John Robbins and Gordon Clark

Here are a couple things that—to my advantage—I have that Dr. Gordon Clark doesn't: good looks, good humor, and finally, good logic. I recently read an article published by Trinity Foundation's writer, John Robbins. Now I've read some pretty disturbing things in my life, but Mr. Robbins was the tip of the ice berg. It seems that the bitter dispute between Van Til and Dr. Clark was inherited unduly to Mr. Robbins. It also seems to me that Mr. Robbins also seems to adopt the same logic: a charismatic and hynagogic faith that leads to irrationalism. These diminutions of irrationalism only induce what no less than harsh criticisms, my criticism. What then do I have in common with the philosopher? Almost nothing. If there is anything that we do share, it is his alleged accession to the Reformed creeds.

Kindle, Books, and Freedom

Ad ascribere libere de librarius

Recently, Amazon.com has released their new gismo called "Kindle." This neat little gadget has caused some book-readers some cheaper ways—and even innovative—to read books. Think about it: no pages; no occupied room (including newer book shelves). But does this really help our "suffering" pockets to renovative ways to save a dollar? Some would gladly consider this an indomitable way to reading without the mess (expensive bookshelves and the like).

There was another surprising yet buttressing issue that I read. Although some enthused about this new device, others are not too excited about the nature of this new fad. Newsweek heralded this new device and reported that it might even replace books (in written form, of course)! When I read that, I was angry. But why would I want to get angry over something like this, a cheap inducing yet renovative device? Music, like the MP3 player, i.e., iPod, was getting much popularity with the music renovation. The difference between the iPod and the Kindle, however, is that one is not wishing to take over the industry of free book-writing. The Kindle becomes an arbiter as to what can be written and sold. The freedom of the market will even be limited as to what can be sold. This is just a stepping stone as to what can later happen as intellectualism will be dictated by the marketplace of ideas.

I would further add that even in the face of decrying this new device, that peoples' freedom is being challenged. Although the machine will, in fact, become cheaper—and note the selling of books too—it should dictate what books can and cannot be sold and, or written. This is clearly against reason, against our constitution, and against free living in a free country. We should not forget the heritage as Americans: a people who are free from the tyranny of the masses and a king. Boycott this new device and its tyranny in the marketplace of ideas and practically. Unlike the iPod, this machine wants to take over the minds of children and adults alike.

The title, for those of you who don't read Latin (I don't either, but I'm still learning), it means "concerning the freedom of writing books" or "concerning free-writing of books." I think there's no other way to put it. We are people made to freely express ourselves. Our freedom from tyranny is always our job to protect. The Kindle is just another tyrant waiting to exploit our freedom.

Classical Apologetics: A Review (by Dr. G. L. Bahnsen)

PA062Presbyterian Journal 44:34 (December 18, 1985), © Covenant Media Foundation.

Bahnsen Responds To Gerstner
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

In Dr. Gerstner's response to my review of his book (Dec. 4) he asserts that the review offers "mere allegations" as to the book's apologetical position. This plea is weak, disregarding the review's many substantiating page references.

Gerstner asserts the book "already answers" the review's objections. This is dubious, for were it true, those objections would not have been raised in the first place. For instance, contrary to his claim, there just is no "carefully worked out argument" against Hume in the book. (Let Gerstner rehearse its premises for us.) The fact is, no philosophy department would give passing marks to his "tautological" defense of the law of causality (p. 83). Hume has just been misunderstood.

So has Van Til, Gerstner asserts the review was "without any criticism" of his book's treatment of presuppositionalism. This was incredible, missing the most devastating criticism imaginable: that the authors thoroughly misrepresent Van Til's position.

Gerstner asserts that the review "submits no proof" of such misrepresentation, somehow evading its direct quotations from Van Til. Gerstner's suggestion that, regardless of how Van Til regards his own position, Gerstner understands better the true character of Van Til's views is high-minded. Since "charity rejoices in the truth," Gerstner's persistent misconstrual of presuppositionalism is just uncharitable.

For instance, at the end of his response, Gerstner says that Van Til's presuppositionalism would have the Holy Spirit inwardly confirm what is "rationally absurd." This deserves a Guinness record for misrepresentation, Van Til himself criticizes fideists because they "believe in their hearts what they have virtually allowed to be intellectually indefensible" (Christian-Theistic Evidences, p. 37). According to presuppositionalism, the Holy Spirit opens eyes "in the presence of inescapably clear evidence." We aim to show that "it is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of Christianity" (Jerusalem And Athens, p. 21).

