New Blog

Check out http://searchfororthodoxy.blogspot.com/

I will no longer be updating this blog as it's very title does not represent what I believe.

Well blog, it's been a while.

It's been a wild summer. Here I am back at school with everything I could need and I did most of the thing I wanted to do this summer.
It turns out the insurance company decided to pay out for my car so I got a nice chunk of change. Anyway I decided to buy a motorcycle and here is a brief guide so that noobs can pwn the Calafornia motorcycle riders achievement.

Step one: You need a motorcycle license. I know that the DMV's in SoCal suck so either make an appointment or just be prepared to stand in line. What I did was grab the literature on the motorcycle test and read it while I waited in line for two hours. Also, be prepared to take the normal class-C drives license test if you have not taken it within a year.
Cost: under $40
Time: depending on the DMV and your geographical location relative to said DMV's, (assuming SoCal as default location) 1-5 hours.
Great, if you passed the test they will give you your permit and you are ready to move on.

Step two: start looking for motorcycles. If you are reading this for help, you really should get a used bike to start with. I hunted around and found a good deal, a '04 Ninja 400r for $1900. Depending on what you are looking for, be prepared to spend $1800-4000. 1800 is on the absolute lowest end and 4000 is approaching the "I could've bought a new bike" limit. Where to look. Here's what I did:
Search Craigslist's motorcycle section. There are a lot of good deals on used bikes, there are also a lot of ripoffs. If you find a bike you like here, find someone has knowledge of how bikes work to take with you when you go look at it or ask the seller if you can take it to your mechanic.
Search Cycletraders.com. This was where I found my bike.
Google maps search motorcycle dealerships. Do it the old fashioned way and call around and ask what used bikes they have on their floor.
Tips on purchasing:

• Don't get to attached to the bike. Remember that there are other bikes out there. Maintain walkaway power in any purchasing situation (this is just a good tip for buying anything).
• Don't be afraid to haggle. This is a good skill to learn, but learn how to do it politely. I talked the dealership down a few hundred dollars and I'm pretty sure I could have gotten more.
• Don't buy a bike that needs to be fixed if you don't have the money to fix it.
• Don't believe anyone that says a bike has never been dropped, especially if it was the seller's first bike. This is not really that big of a deal, but dropping a bike can lead to some major mechanical issues. You can usually tell if a bike has been dropped if the muffler is scratched and the fairings are scraped up.
• If you are not buying from a dealership, get the bike looked by a mechanic. Dealerships offer warranties, some guy that wants to get rid of his crap bike and make some cash does not. BUYER BEWARE.
• When starting out, if you are getting a sportbike, don't get anything over a 600. You will crash.
• Do not purchase until you're sure you want a motorcycle. I suggest that you find the bike you want, move to step three and buy the bike after you've taken your safety class.
  

Step three: Take a motorcycle safety class. This is necessary for two reasons. The first being, you will not pass the DMV motorcycle licensing test. Second, unless you already have experience with dirtbikes and things like that, it will tell you if you're even cut out to ride bikes.
After you complete the course they will mail you some paper that waives your DMV test. You take it to the DMV, they hand you your licence.
Cost: $200-300
Time: A weekend of classses.
ProTip: If you want to avoid as much time in hell as possible, take the safety class first. You can then only wait in the DMV line once (which is too much already but is far less painful than twice) by handing them the paper that waives the driving test. You will only have to take the written test and then walk out with your license.

In conclusion, I cannot stress this enough, don't buy a bike you are not sure about. There are other bikes out there and you do not want to put your life on a machine that is going to kill you. Also, remember that you need to service a bike more regularly than a car, so be prepared for that expense.

The Guide 42's response to my critics of the former blog post

I think it's about time that I, as the only person I know 25 and under with no Facebook page, had my say. Obviously (to those who know me) I will have a bit more to say on this subject than your average bloke, but hopefully I will remain concise and you will bear with me. I would first of all like to address Jonathan the Traitor, who, driven by guilt, feels it necessary to make apology for his recent visitation to Le Bordel de Facebook. You will notice that his predecessor in treason, who will remain unnamed except for his large nose and imminent marriage, has not yet dared to show his lego face on this thread.

