Saturday, October 25, 2014

Brief Opine On Political Correctness

China+Viral Nova


THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

Political correctness is from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: quote (noun) 'The avoidance of forms of expression or action that exclude marginalize, or insult certain racial or cultural groups'. Oxford (1995: 1057).

Two recent events have me pondering on 'political correctness'. Therefore the post.

Firstly, one of the online pastors I listen to preaching from a Biblical, yet somewhat fundamentalistic position, stated that a political correct position was basically, to paraphrase, always the wrong position.


Political correctness could follow societal and cultural norms that are against Biblical standards.

Example: Acceptance of abortion on demand or non-Biblical views of sexuality

Political correctness could follow societal and cultural norms that are in basic agreement with Biblical standards.

Example: Acceptance that murder is immoral

Therefore, perhaps at times a politically correct approach is basically correct and true.

I am not in agreement with the pastor's fundamentalistic position.

Secondly, in regard to a comment that a senior security officer made that was somewhat humourous at work. I will cite it and then state that he informed me he would be complaining to head office because of the work environment but would not mention 'Chinese' to corporate head office because it may be considered politically incorrect.

'It's like a Chinese prison camp!' (Senior security officer after I describe his corporate shift in a caged area with no chair and no autonomous washroom break for 12 hours)...

I posted this as a Facebook status update.

In regard to political correctness, the fact Chinese is mentioned in context has to do with the People's Republic Of China and its reputation as a totalitarian state and regime and its treatment of prisoners.

Wikipedia China


'Prisons Foreign experts estimate that in 2000, there were between 1.5 million and 4 million people in prison in China. China does not allow outsiders to inspect the penal system.[15]'

End quote

It can be reasoned out the context of the statement is the People's Republic of China.

It is not a representation of all Chinese persons. It has specific context.

Therefore, the comment is not offensive in a non-politically correct way against Chinese persons, but is rather satire comparing the totalitarian People's Republic of China to the Canadian Security industry.

The security officer stated the next night...

The same security officer tonight claimed to be gassed out of the parkade by demolition construction workers...

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Brief On Omnipotence & Omniscience

Drina Gorge, Serbia_trekearth

PhD Edit

Mill rejects Christianity[1] and traditional Christian doctrine concerning omnipotence.[2]  Mill’s deity is similar to the ‘Platonic Demiurge’ and this deity simply develops matter from preexisting chaos and therefore would not only be limited in power but also finite in nature.  Mill supports a concept of a first cause as in a series of events[3] but this leaves the nagging question and problem of what was the cause of the Demiurge?  An infinite eternal God can be understood as the first cause not needing a cause. A finite deity, although admittedly logically possible, requires further explanation. If the being is not revealed through Scriptural revelation, it is a God of primarily philosophical speculation and requires further elaboration on the part of Mill in regard to, for instance, why humanity should believe in and follow this type of deity, assuming that there is not a greater, infinite, eternal first cause that would necessarily exist behind that being.

October 21, 2014


I take a Biblical, Reformed view that God causes and wills all things. It is demonstrated that God has sovereign control of creation from Genesis to Revelation as eternal God.

God, therefore would have complete omnipotence. God would be the first cause.

God would also have omniscience in regard to future events.

However, for balance, even if in reality somehow philosophically and theologically, God cannot be logically omniscient, as in the future cannot be known by an infinite, omnipotent being; God as first cause would cause the future along with secondary causes, and therefore the results would be the same.

Therefore, I hold that God does have omniscience, but even if God does not, God being infinite and omnipotent is still ‘virtually omniscient’ and still able to predict the future in Scripture and bring about eschatological events.

God certainly would be able to control the secondary causes, and each requires a primary cause.

A secondary cause having significant moral freedom as long as not forced or coerced to commit thoughts, acts, actions.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1789-1861)(2003) Utilitarianism and On Liberty, Mary Warnock (ed.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1825-1868)(1984) Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, John M. Robson (ed.), University of Toronto Press, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1833)(1985)(2009) Theism: John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(2002) The Utility of Religion, London, Longman, Green, and Reader.

MILL, JOHN STUART (1874)(1885)  Nature the Utility of Religion and Theism, London,
Longmans, Green and Co. 

[1] Mill (1874)(2002: 16). 
[2] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 24).
[3] Mill (1833)(1985)(2009: 7).