Gerstner hardly does better in trying to defend his book against its philosophical defects. Space allows but one example.

Reacting to the review's critique, Gerstner now wants to rewrite his cosmological argument, replacing the simple term "something" with the more loaded expression "some eternal thing." (These are hardly equivalent in ordinary English or technical logic!). However, his argument remains fallacious. If something so happens to exist eternally, it does not follow that it "necessarily" exists. The philosophical issues are just not comprehended.

Moreover, Gerstner's cosmological argument still turns upon the expression "the power of being" - which, without definition or explication reduces the "proof" to profound sounding gibberish. Can Gerstner explain himself?

Gerstner is touchy about the review's passing (accurate) observation that the authors lack earned degrees in philosophy. Granted, without such degrees they could still demonstrate academic competence by means of their published work. But this book is just not an example.

In summary, Gerstner's response to my review has only served to reinforce the original evaluation. The review observed that his book's philosophical case for theism is not cogent, and his portrayal of Van Til is inaccurate. The same things have evidenced themselves in Gerstner's response to the review.

Rev. Greg L. Bahnsen

Placentia, Calif.

Kant, Anselm, and R.C. Sproul: probability or certainty?

I've been recently reading R.C. Sproul's book, Classical Apologetics, and in his book I've interacted some of the ideas I felt were repugnant (and by that I mean that they are not cogent enough to provide the Christian with sufficient knowledge of God's existence ontologically). I want to examine in particular his statements about the probability and Anslem's rendition of his ontological argument.

1. Anselm in his ontological argument writes, "the idea of a perfect being that no greater can be thought exists
   
2. Kant wrote that the mere idea of a perfect being only proves that the idea exists. Bringing the idea to life is another thing entirely different.
   

Here is where I think Kant did a great job. The trouble is within the realm of the idea. How does one come from thinking to actualization? This is the job for the Christian apologist to discover and argue. Unfortunately the classicist cannot redefine the argument.

R.C. Sproul did try to reformat the argument, as I explained above. He wrote that one cannot think of the nonexistence of a perfect being, therefore he exists. Wow! This kind of argumentation reminds me of magic shows: here is my hat, and shazam!, a rabbit comes out. Its corollary is surprising and fettered with formal problems. How does Sproul "pull the rabbit" out of the hat? One could assume he has some trap door to his argument. The fact is this—it's artificial. Here is what he writes: "We simply cannot think of his [i.e., God, or the perfect being (the argument is ambiguous to begin with)] nonexistence (p.102)." In my two figures (see below), I show the difference within each argument. I show that within the thought world, there could only be existence of the perfect being in the mind (Kant). Kant inexorably can only conclude that the mere idea exists, and that the idea cannot bring forth existence and I agree. The other figure shows Anselm's form of the argument.

Now I have a quarrel with Sproul concerning his "probability" versus his "demonstrative" proof. He assumes that possibility automatically prove the existence of a thing. Nice one! Another rabbit in the hat. This is tantamount to saying that the possibility of a unicorn exists—and it does since we have no certain knowledge of one—therefore a horned horse with wings exists? Wow! Look Ma. I'm a magician too. For all his erudite arguments, the least Sproul could have done was attempt a simple cogent argument.

Here's a poignant question that I think every Christian should ask him or herself: Are you sure you can end with the terminus that God exists definitely with probability? Think about it. In the debate between Dr. Sproul and Dr. Bahnsen, Bahnsen posed hypothetical:

Atheist: (The atheist is confronted after death with God) Are you God? You can't be since you don't exist.

God: I most certainly do.

Atheist: But you see there was reason for doubt, that your existence was not certain.

Is the Christian really arguing for these results? Is there reason to believe that God's existence is doubtful? This form of argument just shows the inept attempts for epistemology in debate for the Christian. The Christian needs to know his epistemology if he is going to give a rational defense against the atheism of this age.

Is the Will Free by Nature or by Grace?