Dear Jonathan,

You have presented five "acceptable uses" through which Facebook may avoid being criticized by Matt's arguments. I feel that the best way to address what you have said will be to organize my rebuttal to counter each of these in my own order (an order which, as you will notice, has been shuffled to add rhetorical force, an action which I deem not only acceptable, but appropriate given the gravity of the discussion).

1) Let us begin with "finding long lost friends." To keep this pithy, allow me to simply assert that this is a contradiction in terms. It can be argued (and indeed, I am arguing it) that any friend who becomes long-lost is either better off remaining lost, or they will not in fact become long lost. In other words, I believe that Facebook is a spawning pool (and I use this term for its connotation toward an unpleasant odor) for the breeding of "acquaintances," which are in fact a harmful social engagement to invest oneself in too thoroughly because they thrive on vagueness, distance, and many other qualities which are, in fact, the very opposite of those which true friendship finds valuable, according to Aristotle and many others. While it is possible to utilize facebook for the restoration of old friendships to their previous state, I believe that the social perceptions of facebook which render it out of the ordinary to do so in a proper manner are sufficient for the condemnation of using Facebook for this purpose.

2) I will next address your sentiment that Facebook is useful for "keeping up with what people are doing." I choose to deal with this point next because it is one that I find singularly annoying about the Facebook culture, namely, that our culture as a whole has become both increasingly snoopy and increasingly exhibitionist- all without an increase in interpersonal communication. It is not uncommon for people to know things about my friends and family members before I do, simply because they take pleasure in trolling the appropriate Facebook pages. I find this to be inherently negative prima facie, but to argue as such all that I need to do is point out how this has eliminated one of the major elements of conversation- that is, what is going on in one’s life and how that makes one feel. I detest attempting such “small talk” (we call it small talk, though it is vitally important as a framework for communication) with somebody, only to find them annoyed that I am asking so many questions, when I could just as easily read it from their Facebook page. I could go on to ramifications like the way that this further suppresses free speech, but in the interest of concise discussion, I will move to usage number three.

3) The usage to be addressed next is that of “sharing meaningful thoughts in less than 420 characters.” Yes, there is value to conciseness (as I have been futilely trying to express through my actions here) and there is a place for such literary forms as epigrams and the “posts” which are now emerging in the 21^st century. However, there is a detrimental aspect to Facebook’s character limit which you, Jon, seem to have either covered up or neglected. The character limit is a kind of censorship through social contract; certainly one does not have to constrain their writings to 420 characters. However, the increasing usage of Facebook which has settled it as an important means of promulgating literature demands that certain literary works attempting to reach certain audiences relegate themselves to the Marijuanic character limit. This is comparable to the lamentable existence of certain editorial standards in book publishers in recent centuries which eliminate certain beautiful linguistic constructions from well-promulgated modern literature. For example, it has been hundreds of years since a 500- or 1000-word sentence was published and read. For shame, because such editorial constrictions have stifled the creativity of modern authorship. The same is happening in the censorship through social contract exacerbated by the popularity of Facebook.

4) Shall I address the making of jokes? Perhaps; although I think it is easy to see that if my earlier arguments are correct, and if my holistic anti-Facebook stance has any merit, the usage of something as beautiful and Godsent as a joke, when added to Facebook, would serve to further its popularity and eventuate a worse global outcome. To post jokes on Facebook is comparable to the insertion of Bible verses in a pornographic magazine; both are the careless usage of something good to add credence and value to something that is inherently negative and should be done away with. [As for the argument concerning whether Facebook is inherently evil or merely evil through usage, a fitting response would be to pose the question as to whether a pornographic magazine (or as the aforementioned “nosy” fellow put it when he still stood on the better side of this argument, a torture chamber) are inherently evil or merely evil through usage. I would argue that if anything physical can be named by us as inherently evil, which idea both Augustine and I disagree with, then these two things may be so named. However, their existence and indirect creation by God give them inherent value, which eliminates the possibility of their being completely valueless. That being said, semantically both can still be referred to as “evil in themselves” and therefore “inherently” evil.]

5) Finally and most importantly, I will address the original sin that is “sharing photos”. As everybody knows, a photograph is a work of art, and therefore a piece of intellectual property, which it is a crime to “share.” Even if the sharer is the one who originally snapped the photograph, they are not the sole owner of said photograph, because the artwork similarly belongs to whoever posed for the photograph, an exercise in acting; whoever designed the camera, an exercise in blueprinting and engineering; whoever landscaped whatever background the picture reveals, an exercise in groundskeeping; and so on. The recipient of the “shared” photograph is equally culpable, because they are participating as an accomplice in the crime of theft of somebody else’s intellectual property. That Facebook promotes this blatant crime which rots the foundation of our society, I find to be morally reprehensible.

