciled, so eager is he that he gave his only son. You think this attitude is well attested to by signs that say "God hates fags?" Sounds closer to the lesser known brother of the Prodigal son who could not help but disdain others and condemn.

So none of us can say we are doing things right, but the mercy of God's goodness is demonstrated clearly at the cross, and his righteousness in his people: a large group of Prodigal sons (and daughters).

As a side note, notice the difference from the dogmatic theonomy and divine command theory of Islam.

Let us remember Paul's main point. There is an already and not yet present in the church in regard to God's righteousness, and in contrast to this an already and not yet present in the unbelieving world in regard to God's punishment of sin; "Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them," all are unable to tell God that they were given the short end of the stick and would have done better if they knew better. No one can do better and we know it, the hope that God offers is in his Son and in him alone.

Richard Dawkins Falls into the Partition Fallacy

Of all the so-called "New Atheists" the one I have the most respect for is Richard Dawkins. Harris and Hitchens have their moments as well, but Dawkins is brilliant in his field of study, like him or not it's only fair to admit that. Which made me all the more surprised when I heard an answer he gave to a challenge from a caller on a call-in radio show. The question was concerning ethics and his answer was well within the framework of sociobiological behavior. This was not surprising given his expertise. However, when defending Atheism one needs to know how to supply a good philosophical answer to philosophical questions. That's not to say that he could never use his own views to defend his position but one should never present a rebutting defeater before an undercutting defeater (a defeater is what it sounds like: a sufficient response to give good cause to reject an argument or position. Undercutting defeaters attack the presupposition upon which the argument rests and rebutting defeaters deal with the superstructure). Despite how brilliant he is, he leaves much lacking in this area.

Like most atheistic scientists of our age he simply does not have the goods to defend Atheism philosophically, nor does he demonstrate that he thinks that he needs to. Of the "New Atheists" Hitchens (some may say Dennet) probably does this the best despite how rhetorically laden his arguments are. You will find none of these "New Atheists" positing the Law of Identity as the axiomatic principle of the universe (Rand). No "New Atheist" will present a posteriori inductive logic to suggest a vicious infinite regress applied to theistic causality (Russell). These Atheists were the big guns and they were philosophers. Their arguments were so well thought out you have to describe them with vocabulary packed with meaning to even come close to summarizing what they actually meant, otherwise your stuck with inaccurate, moronic versions of their arguments like "who created God?" (truncated version of Russell who's real version can give nightmares) or "Everybody's selfish and that's where your god came from: yourself" (troglodytic hunch back version of Rand who's real version is brilliant). You would have considered it your lucky day to catch them in the philosophical error Dawkins made. It was like he just had a biologically based argument and ran through a proverbial wall leaving a Dawkins shaped hole behind him. And yet, the caller nor the host could challenge him, they just bought his assumptions and ran with them. There is a reason why the Rands, Russells, and Nietzsches labored over their arguments: the subject requires it. And yet, the most popular Atheists are the ones that can package their arguments in a nifty sound bite to feed to the masses to throw in the face of Christians who, sadly, don't know what to do with it. The Atheist can pat themselves on the back as being smarter and go on his or her way wondering why the Christian doesn't change their mind when they can't answer the tough question of who created God. Perhaps the Christian doesn't change their mind because the fallacy of the assumptions bleed through implicitly like a picture game where there are two pictures and one has slight differences for the observer to point out: a quick glance won't make the difference clear but the errors are there one just needs to take the time to find them.

Okay, I'm done teasing you, now to Dawkin's error. To understand the problem with what he said you must first know some things about ethics. What is the goal of ethics? When we talk about ethics are we trying to find the best ways to catalog activity that falls under the branch of ethics philosophically or is there more going on? What one hopes to accomplish with ethics is not just lists of behavior but also one hopes to learn a proper way to behave. There is no partition between behavior, knowledge and authority to have a viable ethical system, anything short of this is to be in error. The goal of ethics is to describe as well as prescribe behavior, and in order for there to be prescription there must be authority. If there is no force to ethics then how one ought to act is irrelevant if there is no authority then there is no enforcement of the "ought." And if ethics cannot tell one how to behave then I ask why we engage in the study of ethics at all. Let me give an example, the argument for emotive ethics is that our feelings tell us what is bad, but we OUGHT to follow those feelings. The utilitarian version of ethics will describe the best outcome for any number of reasons (the most popular being for the most people, think Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"), but it will also point out that we ought to behave a certain way to achieve that result. Pragmatic ethics will tell us what works is what is ethical, but it will say that we need to do what works in order to actually be moral. What is the force behind these oughts? Some say a good functioning society while others would say personal pleasure, etc. We could systematically defuse any of these systems but that would be chasing too long of a rabbit hole (but it is tempting). For the purposes of this post I am simply establishing that ethics requires a telos or an outcome, a behavior, a prescription. If you went to the doctor and he said that you had a fatal illness, but offered no solution, just a diagnosis, you would not think him to be much of a doctor. To go a step further, if he described the treatment needed but could not apply it you still would not think of him to be much of a doctor. The same is true of all ethical systems they are nothing if they only describe they must prescribe or they are not ethics, they would only be facts.