Is the Will Free by Nature or by Grace?
by John Hendryx

Some persons may reason that if the will is voluntarily choosing something, then it is free. But when we speak of freedom of the will we need to ask, freedom relative to what? Historically speaking, Biblical scholars have understood a "free will" to be one which has in its power the moral ability to choose good or evil. So when we ask whether man has a free will we are asking if his will is free (or in bondage) relative to sin and evil. In this respect, of course, the will is not free because through man's innate wickedness, due to the fall, he is of necessity driven to what is evil, that is, unable to do
any redemptive good (Rom 8:7) . And if a choice to do evil is made out of necessity, then it is not free because it cannot choose otherwise. Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the natural person of uncircumcised heart is stiffnecked and will refuse to obey the commandments of the law and the gospel. And if the natural man chooses to sin of necessity, there is no sense in which he is free that ultimately matters to God. All choices we make are ethical ones, since, in them, we either glorify God or we do not, and God holds us accountable for these choices. And because God holds us accountable for every choice and thought, the ethical nature of each choice is of primary concern in determining whether the will is free or not.

Some may doubt the very idea that every choice made by an unbeliever is evil of necessity. But consider that an unbeliever's many "good works", even though in many ways may indeed correspond to God's commands, are not well pleasing to God when weighed against His ultimate criteria and standard of perfection. The love of God and His law is not the unregenerate man's deepest animating motive and principle, so it does not earn him the right to redemptive blessings from a holy God. Bad behavior itself, however, is really only a symptom of a much greater core concern. The natural man chooses/wills only what that inner principle desires most. But if the acts of his will are not determined by his internal nature, as libertarians claim, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? So any idea of a neutral will is absurd since our will is always driven by its moral nature which direct our desires. Jesus said, "a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit."  Thus, the nature of the tree determines the kind of fruit it produces. Only by making the tree good, Jesus says, will the fruit be good. In other words, unless Jesus redeems us from the bondage to sin (Rom 6; 2 Tim 2:25), we have no hope in the world to make any right (redemptive) choice, including believing the gospel (see John 6:65). Again, in what sense are we in bondage (slaves) to sin if not by our affections or wills?  Our affections and desires drive the choices we make binding our will over to certain choices. Jesus said to Nicodemus,

"...men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light ..." John 3:19-20 (emphasis mine)

According to this, and many other passages, people exercise their will, of necessity, according to what they love and hate. The reason anyone does not come into the light is because he hates it and his affection is exclusively set on something else. The natural man, without the grace of the Holy Spirit to open his blind eyes and turn his heart of stone to a heart of flesh, loves darkness and hates the light.  His will is then exercised within the constraints of the affections, desires and passions of his nature. In Romans chapter 6 when it says we are slaves to sin, in what sense is the natural man a "slave to sin" if not by the will and affections?  This is a legitimate question.

The subject of whether or not man has a free will is a more easily understandable than most Christians imagine. The fact is, it can easily be proven from Scripture, that man has no free will (to choose good or evil), and while many already hold to this idea inconsistently, all true Christians really do embrace this idea without consciously knowing it. Ask most evangelicals, whether man has a free will, however, and most will automatically answer, "yes of course", without showing scriptural evidence, but many other beliefs they already confess flatly contradict this assertion. Let me attempt to show you where this inconsistency exists. Here are two simple questions to ask anyone which will remove all false presuppositions and prove, once for all, that the natural man has no free will:

1. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit plays any role in the sinner coming to faith in Christ? (Because the Bible affirms this, all true evangelicals will answer 'yes').
   
2. Do you believe that, apart from any supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, the sinner, by nature, has the will, ability, affection and desire to come to Christ?
   (Because the Bible denies this all true evangelicals will answer 'no').
   