And now that I hope Jonathan has been sufficiently trounced and reluctantly satisfied by this rebuttal in five parts, I turn to Jocelyn, who I am afraid knows no better and has likely had a Facebook page since the company’s inception. I will not address her points in any order, nor will I indeed address them at all, for due to the gender gap between us this would likely be an exercise in futility. Instead, I will merely caution her to turn from her wicked ways and cease supporting this nefarious weapon in the hands of those who would see our culture destroyed, and its people lined up in neat little uneducated and semi-conscious rows of malleability and unthinking obedience to the rapacious pseudo-intellectuals who desire knowledge as a means to power and not for its own sake. (Matt- extremely well-put comparison of lolspeak to Newspeak. I have fostered this sentiment for quite some time myself).

I will conclude by adding that although my discussion has turned out rather lengthy when I originally intended it to be short and to the point, it unfortunately only scratches the surface of all I could say on this subject. I will end, as any good rhetorician should, with a call to action. Though probably hopeless and futile, I would be remiss if I did not urge each and every one of you readers to at least examine your actions as willful participants in the detrimental Facebook culture. While you may think that your actions are not sufficient to bring about the downfall of our beloved West, I tell you that the way you live every day and the mindset that you have are intrinsically connected to the survival or destruction of our great nation, our great cultural heritage, our great human race, and indeed all of creation. You chuckle; I do not. Perhaps you would be the sort to chuckle while the Rome burned; perhaps you will be the sort to chuckle when America burns. I have spoken at times above with my tongue in cheek, but now the gnashing of my teeth is more painful because of it, and I regret having placed it there. This business is no laughing matter.

My thanks to Matt for starting this discussion, and my great thanks to you for reading my opinion; yet the highest thanks to he who examines his life in regard to this matter as Socrates, and eventually Christ himself, bade.

The rage against the Facecool in more than 420 characters

So, here is my rant against Facebook which just so happens to also be annoying me greatly this moment:

(1) Facebook is not a good way to meet people or develop relationships further. This is the main motivation and the source of my current rage against the machine, but I will say nothing further of it here.

(2) It has destroyed my blogging. I used to blog quite a bit more. A consequence of my not blogging is I don't write as much; poetry, random thoughts, or issues that are important to me. I don't want to stoop so far as to post what I am doing every single moment, but it is hard to post these things in a space that does not allow for more than 420 characters. Are we freely giving up the ability to express ourselves in a more meaningful way? This moves us to my next point.

(3) It seems self-centered and shallow. I wonder how much things like Facebook and Twitter actually affect relationships, either positively or negatively. I think that networking sites work the opposite way they are intended to; instead of cultivating genuine relationships we are left as people disassociated from everyone. The focus on the self alone with the ability to make one's own self whatever they please leaves us in the "desert of the real." However, this seems absurd to me. I want people to know the real me, not some projection of myself that is virtual.

(4) The only advantage I see is staying in contact with people that are far away, but I do this already through what I see as more personal forms of communication i.e. the phone, video chat, or e-mail. The people I really want stay in contact with I hardly ever get to talk to with one exception.

(5) The program has serious software design issues. The chat program barely works. They are constantly moving things around and changing the layout to stay "new." But it is a difficult program to use. Things like notes or the logout should be easier to access and use. I should not have to go through three screens just to write a new note.

Anyway, that's enough ranting for now. Go out and be a person.

Thinking about free-will again...

I believe strongly that free-will is a concept that is important for Christians to embrace. Determinism is sort of old hat and Christians do not need to align themselves with a philosophy that is out of style unnecessarily. Under Christian theism the concept of divine foreknowledge is a deciding factor for many to place themselves in the determinist camp. The argument may run something like this:

• God has perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future.
• Any object of knowledge that God possesses is necessarily true.
• God has perfect knowledge of my writing this blog post prior (either logically or chronologically) to its actual occurrence.
• If God possesses knowledge of any actual event there is no way that it could not occur because it would render God's perfect knowledge false.
• Therefore, if God possesses knowledge of my writing this blog post prior to its actual occurrence then there is no way that it could not have occurred.
• If it is not possible for events to occur other than they do by our own choosing, then there is no such thing as free-will.
• It is not possible for events to occur other than they do because God has perfect knowledge of them.
• Therefore, there is no such thing as free-will.