So, Dawkins is taking phone calls and someone brings up a point now made popular by the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The long and short of the argument is that if man is an evolved being he is no more or less animalistic than what is observed in nature. Atheism must then support, or at the very least, allow, some form of racism; for nature benefits those who want to survive. If there is a weaker species then one should be racist. Being against racism is arbitrary in a system where behavior is informed by natural selection. But perhaps its more than merely arbitrary, perhaps if one does not act out in suppressing the weaker then the weaker cries "racism" to overcome the stronger. If the stronger bend the weaker have now become the stronger, the king of the jungle does not fight back and allows rats to overcome his prowess as the lion. The error comes in Dawkin's response where he says that all humans come from a common ancestry therefor we OUGHT to not be racist. Did you catch that? Let me ask you a question, why OUGHT we not be racist given Dawkin's DESCRIPTION of a monolithic genealogy? Because he says so? Because that's really cool? Where is the force that's going to prescribe that I not be a racist? When did we find out that racism was wrong, after the Human Genome Project? Are we going to have a special force that fights hate crimes with a double helix for their symbol? Let us pretend that I was a committed Nietzschean Atheist. It would entail that I believe that racism is a guiding principle for making the world a better place. Along comes Richard Dawkins who says that I come from the same ancestry as my enemy whom I believe to be inferior. Let us go further and say I believe Dawkins, but I start thinking teleologically (outcome and purpose) and I say that we may come from common ancestry but we are not going toward common conclusions and along the path of history some of us have gotten weaker therefore they should be illuminated for the sake of better conclusions. What will Dawkins do? Continue to PRESCRIBE common ancestry? Common ancestry is a description and nothing more. In an Atheistic system nature is our example for ethics and all the illusions of progress won't change that. There can be no prescriptions with force in any Atheistic ethical system. All the ethical descriptions in the world doesn't amount to one prescription and all the descriptions that Atheism has conjured cannot satisfy the prescriptions that the study of ethics logically demands. This is what I have named The Partition Fallacy and it is replete throughout atheistic writings on ethics (including the Utilitarian, Pragmatic, Subjective, Emotive and the Neo-Categorical Imperative). Dawkins is not alone.

Dawkins is the most accomplished and most brilliant of the "New Atheists" but the area he needs to be the strongest in is the area he lacks the most. In this regard he is way behind the discarded atheists of the past. Perhaps it does not matter because they also never overcame the Partition Fallacy.

House on Faith

I was recently watching an episode of House entitled House Versus God. It was about a faith healer that seemed to have extraordinary abilities. He seemed to know people's problems through revelation not observation, he seemed to actually heal others. House would not be deterred. "There is always an answer," he proclaimed. What he really meant was: There is always a naturalistic answer.

I have no desire to defend faith healers. I would want to defend them as much as any other thief or con. What interested me was something I have seen a lot of in my many years of watching television, and that is television's defense of faith.

I have noticed that it is usually presented in a roughly similar dichotomy. There is one who is bent on science and one who is unmovable in their faith. If you don't believe me, see my earlier post on Friends where Ross is defeated by Phoebe by presenting plausible doubt (although I really don't think she actually establishes that, but that's already been covered).

At the end of the day, I think that television is actually attacking faith. They present faith more as a virtue than anything worthy of our intellectual attention. What is that virtue? I think it is bravery coupled with ignorance. So where is the attack? Is not bravery a good thing? Sure it is, but in this case one has to be ignorant in order to be brave. It really is a subtle attack. They make the person of faith seem virtuous but utterly wrong. The one of science is the one who is usually the strongest and the more intelligent. The one of faith really only has one argument which is the fallacy of stacking the deck. No matter what one would try they could never prove the person of faith wrong because they have made ignorance a necessity for having their position. This is usually indicated by statements such as the sin of "challenging faith." The more ignorant one is the more faith they have and therefore even more virtuous.