Thus you have, in two simple questions, completely disarmed any and all argument against the free will of man. Here is plain proof that all Christians, without exception, believe that no man is found NATURALLY willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ. The natural man, apart from the Holy Spirit, has no desire and affection for Christ and thus no free will to believe the gospel or do any redemptive good, because, of necessity, due to a corruption of his/her nature, fallen man is in bondage to sin. If the Holy Spirit is necessary to make us love God, then it follows that we had no ability to love him before the arrival of the Holy Spirit. It also means that the Holy Spirit is not given because we chose to love God. We chose to love God because the Spirit is given. Grace, not a virtue in man, takes the initiative. When we say a person is in bondage it simply means they have no freedom to choose otherwise, left to themselves. Through the centuries, Augustine (Anti-Pelagian Writings), Luther (Bondage of the Will), Calvin (Bondage and Liberation of the Will), Edwards (Freedom of the Will), etc... discussed the free will controversy in terms of sin (bondage) and holiness (freedom). And why did these Reformers all discuss the issue this way? Because this is how the Bible defines bondage and freedom. Using a word picture, when God redeems Israel from Egypt the idea is in their deliverance from bondage to slavery which God had accomplished for His people in the exodus (Exod 6:6). Christ now likewise redeems his people, the true Passover Lamb sacrificed for us so that God, seeing the blood on our doorpost, so to speak, passes over our sins, But now, instead of being delivered from physical slavery in Egypt Christ sets us free from the bondage of our wills to sin, enabling us to believe. He died for the reign of sin that once mastered us. So when Reformed Christians now and through history discuss whether or not we have a free will, they are usually pointing to the fact that man's will and affections are broken and, due to fallen nature, "will not come into the light" (John 3:20). The libertarian, on the other hand, asserts that we have the innate ability to choose otherwise, that is, contrary to who we are by nature. But Augustine, finding more support in the Bible, asserted that prior to the Fall, (1) man was able to sin or not sin. (2) But after the Fall, unregenerate man is not able not to sin. (3) Fallen, but regenerated man is able to sin or not sin, and (4) Glorified man is not able to sin.

The Scripture describes fallen man as those who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7; Col 1:21) are in bondage to sin (Gal 4:3; 6:17, 20), and taken captive by Satan to do his will (2 Tim 2:25), until the Son sets them free (John 8:36). Why would the Son need to set them free from sin unless they were not free, i.e. slaves to sin? When we speak of man having no free will we are not saying man's will is not self-determined, because it is. But self-determination is not the same thing as free will, because, we can only choose what we desire most, and that which we desire is in bondage to who we are by nature. As fallen creatures, then, we will only choose according to our corrupt nature, and cannot choose otherwise, so the outcome of our choice is determined. The natural man will always choose reject Christ due to the effects of sin on his affections. John Calvin said there is a great "difference there is between necessity and coercion.  For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity [will exercise his] will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. (John Calvin, BLW pp 70)

Indeed, God sovereignly directs our wills to a particular outcome that is certain, but there is no Scriptural evidence that says this goes against what we want most at that moment. Rather, the Scripture simply says that the will is evil by a corruption of nature, but only becomes good by the grace of Jesus Christ applied by the Holy Spirit. It is not because of natural strength that we believe. We do not, in our unregenerate state, convert ourselves. By our own efforts, apart from the Holy Spirit, we cannot achieve this for Jesus says 'apart from Me you can do nothing.' The Scripture further testifies that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3) and the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit, because they are spiritually appraised. They are foolishness to him (1 Cor 2:14) and he acts only as he is acted upon, in accordance to the measure of grace he has received. While the preaching of the gospel is necessary to cast forth the seed of the gospel, it will not fall onto good soil unless the Spirit plows up the fallow ground and germinates the seed (so to speak). The soil is not good by nature but is made good by grace.

But people still tend to confuse coercion with necessity. Recently I heard Ron Rhodes interviewed on a local radio station and he said God did not create us as robots ... and this is correct, and then he said, God gave us free choice [between good and evil]... which is right when applied to Adam (since his will was not yet
corrupted or in bondage)... But when we say Adam was free we do not mean that he was free from the eternal decrees of God, but we mean free, as the Bible defines freedom (free from bondage to a sin nature). but then Rhodes commits a fatal error is when he said that "our will is free just like Adams'" ...which is nonsense. Our will is corrupted and in bondage till Christ sets us free. What Rhodes means to say, I believe, is that we are not robots, which is true ... but this is not how the Scripture defines the will which is not free ... so it is wrong to teach that man has a free will. It destroys the very gospel we preach.