To me, although poorly put, this seems like strong case that has been made. However, many offer what has been named the Simple Foreknowledge view. In this view, God knows what is happening because he sees it happening. His knowledge of events no more causes them to occur than my seeing someone in a chair causes them to be, in fact, sitting in a chair.

At first glance this view seems appealing: (1) We preserve God's foreknowledge of future events, thereby protecting his sovereignty. (2) We protect human notions of freedom. However, I find the Simple Foreknowledge view to be inadequate; the Simple Foreknowledge view makes God's knowledge of events contingent upon their happening. This seems problematic to me. I think you may run into problems with God growing in knowledge as he creates the world. This is not to say that he grows in respect to what is possible but only in respect to what is actual. He did not know what would be actual prior to his actually instantiating it.

I would like to propose what I see as a better alternative. As I see it, the main problems associated with these two views is the emphasis upon God's knowledge. Knowledge is not causal, nor does God posses knowledge that is contingent upon events actually occurring. Here is my view: while His knowledge is not causal, God possesses knowledge of everything that ever could be and will be. He knows this in virtue of his having perfect knowledge of everything.

Going back to the first argument, could things be otherwise? My answer would be, yes. God perfectly knows all of our free acts. Thus God knows what actually is and what will be, but it could happen otherwise if we choose otherwise. I believe this view protects God's omniscience and sovereignty while also protecting human agency.

Joy

I am so happy right now that if you were standing before me I would kiss you. I do not know you, you who are reading this, but know that you are loved and that there is no cause for fear any more.

I have heard over twenty Easter sermons in my lifetime and none such as this:

St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily

If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let him enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.

If anyone is a wise servant, let him, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.

If anyone has wearied himself in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.

If anyone has labored from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let him keep the feast. If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; for he shall suffer no loss. If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near without hesitation. If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let him not fear on account of his delay. For the Master is gracious and receives the last, even as the first; he gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first. He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one he gives, and to the other he is gracious. He both honors the work and praises the intention.

Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward. O rich and poor, one with another, dance for joy! O you ascetics and you negligent, celebrate the day! You that have fasted and you that have disregarded the fast, rejoice today! The table is rich-laden; feast royally, all of you! The calf is fatted; let no one go forth hungry!

Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness.

Let no one lament his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.

Let no one mourn his transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave.

Let no one fear death, for the Saviour's death has set us free.

He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh! And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed, "Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions." It was embittered, for it was abolished! It was embittered, for it was mocked! It was embittered, for it was purged! It was embittered, for it was despoiled! It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!

It took a body and, face to face, met God! It took earth and encountered heaven! It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!

"O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?"

Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!

Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!

Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!

Christ is risen, and life reigns!

Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!

For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the First-fruits of them that slept.

To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.[1]

Please have a glorious bright week. May the love and mercy of God show itself to you. May the forgiveness of sins reveal itself to you.

"O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?"
Christ is risen! Truly, he is risen!


[1] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paschal_Homily

Bob is dead, that's my car for those who care. Thought I would post photos for all to see. I got into the accident early Thursday morning. It was a hit and run, so far they have not caught the guys and my insurance will not cover the accident unless they do.

Experience of the week

I took a very hard test last week on the doctrine of God. We were asked to list and define the attributes of God. One of these attributes was God's Will. The text we used was by Wayne Grudemn and I disagree with how he defines God's Will and I have discussed this with my prof. However, for the test, I forgot exactly how Grudemn defined the term so I put "Will: yup, God has one." Needless to say, I felt badly about being somewhat disrespectful towards God and not taking the test seriously so I apologized to my prof. about the answer I gave. When I got the test back there was no mark against me for the answer I gave. I went up to the prof. and told him I didn't think I got the grade I deserved. I pointed out what I wrote as my answer and he said, "Oh that, I just figured that you knew what that was so I didn't mark it against you."

Wondering about life and where I am going right now. Thinking about converting to orthodoxy; still need to think it through. Here follows some of my reasons.