The good news for the person of faith is that this is a straw man argument. Faith does not have to be opposed to science. It has to be opposed to Verificationism, which is what is really being promoted on the science side of the argument. What is being said is that faith is of no value for knowing the way the world is, only science can do that. Verificationism is the belief that only what one can verify with one's senses is meaningful or of value. If you ask Richard Dawkins how the world is he will tell you "we are working on it." No Verificationist can tell you how the world really is or why there is something rather than nothing. They can only say we are working on it. Verificationism has a fundamental contradiction at its core (among many other problems) which caused philosophers to reject it a long time ago (verificationism cannot verify itself). Nominalistic assumptions of Verificationism are also a problem, but that will be covered in my conclusion to Christianity and Ontology.

One may say that Theism cannot tell us the way the world is. I would argue that Theism offers a negative corollary to the assumptions that underpin Verificationism-as-science and therefore is internally more consistent and therefore offers a more plausible explanation (much to the chagrin of the faith healers). The only defense of the Neoverificationists is the rejection of logic and not very safe footing. In fact, I would even say that would be a brave position to have.

Science is not a problem for a person of faith. Philosophy, however, is offering hurtles that I believe the Neoverificationists cannot logically withstand.

Faith Class: Romans

We will be covering a lot of material, however, there is much that never makes it to the classroom. I will try to keep this blog posted as frequently as I can.

I am not done with Ontology and God, Time, and Eternity and hope that it will not be too long before I get back to those issues. I will probably revisit those topics in a more brief format (which I am finding is the normal structure for most blogs).

Two issues from last week that were not covered:

1)The New Perspective:
Moo has a brief discussion concerning this in the EBS text. It questions the assumption that the Jews of Paul's day really thought that they were justified by works. Rather, they were a people saved by a covenant with God. So what about Paul's stress on the law? They were being saved by the covenant and it was conditioned on their obedience to the law. Their efforts were to maintain their covenantal status. Where did this leave Gentiles? This is the hypothetical resolution to Paul's motives for stressing that one is not saved by works. At the time of the publication of Moo's work this view had gained favor with scholars; There have been challenges to this view since, in fact, I have met someone doing a dissertation on just this subject and he believes that the New Perspective is in a grave situation in regard to its sustenance as a viable approach to studying Romans as well as history.

2) Why did Paul want to bring the gospel to Rome if there was already a predominantly Gentile church already in place?
Some have speculated that Paul did not see it as a true church because it was not founded by an apostle. I think we are all in trouble if this were the case! Fortunately, Paul used the term "ecclesia" which means "church" so I think we are safe. So what did Paul mean? He said he feared building on another's foundation, so why did he want to bring them the gospel? As it turns out, he could have been talking about the gentiles at large (in Rome) since most Jews had been kicked out of Rome by AD 49. That seems to be the simplest conclusion and I favor it unless there are good reasons to doubt it, I am aware of none but I could be wrong. Another possibility is that Paul makes it clear in a large portion of his writings that those who persevere until the end will be saved, he could be bring them the gospel to produce faithfulness and encourage them, which is what he says he wishes to do at the beginning of Romans. What ever the case I do not believe Paul contradicted himself and this can be well established within the text.