The unregenerate or natural man, who is by nature hostile to God, loves sin, and thus, apart from the grace of regeneration, will not seek God on God's terms (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7). He will invariably use his boasted "free will" to flee from, and suppress the truth of God (Rom 1:18). The regenerate (those the Spirit has quickened), on the other hand, are granted a renewed sense or disposition which has new understanding, desires and holy affections for God. As such, our natural hostility to God (John 3:19, 20) is disarmed and so we freely exercise our will to trust in Jesus, who now holds our supreme affection over all other idols. The Scripture gives clear witness to the concept that our nature drives what kind of choices we make:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe ... And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me
unless it has been granted him from the Father." ( John 6:63-65)
[note: "the phrase "come to Me" is a synonym for "faith" or "believe" so no one can believe unless God grants it and verse 37 says "all that the Father gives me will come to me" so we have a syllogism which say none will believe unless God grants it but all to whom God grants it will believe. ]

"Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."[note: a person produces fruit in accord with his nature] (Matt 7:16-18)


"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad. You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. " (Matt 12:33- 35)

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:26-27)

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin..."If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does... You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:34-47

In other words, water does not rise above its source. Apart from the work of the Spirit, we cannot lift a finger toward our own salvation. It is about as likely as your ability to create a world.

The Antithesis Prelude

I've recently published my review in MySpace and my other blogging account, in which I noted The Golden Compass published Philip Pullman. And within the blog I noted that there were some philosophical issues that I had problems with, as a religious Christian. Indeed, I think that every evangelical, catholic, and reformed protestant should take issue with these works. One of my major concerns over the books overall reliability had to deal with the seat in takes in literature. I do believe there are some literary accomplishments that should be noted; however, the philosophy behind what it endorses I am vehemently at odds with. Purely rendered, the books philosophy is basically a complaint. It complains that the people of the book don't want an overall outlook to control their thinking. Let's look at that point.

The Majestarium seeks to control what the children think by separating the children from their daemons. The problem, however, isn't that t he act of control is immoral; the act is merely preconditioned. This country's overarching philosophy is atheist, and to subordinate the idea would be deemed "irrational" (see Dr. M. Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification). Dr. Martin, in his published book called, The Case Against Christianity, he writes that one of Christianity's way of controlling the minds and ideas of the world (he writes that even today our literature, laws, music, science, thinking and our way of life) is by controlling the divine writ. "This suppression was manifested in many ways. One of the primary ways was the church's absolute control over what was officially recognized to be the inspired word of God (pg. 3)." This almost smacks the face of any rational human: who would even conceive of manufactured thought and life? It is a slap in the face. As human beings we have the tendency to want to control out way of thinking and our own lives. Just recently I received a text message by an old friend with a quote saying, "Life is raw material. We are artisans. We can sculpt our existence into something beautiful, or debase it into ugliness. It's in our hands." This is just another example of our subterfuge into the idiosyncratic philosophy of atheism. Christianity, on the other hand, has always remained faithful to its ideologies of the thought world: that although it is subordinate to action (political and pragmatic), the thought was always to reflect the image and character of God (Deut. 6). The rational was never abandoned to the Christians' commitment; however, the commitments were redefined by a strict use of reason. Reason as it stands has been influential by the "age of reason." Renaissance man was now to mean that he (Renaissance man) can carve himself out of the rock (viz. Michelangelo's David). This use in a denotative sense was humanism in the making. In this sense of the word, I deny this use of reason. Reason was always to reflect the rational faculties endowed by our creator. I want to add also that "reason" was never to mean—in the Christian context—Reason (with a raised 'r' to its upper case).

Christ himself was not opposed to reason:

And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment.

(Matthew 22:37-38)

Indeed, it is the maximum et primum mandatum. The maximum and the primum show the import of the use of this 'mandatum' (i.e., command). Reason was always to reflect the assent of God's glory, and this is why an atheist or any other person who doesn't assent to God's glory as central to his thinking will always fall short of a proper interpretation of the world and other possible worlds (that's for all you who love modal logic). There are, however, laws that govern thought, i.e., logic. This, of course, is a side issue but important. Do these laws rightly show how the world should be interpreted? I would venture to agree with that corollary, but there is a problem that any philosopher encounters: are these laws universal? And if they are, how do they account for them? Though I believe they are universal, how can an atheist know of biology without any assent to God's glory? How could he know of anything? These are questions I am still trying to answer. What is surprising to some who enjoy dialogue with the atheist is that they do not agree with the Christian that these laws we call logic are not universal, that is they do not apply to all people in all ages.

The problem of accountability is still with the philosophic community, though in a stunning degree. Natural man is still trying to bring unity to the particulars and the universals. These are problems that will flank the Christian if he or she isn't prepared for education, be that college life or high school. The facts are these; the world is plaguing the world with these problems in philosophy. This is why I believe that Christians should concern themselves with philosophy and the history of philosophy.