Historical claims:

As my friend Dr. Brook says, "It's like the church got a divorce. You have mom and the dad" to which I replied, "and all the bastard children." [1] Orthodoxy claims that they have changed very little over the past 2,000 years and arguments of apostolic succession are very compelling to me. If the claim is, "look, we says such and such and we have always said such and such," it lends credence to arguments from a historical standpoint. Some new ways of approaching the biblical text may be flawed because they do not take into account things that are outside scripture but are not contrary to it.

Sola Scriptura:

Seeing scripture as the sole normative authority over our lives for faith and practice seems wrong. It is good intentioned but incorrect. What those that say that "scripture is the sole normative authority" seem to be getting at is that scripture is the word of God and is authoritative over our lives. I do not disagree with that, but just because scripture is authoritative does this mean that it becomes the sole authority? I think not.

1) When God speaks, it is authoritative. God spoke to the prophets and they spoke to the nations claiming "thus says the Lord..." The prophets claimed these things before it was scripture. Romans 1:18 claims that God speaks to us through creation, thus creation reveals God to us. If God is speaking to us through creation, it is authoritative.

2) By whose authority is scripture to be recognized as the sole authority? If scripture claims it, would that not be circular or at least pointing back to God and therefore self contradictory? If is self-evident I certainly do not find it to be so and I do not think there is much historical basis for believing such.

3) Our metaphysic with such things as logic, reason, ideas of being, ect. may preclude the notion of scripture being the sole authority. Scripture cannot contradict logic such that circle-squares become possible or 2+2=5. These things are impossible by definition.

I foresee an objection, "these things are true, but they must be judged according to the scriptures." This is true to an extent, but not in the way that it is implied. If logic, reason, creation, and scripture all come from the same source, they cannot contradict one another. However, just because things that I claim cannot contradict scripture and I can judge things by scripture, it does not mean that I am committing myself to the claim the scripture is the sole authority by which all things are judged.

To end, if it is the case that scripture is not the sole normative authority then there is room left open for things such as tradition and the authority of the church being normative authorities for faith and practice. These things must work in conjunction and not be contrary to one another. We need to know what scripture tells, we need people to tell us what scripture says and means. I see no contradiction between these two claims.

[1] ADDENDUM: This originally said, 'As my friend Dr. Brook says, "It's like the church got a divorce. You have mom, dad and all the bastard children." I would like to be clear that I am misrepresenting what Dr. Brook stated. I think that Dr. Brook's point here was to say that we cannot choose not to go to church. I was making the point that there are way too many protestant denominations, over 20,000 in the United States alone.

My heart would fain

See her eyes, her face,

To behold her beauty just once more.

Gone, she's gone

As my eyes forever darken;

Radiance lost, the Evening Star fallen

Alone in the dark

Memories will serve as memories serve

As unto a picture of a picture

Google has math problems

Surrealist Text Message Conversation

matt: Because my cognitive processes are with the butter screaming at the flowers

nameless joey: What about the plasticine porters with looking glass ties?

matt: They were sitting at the window sil backing themselves into the regress of cats consuming eggs

nameless joey: None of that matters when you consider that the only duck who can recite lightning doesn't care to have tea with the Queen, sniffling without repose

matt: Repose you say? The lady walking beneath the chateau is the perfect example of one hundred percent the opposite of starfish

nameless joey: Ah, but books that lie are no better than a rug beneath an unwilling moon who cannot absorb the knowledge of what is not to come, and must prevent unhappenings

(After a little while)

matt: It's too cold for my pants

nameless joey: Your FACE is too cold for your pants… but why would you wear pants on your face anyway?

matt: Because of the blistering heat upon the trees of my blue youth

nameless joey: Are we starting this again? Precociousness exhibits far too great a peril to the allies of modern convention to be disregarded and strewn among its idle rivals

matt: But the cheese is like a lady waving the flag of her hair in the sink of brown

nameless joey: Unless she hasn't considered that which she projects unto her dreams of fate; namely, the insistence upon that which is illuminated to pure zeal

matt: As she moves to take a drink, you find yourself looking in the break of carpet in which the best ads are found

nameless joey: But it cannot be guaranteed that her folly will not stand in the way of a goal long since forgotten; thrown to the dragons unending. She knows your secret wish

matt: As she moves to take a drink, you find yourself looking in the break of carpet in which the best ads are found

nameless joey: Holy duplicate text, Batman!

matt: And what is my secret wish, pray tell?

nameless joey: I don't know. I'm not the thirsty hair-flag lady.