Christianity and the Study of Ontolotgy

What is Ontology and why should it concern Christians?
As many of you know my area of study is geared mainly towards philosophy in so much as it concerns Atheism. However, I have discovered that this endeavor requires a great deal of proficiency in general philosophy and all of its constituent branches. The branch I find myself focusing on the most is epistemology and I have enjoyed this focus with little regrets. It has even helped me to understand core doctrines and theology. I have come to enjoy the question "How can I know that there is a God?" Always a fascinating conversation even if my argument is not accepted. In the midst of all of these tedious issues is another branch of philosophy that is replete with assumptions and cavalier attitudes. In many ways it is foundational and there is high stakes for the Christian here. In fact, if more people would study ontology we could communicate matters of faith with a lot less baggage. I can assure you of this, the more one studies ontology, christian or otherwise, the quicker you can get to very important questions and answers.
...and ontology is?
the effort to explain the nature of existence and to describe features that are true of all entities. I should be able to clear these questions up in one post. Okay, maybe not. I think we can at least see why this is a worthy area of study for Christians; but truthfully if everyone studied it we wouldn't have the politicians in office we have now because they would have to be a lot more honest. I believe this study would help anyone. One thing is for sure: the person who studies ontology does not come out the other side the same. It will change your entire thought process. You will not be impressed easily by so called "academics" or "scholars". Why? Because, sadly, many of them have never studied ontology either. These are the same people who believe philosophy to be a synonym for "opinion", that is incorrect. Ask this same person what an opinion is and they will try to give you a philosophically objective answer. These are the type of self defeating thinkers we breed in the academic world. C.S. Lewis in his book "A Pilgrims Regress" speaks of a horse called "Reason" that picked him up and he rode it away from the lies, let us join him.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE?
Have you ever thought about dieing? I am going to assume that it is safe to think you have. What is the scariest element of death? I think it is the idea of nonexistence. I almost do not even care about how I die or whether it will be painful, although these are worthy concerns. Until I became a Christian this idea haunted me. The funny thing is is that I can't even conceive nonexistence. Maybe my fear was really the unknown. What is it for something to exist? Let us do a thought experiment. Imagine something real, say, a bike. Now, let us imagine something not real like a leprechaun. What may be most important to realize, in the study of ontology, is that the bike is real. That is one characteristic the bike has. So the most important difference between the bike and the leprechaun is that the bike exists. Is not this difference as real as any other difference in the world? For example, a red crayon and a blue crayon. David Hume wrote that all things imagined are made up of things that actually do exist. Yet, we still recognize that there are things that are made up and do not exist. The Theist should begin to recognize the importance of this question already. Ask a committed Atheist why he or she does not embrace Agnosticism and you may hear this limerick, "I do not have to know everything about the universe to know there is no Easter Bunny that exists so why do I have to know everything about the universe to know there is no God that exists?" (the answer has to do with necessity and contingency but no room on this post to digress) This is being postulated as warrant for the knowledge that the status of God is that he is made up and does not exist as opposed to other things the Atheist will say does exist(notice how epistemology and ontology are closely related here). Existence is important and brash answers won't due for tough questions. Let us ask deeper questions about the nature of existence.
WHAT IS GENUS?
Similar to the biological use; logic is a branch of philosophy and we find its meaning for our purposes here. A class of individuals or a subgroup having similar attributes. An example may be a group of particulars with univocal essential properties. If you do not study philosophy that may have made no sense so let us say "tables" could be a genus. Everything that is not a table would not share its genus. Is existence a genus all to its self? Do all things exist in the same sense? The answers to these questions are very important. Would you say that a table has a different form of existence to a chair? If simply existence is a genus than it appears not. What about a table compared to the number 6? Is the existence of these two things the same? I am inclined to say no. One exists in a completely different relationship to the other and in a completely different way. Not all are inclined to agree that simple existence is a genus. For example, that table has a multitude of parts. We will use an Aristotelian dichotomy to understand this; these multiple parts should be called "accidental properties". So does the table exist or does the sum of all its parts exist and the table only has the appearance of existence? The accidental properties are there and together they make up what we CALL a table. So the table has existence as long as it has its parts, but once the parts are removed the table ceases to exist and yet the parts continue to have existence. Perhaps there are two different types of existence, or maybe there are different kinds of things that have existence. Is it possible that the two things share in one type of existence and that there is only one type of existence in which all things share? Or are there other options? We will come back to this later.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ONTOLOGICALLY EXISTENTIAL POSTULATES
Many dismiss ancient thinkers because it is assumed that scientific progress will answer all our questions. I have read, with great amusement, Carl Sagan who is very impressed with science and scientists. If I were a Buddhist I would probably be tempted to believe that Richard Dawkins is Sagan reincarnated. However the assumptions that go on unquestioned never cease to amaze me. Gary Gutting, professor at Notre Dame and an expert in philosophy of science, religion and European philosophy states, "Since the ancient Greeks, people reflecting on science have been strongly attracted to the idea that there is a single comprehensive method employed in any genuinely scientific work. We will begin with this idealizing assumption, although we will later encounter ways in which it might be doubted." (pg 423, Blackwell, A Companion to the Philosophy of Science) There is now a gap between the philosopher and the scientist. It has not always been this way, but today it is the state in which we find science. Gutting also points out that the a priori sociological assumptions of scientific inquiry are almost always reflective in the result, making true objectivity questionable. Earlier thinkers were better at investigating scientific methodology because they were also philosophers. My main point is that to dismiss ancient thinkers due to how long ago they were positing their claims amounts to ad hominem (Aaron Sorkin, producer of the West Wing, would do well to take note since this comprised a great portion of his argumentation).
...and what about the history of ontological inquiry?
1)Monism
Parmenides argued for the oneness of all reality. The syllogism for his argument can be summed up:
-Reality can be either one or many.
-If reality is many, then many things must differ from each other.
-However, there are only two ways in which things may differ: by being (something) or non-being (nothing).
-How can something differ by nothing? Either something is something or nothing is nothing, but something cannot be nothing and nothing cannot be something.
-Can something differ by something or being? Being seems to be the only thing that all things have in common, things cannot differ in the very same thing they have in common.
-Things cannot differ at all; everything is one.