With the age of reason still present in spirit, the dichotomies throw the atheist under the rationalism/empiricism camps with the Christians along with fideism.

Review of The Golden Compass

Unfortunately, I was dissatisfied with the movie. Officially, however, this is my review. Many of my detractors (apparently) seem to be religiously opposed to the movie. I, on the other hand, take a more literary approach. As it stands, this was a work of literature and deserves to be noted for its literary achievements. Here's a general outline.

First, the characters in the movie were well portrayed. The setting was mostly English (European), the language I mean. The elements of good and evil were well expressed by the actors. I had hoped, however, that the characters assented more the characters in the book series. Lord Asriel, as portrayed in the book, is a stern and cold man. In the movie he was more cordial but with some hints of solemnity. Some of his remarks were austere in nature; however his disposition was not well portrayed of the literary character. Lyra was well played. I think the next movie should be played by the same character(s). She was very candid in her expressions. I think her courage is unoriginal and lacked surrealism. The graphics art was sublime. The producers did a splendid job with the graphics design of the daemons and artificial characters. I don't think any of you would be surprised at the great job the producers are doing nowadays with graphics design. I think there is room for improvement with every movie, however. The battlefield could have been more lit. It was a bit dark. I couldn't see much of the battle.

Some of the literary plot elements were not explicated as much as I had wished. The book I think does a better job—that's always the case. The story begins much different in the book than the movie. In the movie it begins with the telling of the "parallel universe." Then, for the sake of preserving the movies vitality (for those of you who wish to see the movie), the book begins with Lyra entering the Resting Room. I like to call it, The Forbidden Den of Masculinity and Chauvinism. (I know, right? Creative? Maybe not.)

Now the religious interpretation which some are anticipating. The worldview was obviously antagonistic towards any monotheistic religion, be that Islam, Judaism and, or Christianity. More pointedly, the author seeks from an anti-Christian outlook to ethics. I think here is where most of the debate lies. Personally, I find that if the Christian is going to make a case against these books and its author, they should brush up on their ethics. Perhaps even an introductory course in ethics would do them some good. I'm not going to start the debate about "Divine Command Theory" here, but suffice it to say that the worldview of ethics is highly humanistic and atheist, too. I happen to see these interchangeable; they differ in some points, which I will discuss later. There is this pseudonym called the Magisterium (sounds like a Latin term) for the church. The church pseudonym however is pointedly catholic. I think here is where the atheist finds himself in a bind if he hasn't looked at the different types of church government. I think here is where I like to point out that I love my denomination in particular, i.e., Presbyterian. (We pride ourselves in our formal government.) There is also the notion of Free-will within the ideology of "freedom" from the Magisterium.

So then, there is a thumbnail sketch of my movie review. Hope you guys liked it.

Overall, 3 out of 5 stars.

The Golden Compass (the book)

Part I. OXFORD

Chapter 1: The Decanter of Tokey

It's chapter 1 in the trilogy of the Dark Materials. Not much has happened, but what did was revealing of what is to be expected in subsequent chapters. A couple things are related to faith. But first, I found it necessary to define some of the elements in this story that I think captures the fullness of each character. Lyra is a young girl whose daemon (a shape shifting animal) is sort of an alter ego which reflects its master; in this case, Lyra. At the outset it rebukes Lyra for her insubordination. She enters a forbidden room restricted to Scholars and men. Maidservants were not even allowed to do the basic chores of that room. Usually the butlers would do most of the duties required in that room. Next comes the Butler and his daemon. Then there's the Porter. I have yet to get a concrete view of who this Porter is. And then comes the decanter of Tokey. I have yet to understand what or who this is. Lyra's daemon, by the way, is named Pantalaimon (Pan for short). I forgot to mention its name. Then comes the uncle, an austere and pungent fellow, Lord Asriel. His fate was fortunate for Lyra's insolence. Unfortunately, his cup or chalice was poisoned by a previously mentioned character whose name I cannot recollect for the life of me. More to come…