FIN

A question about better states of affairs and salvation

I would like to look at Piper's idea of Christian Hedonism and then look at it in light of Calvinism:
Piper states, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." I don't know if this is necessarily true, but let us just suppose for a minute that it is. If I were completely satisfied in God then he would be glorified in me to the highest possible degree. Now it seems as if it is logically possible for everyone to be saved and to be satisfied in God completely. It follows therefore that if everyone were completely satisfied in God then he would be glorified in everyone to the highest possible degree.

If Calvinism is true then it is the case that some have been elected to salvation in Christ and elected to become satisfied in God thereby glorifying God in themselves. Now, it seems as if it is a better overall state of affairs if everyone were elected to salvation in Christ and satisfaction in God than if God only elects some to salvation in Christ and satisfaction in God. If some are saved and others are not (either by direct decree or the passing over of the non-elect), then it follows from the above statements that God is not being glorified in us to the highest possible degree.

Now, I think that I can predict a response: but God is also glorified by enacting justice upon sinful creatures. This is completely true, but is it not better for man to be saved than to be condemned? I am NOT saying that God must save us. God, in His great grace and mercy has decided to save us from our sin (and I am sure grateful for it). God must enact justice upon our sin, but he can also save us from our sin through the work of Christ. If God is the complete arbiter of our salvation (by this I mean the God as the choosing agent in salvation where the human agent has no say whatsoever), then he is actively choosing the lesser state of overall affairs.

Again here is what I am not saying:
1. God must save us.
2. Man can save himself.
But what I am getting at is that it is obviously better to for man to be saved than for him not to be saved. If Calvinism is true, why isn’t everyone saved? Does God save individual men arbitrarily? There seems to either be some sort of irrational component to salvation or contradiction under Calvinism.

Voyages of Lomion (Tolkien fan fiction)

A chance encounter with Kanafinwë:
When I was a young boy of the age of nineteen my grandsire, Prince Elensar, took me out of the safety of Rivendell and into the wild wastes of southern Eregion. He and I wandered far. Our journeys eventually brought us to the forests of Eryn Vorn. Uncouth men were living there but we avoided them. I remember we were resting for a few days where the Baranduin meets the sea. It was there that I had an encounter that I will never forget:
I was lying upon the shore enjoying the music of the sea when I heard another voice melding harmoniously with it; the song was mournful and powerful. I searched for the second voice and I saw that a weary, bent old man with a long grey beard was walking along the shore and singing to himself. As I noticed that he was coming my way I hid among some rocks and watched as the old man approached. It was then that I noticed something odd about him; his voice was quiet and was almost drowned by the sea, but it never increased in volume as he approached. He was singing quietly to himself and held his hand as if it pained him.
The old man stopped near the rocks where I was hiding and faced the sea. He dropped to a low hum and just stood there for several minutes. He turned around, looked directly at me and said kindly, “I see you child, there is no need to hide… and there is no need to reach for that knife either.” He smiled. His voice was powerful, I tried to resist its command, but I could not. It was then that I saw the old man’s eyes; they were full of an ancient sorrow. I realized that this was no mere man but an elf bent and aged by sorrow. I came out of hiding.
He sat down upon a rock and faced the sea, holding his hand in pain. “You can join me if you wish, and I will tell you a story.” I sat at his feet and listened to his story: He recounted the story of the First Age and the war of the Noldor against Morgoth. He recounted the tales of sorrow and kinslaying and the total defeat of the Noldor. After he finished he sat silent for a long while.
He spoke silently to me, “The oath of Feanor, in part, is still at work. The Doom of Mandos is still at work. We are still reaping the dark seeds that Morgoth has sown an age and a half after his downfall.” He looked at me and smiled sadly, “Do not fall to the traps that we fell. The line of Feanor is nearly spent. His sons are dead; the children of his children have fallen into obscurity; Celebrimbor has perished and his works are tainted. Annatar Thaura has deceived the Noldor just as his master before him. Love not overmuch thy work of thy hands. Love not overmuch thy realms and dominions. These have been our downfall in Middle-earth.”
He rose to his feet and caressed his hurt hand. The old elf continued down the beach humming a mournful, yet lovely tune. He stopped and spoke once more, “Remember compassion and temperance; we are not the Eldar so that we can rule and dominate over lesser kinds. We are the Eldar so that we can guide and prepare Men to take our place once we are gone… Love not overmuch thy works of thy hands…” He sighed and said at a whisper, “It is a lesser well learned…” while glancing at his hands. And then he continued down the beach and began the saddest song I have ever heard:
I remember the Holy Light,
and you were mine, my love.
I remember the dreadful night,
oaths were sworn and love forsaken
Though I’ve lived, I’ve been searching
Namárië! Nai hiruvalyë Valimar!
Nai elyë hiruva! Namárië!
Harnannin athan nestad bân
Telperion a Laurelin.
In edhil sí awarthar Dhûn
Farol i viriath corin
The thing made became the thing served;
Ai nae úamdir dâr.
Taeg hammad thín gâr viriath;
Norn e dad i hîr,
…
And his voice was lost to me…
After a while, I too rose. Elensar stepped from the shadows among the rocks. “It is time we returned to Rivendell and to your studies.”
“Who is that, Grandfather?”
“He is one who can never again return to Valinor. He is what the oath of Feanor became.”
We set out for Rivendell that evening.