Ontological Pluralists do have objections and those will be investigated, but lets continue with our chronological survey. The most famous disciple of Parmenides is Zeno (of Zeno's Paradox). He had further proofs to support Monism.
-If reality is many, then absurdities and impossibilities will follow.
-An example of Zeno's meaning is found in his famous arguments. The most famous is "The Achilles and the Tortoise": The Achilles and the Tortoise are having a race and the Achilles gives the tortoise a head start. After the Tortoise is given a bit of time the Achilles starts and one would expect him to pass the Tortoise and win easily (not so in Zeno land). The Achilles must first pass the half way point in order to pass the Tortoise. Then the Achilles must go to the next half way point, then the next, and the next and so on ad infinitum. The Achilles would never catch the Tortoise because there would always be a mid point to traverse and if reality was many there could never be a singular midway point, but this is an absurdity.
-Given Zeno's proof that there is no such thing as an actual infinite mid point then one can safely conclude that the postulate that "reality is many" is a contradiction and should be considered false.
-Reality must be one.

Is all reality mathematically divisible (further on we will explore the notion of the difference between the "world" and the "universe" so if you have questions after this you may find answers there)? Perhaps some things that one would, and could sustain logically, consider "real" can not be divided at all, say propositions; Can I divide a sphere from a ball? If I divide a body of a human have I also divided the person (again, we will look at in more depth later)? Perhaps there is a point in which things may no longer be split or division reaches its finitude (in math it could not, but that would be a POTENTIAL infinite, we are talking about an ACTUAL infinite)?
In response to Parmenides, some have insisted that non-being is a real difference to being and that Parmenides's point needs further substantiation. Some also think that things can differ in being as well. Both entities can be said to posses being while have a different type of being (hold your questions these objections may become more clear later). The most condemning argument against Parmenides is a logical fallacy in his 5th premise; "things cannot differ in the very same thing they have in common" assumes that all things are the same and begs the question. He may as well said "All things are the same because they are the same and that is what they have in common and therefore cannot differ." This is Circular Reasoning.

The next view is Pluralism or "reality is many". The atomists and the Platonists accepted this position.
Atomists felt that things differed by absolute non-being. Their argument was that reality is made up of innumerable and indivisible atoms which fill the void of space. The atoms differed in size, shape, and space. Each atom ontologically possessed its own position in space and the emptiness or non-being around each atom defined the atom by this non-being. The absolute nothingness around each atom defined each atoms difference by absolute non-being. Being could be recognized by non-being. How could nothing cause differentiation? When was the last time nothing caused anything. If my kid is quiet for too long and I ask what she is doing and she says nothing, I know something is going on. Nothing does not cause something and so differing by nothing is akin to not differing at all. We would be doing our selves a disservice not to recognize that indeed atoms have been split. We should also mention super string theory at this point as well.