Toast! Here’s to You

It's morning and I just home from my graveyard shift. It was quiescent. I think that's the best of words that illustrate my night job. Today especially was a quiescent morning, due to the rain. For those of you who don't know what I do at night (esp. Thursday and Friday nights) I guard a theme park. It's a security job at Castle Amusement Park in Riverside. I've been doing it for a while—three years actually and going on four. On any note, I've thought of many things this morning. In particular biblical parlance, I read WSC 34, Heb.12:24 and Luke 8. Aside from that I was aiming at finishing my Latin studies on the second declension in my nouns, but chance got the best of me. Actually, since I don't believe in chance per se, I can't actually say that. Anyway, the point being that I never got around to doing what I planned. That's most of what I thought about this morning as I walked around the park, before the sun came out. There are so many things I wish I could have changed in my life. I've been thinking of someone who was dear in my life a couple years back. I think of her often. She's done a lot for my life than any woman in my life, aside from my mother and my sister, Brenda. This woman was a true love of mine, and she was also my best friend. I just didn't notice her while she was there. The point here, however, is that we don't plan for things that happen in our lives, the good, the bad and the ugly. I find that in my life the bad and the ugly rear their ugly heads in my life. I smile at it. What else is left to do? It almost seems like a cosmic joke! These things are truly devastating for a young soul like mine, but the reality of detriment and exultation exist to lift up my lowly soul. So then, what we don't plan we learn to live with, decisions (especially the bad ones) and our screw-ups. This is a brutal reality that I learned by my retrospective thoughts of the girl in my past. You've done a lot for me. Thanks. I appreciate you, no matter what. I wish I could be your friend, I really do. I'm sorry that I can't try harder. The fact is that I care about you far too much to want to be "just" a friend. However, these are the thoughts that embrace every aspect of our mutual lives: that life is full of choices we don't particularly like. Thank you. Here's a toast to life and the pursuit of happiness.

Marijuana, the State Government and its Role

Marijuana and the State:

In the outset, I want to make sure you understand, from my point of view, what the role of the State (The U.S. government, or any other government) is, and second how it relates to issues of the people, e.g., marijuana (the legalization process). So in form, laws trickle down from the State to the citizen. That's why I structured it this way.

A. The role of the state is only to protect the liberties procured in the documents of liberty and the happiness of the people therein. (Sorry for the technicalities.) I posted recently the Mayflower compact (fortuitously), which have the people's role in ruling themselves. I don't know if you can recall the history of the U.S.'s making, but there was a debate that was present in the minds of the people at the time of the "new inception." (I will define everything and what I mean.)
The new inception: What I mean here is that the government (if there was one) was separated and there was a desperate need to unify the states; however, the debate was all the more heated by articles published by the press against federalism (Federalist Papers), the belief that there should be a central government over "small government," that is that the states should themselves. When it pertains to Marijuana the debate becomes highly pertinent. (One example of the importance of the view of government here is an article that I wrote about in my political science class, which was about marijuana labs being raided by fed operatives. The outcome was not amicably handled.) I believe here is where you might want to brush up on some of your readings concerning the Federalist Papers. It might make more sense for you. They show what the concerns were, and I believe they had more than a valid case against federalism. Personally, if I was alive at the time I would have voted against it. I now see how it is affecting the state of affairs within every state, e.g. marijuana. There is a breakdown in each law and its enforcement due to the difference of the present "climate" in opinion within every state, however. I think that the only reason it didn't work at the time was due to the debate over slavery. It churned debate as to who gave the final word, North v. South. A new form still exists, i.e., Government v. States. I think personally that this form of government is falling apart, and examples can be seen over the current seat of government being overseen by the tyrannical G.W. Bush. For example, look at the PATRIOT act. I know that there is no exclusive law per se for "privacy," but apparently the state is still misguided as to what they see as liberties and "privileges." Here's what the report said:

"As the original cosponsors of the SAFE Act, we are deeply concerned about the draft Patriot Act re-authorization conference report made available to us early this afternoon. The Senate version of the bill, passed by unanimous consent in July, was itself a compromise that resulted from intense negotiations by Senators from all sides of the partisan and ideological divides. Unfortunately, the conference committee draft retreats significantly from the bipartisan consensus we reached in the Senate. It simply does not accomplish what we and many of our colleagues in the Senate believe is necessary – a re-authorization bill that continues to provide law enforcement with the tools to investigate possible terrorist activity while making reasonable changes to the original law to protect innocent people from unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance."