Easter is coming

The wounded surgeon plies the steel
That questions the distempered part;
Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
The sharp compassion of the healer's art
Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.

Our only health is the disease
If we obey the dying nurse
Whose constant care is not to please
But to remind of our, and Adam's curse,
And that, to be restored, our sickness must grow worse.

The whole earth is our hospital
Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
Wherein, if we do well, we shall
Die of the absolute paternal care
That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere.

The chill ascends from feet to knees,
The fever sings in mental wires.
If to be warmed, then I must freeze
And quake in frigid purgatorial fires
Of which the flame is roses, and the smoke is briars.

The dripping blood our only drink,
The bloody flesh our only food:
In spite of which we like to think
That we are sound, substantial flesh and blood—
Again, in spite of that, we call this Friday good.

-T.S. Eliot

For your enjoyment

Thoughts on Determinism

Are deterministic positions consistent with theistic beliefs? For the Christian it is very easy for them to agree that both God and evil exist. The problem of evil as understood to be a logical contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of a perfectly powerful and a perfectly good God was single-handedly crushed by Alvin Plantinga. The problem of evil is no longer considered to carry the weight that it once did; the problem of evil is now a probabilistic argument that claims the existence of too much evil points to the non-existence of a perfectly good and perfectly powerful God.

Onward to the point! Some questions: Is the problem of evil suddenly a logical problem again if free will is impossible? Does the existence of determinism and God imply a logical contradiction? Orthodox Christianity believes that God cannot be the cause of evil but many Christians believe that determinism is true.

I think before I present my argument I should define what I mean by free-will and determinism.

Free will: the choice of an agent is not predetermined (i.e. a necessary between a cause and its effect in a chain of events) by any environmental or biological factors; the choice is an act of the will where the will is akin to a first mover. Ultimately the agent is the cause of his own actions not events and circumstances outside of him.

Determinism in a theistic sense: Under determinism everything that exists is the result of a cause and effect chain of events that God is in complete control of. Nothing exists without being caused by God.

Here is my argument for the existence of free will and against determinism because of the existence of evil:

(1) If evil exists then evil must have a cause for its existence (premise)

(2) God cannot be the cause of evil (premise)

(3) Evil exists (premise)

(4) Evil must have a cause for its existence (from 1 & 3 by MP)

(5) If evil must have a cause for its existence and God cannot be the cause of evil then evil must have a cause for its existence other than God (from 4 & 2)

(6) Evil must have a cause for its existence other than God. (from 4 & 2 by MP)

(7) If something must have a cause for its existence other than God then free will exists (premise)

(8) Evil is something

(9) Free will exists (from 6, 7, & 8)

This argument does not contradict certain notions of compatibilism. Assuming the argument is correct, I think that its conclusion is incompatible with desire theories of comatibilism.

I order to not make this post huge I am only going to present some potential objections to my argument rather than defend its claims:

In what do way do we mean that evil exists? Is evil really something? What is the ontological status of evil?

Can this argument be used against notions of the existence of God if free will is impossible?

Hobbes is Dead

Whelp... Here I am