God, Time, and Eternity X, Part 3

As God takes action outside of time and corresponding action happens in time, how should we understand the many reactions that are performed in a monolithic, atemporal reality (if reaction is a theologically correct term in this case)? In other words, how could God act once to the many actions that an individual makes? After all, there is no time to make actions so there must be one singular deed, not multiple sequential actions. Feinberg admits that this is no problem for the advocates of Middle Knowledge by its self. However, could one hold to Atemporality and Middle Knowledge without problems?
Atemporality holds that God does all actions timelessly and plans all actions to occur at the time of his choosing. keep in mind that the Atemporalist is not saying that these "reactions" happen simply before the given event, time has no meaning here, there is a timeless "reaction" or simple action outside of time. God must do many things in response to every possible action that is going to take place (I fear that Feinberg is assuming that these "reactions" are taking place before a person's choices which is incorrect, but take this critique with a grain of salt). The first point Feinberg makes concerning this problem is that God would be left with a great many unused actions. I have to say that I am puzzled over Feinberg's criticism. I am on the fence as far as middle knowledge is concerned, but this seems like it misunderstands Middle Knowledge. The point isn't that God knows AND does all possible outcomes, it is that he KNOWS all possible outcomes and what would happen otherwise. But, to react to what does not happen is not omniscience, that would be divine speculation (some call Middle Knowledge "Divine Speculation", but I believe this leads to a false understanding of omniscience, the backer of Middle Knowledge is not in danger of the heresy of Open Theism) and that is not the postulate of Middle Knowledge. God knows whether a person would act favorably or unfavorably, say to the gospel, in every possible scenario. If the person would ultimately reject the gospel then God is in keeping with his own character to place this person in a position that seems far removed from the possibility of salvation. God did not DO every possible thing before this person was placed in a remote region outside of earshot of the gospel. God only did in "response" to what he KNEW the person would do. I believe, therefor, that the advocate of Middle Knowledge is in no danger logically to hold to atemporality and Middle Knowledge, Feinberg's critique finds no purchase here. It does not compromise Middle Knowledge, atemporality or a synthesis there of. Feinberg also notes that this problem's propensity increases when libertarian free will is introduced, but again, I believe that he has couched an incorrect definition of Middle Knowledge at the apex of his argument.
Feinberg moves on to the issue of personhood. The first thing he states is that the atemporalist may respond that the notion of personhood is not easily defined. A point well taken in my opinion. Then Feinberg refers to a theologian named William Mann who further appeals to Danial Dennet, yes the Atheist not the fire juggler, whom gives 6 criterion for personhood.
1) A is rational
2) A is a being which states of consciousness can be attributed
3) Others regard or can regard A as a being to which states of consciousness can be attributed
4) A is capable as regarding others as beings to which states of consciousness can be attributed
5) A is capable of verbal communication
6) A is self-conscience; i.e., A is capable or regarding him/her/its self as subject to states of consciousness
This is a list that Peter Singer and other abortion/euthanasia advocates would love to champion as the quintessential definition of personhood. This definition would serve any eugenics program well. I, however, have a much more liberal interpretation of personhood which includes bearing the image of God. But wait! Don't you have to assume the bible to be true in order to maintain this position? I never said I would use it as an isolated apologetic, but among Christian theists, I see no problem. Does one need to meet this criteria to achieve personhood? Not in my opinion. Does God need to meet this criteria to be a person. I think he does meet it, however I'm not sure that he needs to. Which brings me back to the point that Feinberg dismisses, are we ready to give rigid terms and conditions to personhood? In many cases I think not. But, I also have to admit that Feinberg's argument may still stand in light of the fact that certainly God meets these criteria even if the unborn does not. So I will grant him the argument to continue.
Feinberg is one of the most responsible scholars I have ever read, in fact he has inspired me to do likewise. He doesn't let me down here either, as he urges caution with this definition of personhood. However, God does meet this definition and except for provision 1 and 5 Feinberg sees no hope for the atemporalist to survive the critique of person in regard to numbers 2,3,4, and 6. An atemporal person should be able to do these things. The list Feinberg gives is as follows: intending, purposing, remembering, forgetting, responding to prayer, becoming angry, rejoicing, and being effected by actions of others. I am once again puzzled. Why does God have to do these things the same way man does? In fact, some of these things are simply anthropomorphisms despite Feinberg's attempts to say otherwise. Cannot God respond to prayer in perfection, rather than in reaction? I can't recall a time in scripture when remembering or forgetting, in reference to God, meant anything less than perfect forgetfulness. What does that mean? That God no longer counts sin against us AS IF he had forgotten something. What happens when someone forgets a date? They don't go on it. What happens when God forgets sin? He does not punish , as if it had never happened or as if there was a sin to remember in the first place. AND YET, God does indeed remember otherwise he would have no need for his covenants. We count on him remembering even when he so called "forgets" because we rely on his justice. I see no reason to give up the traditional understanding of God's relationship to time as atemporal because of what is clearly meant to be understood as analogies for the human cerebral palate. Additionally, it seems that Feinberg simply assumes that because there are things that require action in time for humans that this carries over for God because it is difficult to understand otherwise. Why should this bother us; we can not understand God exhaustively and there has been no readily ascertainable contradictions that are worthy of note.