Do you see the inherent problem with central government? They dictate throughout the entire nation as to what should be "their" responsibility. This is also another reason I believe people--and especially other Christians like myself--should get involved in politics or at least know what's going on. So then, the government's role is to establish and amend laws, but not to enforce unruly and unjust laws upon its citizens (my opinion). A simple review of the first documents of this country should be my only protests against what is going on today with governmental policies and legislative processes. The State needs a redefinition as to what its role is.

B. Marijuana, as it is legislated, cannot under strict scrutiny be illegal under the prohibition of any State.
This is plain and simple: if there is a solid view of the State and its responsibilities, I think anyone with a rational mind can determine what the State can do about little issues like marijuana. However, due to the place in our socio-historical context, I think that marijuana shouldn't be made legal for reasons that history can defend. For instance, Dr. Francis Schaeffer notes the history of philosophy and the culmination of the "drug" world. Because his work is lengthy (and apparently, mine too), I'm only going to summarize it. He states that we have moved away from thinking in terms of universals (a theory and problem in philosophy) and bringing those universals to a complete unity with the particulars, and this is vital to the defining what a moral law is. This is known in philosophy as the One-Over-Many argument. This is overly complicated for me to explain, but suffice it to mean that in the history of philosophy as it stands here today is that strict measures should take place to inhibit the use of drugs.
Here's what Schaeffer had to say: "The work ethic, which had meaning within the Christian framework, now became ugly as the Christian base was removed... Because the only hope of meaning have been placed in the era of non-reason, drugs were brought into the picture...They hoped that drugs would provide meaning "inside one's head," in contrast to objective truth, concerning which they had given up hope (p. 206)." Can we be surprised? I think not.

Back to my evaluation: Herein I fall into a dilemma and fallacy:

1. I stated that the role of the state should be re-defined and relieved of its central governmental form over all the states.
2. Then I stated that the only way to enforce such a law and amend that certain drugs be illegal can only make sense in a central form. How do I make sense of all this?

Here is my answer: establish new form of government, i.e., Theonomy. Under a Theonomic government drugs will not only have their proper place, but the moral philosophy (which is where the problem is in question) under which marijuana is dealt with can make sense. It could help patients, restrict the unjust use of it, and protect the rights of the citizens against tyranny. Dr. G.L. Bahnsen in his Master's thesis wrote that there is a difference of the moral ethics of Statism, which affects the Christian and non-Christian alike to submit to its hegemonic ethic (that is, one supreme ethic that is enforced by law, though it is subtle); this form is atheistic and enforced to be obeyed in the schools and other social atmospheres. Here is where the impasse begins: A Christian ethic versus an anti-Christian ethic. There should be laws that protect the needs of the ill and the healthy. Theonomy I believe is the best and only solution that provides a viable and justified meaning to law and to liberty, in contrast to the current atheistic laws being amended and procured by the State. (Theonomy is taken from two Greek words: God and Law, which together means God's Law. It isn't a theocracy, but the laws in the bible, if maintained correctly with the exception of the ceremonial aspects of the law, should be amended.) Most of the debate however will always be one moral code over against another, whether it is Christian or atheist. The battle will never be won unless a truly moral ethic is procured. Atheism doesn't necessarily provide a moral code, because it denies the existence of universals, i.e., laws in general; it denies them in form, but not actually.
I do find that the socio-historical definitions of prohibitions, like marijuana, should not be legal as yet. However, there are measures that the state can use to secure the medical use. Hospitals could immunize the drug, thus inoculating the "effects" of marijuana but maintaining the medical. This type of bill should be passed. But as Prop. 215 stands, I cannot in good conscience vote yes. Reasons being that the proposition doesn't state what "kind" of marijuana is being allowed to the patients. It only states that "proposition 215 was designed to protect seriously and terminally ill patients from criminal penalties for using marijuana medically." Notice that there is no reference to what type of marijuana will be used. But say there was a bill that is drawn up and states that marijuana will be inoculated and available to "patients only," then I would vote a candid yes, but here it is not the case.

Do I believe that Marijuana should be legal? No. Due to the socio-historical context in moral philosophy and the diversity of Americans using it for personally unjustified motives, I think that restriction should only be procured by those who "need" it medically. The only way it can be legal in any sense, it should be under a Theonomic form of government, because laws are moral in it and make sense metaphysically.