Wednesday, August 11, 2010

My Turn

It is my turn to do a public seminar. No, it is not formally a public lecture which Australian universities, following the British tradition, constantly offer and I enjoy attending.

I am to give a small talk about my proposal for the use of a particular technique in the field of agent technology for people researching in AI and Agents. Though this is a seminar addressed to the academics in the that field, in Australia, it also functions like a public seminar. It is free for people to attend if they are interested. It does not matter what their background might be, it is offered free to any who might just fancy to listen. At the end of the talk, it is customary for the presenter to give 15 minutes for question and answers and this is where things get interesting. Since it is a type of public gathering, you would not know where the questions would be coming from and so I expect to be taken to the barn for a bit of whipping, i.e. my ideas will be challenged and put to the test in a cordial and gentlemanly manner. In this process, either my ideas or the questioner's ideas get taken seriously or simply dismissed as the prating of a fool.

It is not for the sensitive and the big ego.

Some of my blog readers (who formerly got me in their blog roll now no more) do not understand why I do not consciously moderate the blog. It is because it is in that spirit of public lecture that this blog is being run.


Pr Mark Henderson said...

I'm clueless as to your topic, Lito, but is it appropriate to say "break a leg" in academic circles? (theatrical lingo for "good luck"!)

Steven Goodrich said...

This sounds interesting. Australia however is a bit far. Best of luck Lito.

LPC said...

Pr. Mark,

Thank you. It is bound to be done, , iron sharpens iron.


LPC said...


Thank you for the best wishes. I hold no animus to anyone.

I respect peoples' convictions no matter how wrong they are. LOL.

Seriously, I have some atheist friends and if I can be friends to them, I can certainly be to those who differ in Christian conviction.


David Cochrane said...

St Lito,

Best wishes on your talk.

I too consider you a friend even though you are so wrong you sound right to the inner brat! :P

pax domini. †

Gregory L. Jackson said...

Break a sliderule, LPC.

LPC said...

St. David,

You said you sound right to the inner brat! :P

So I sound right to your inner brat?

Are you sure it is your inner brat speaking?

I suggest it is not to your inner brat that I sound right, I suggest that I sound right to your inner man where the HS dwells. ;-)


David Cochrane said...

St Lito,

The Holy Spirit will never contradict scripture. Human logic will always contradict scripture which, I fear, is what you and your three or four cohorts are doing.

Thank God he has died for and forgives backsliding, all sin and false doctrine. May we be granted true repentance and this forgiveness.

pax domini. †

By the way this is still one of my favorite blogs. It was removed due to one of my former calvinist asked me about this teaching of yours. The last thing my former calvinists need is to be cast back upon themselves to question thier salvation from another angle. It was not a happy removal nor a rejection of you.

LPC said...


I am quite sad that you have not followed well the arguments I had with Dr. Jack Kilcrease and how I have pointed out that UOJ view is the one that is rationalistic. Tons of comments in the last posts showed that UOJ is the one that presses the Scripture down to accommodate human logic.

When Brett and I were debating this with Kilcrease (who named himself UOJ par excellance), he wanted to go into conceptualities rather than go the direct plain statements of Scripture as a first course or procedure. He wanted to impose discussion on concepts rather than Scriptural exegesis.

Thank God he has died for and forgives backsliding, all sin and false doctrine

Although Jesus died for the sin of false doctrine, the person who remains in it are damned.

In saying the above without qualification you prod a reader of that statement to Universalism.

What is it David, that we escape from the errors of Evangelicalism then only to wind down to the error of Christian Universalism?

This is like jumping from the frying pan and down to the fire.


LPC said...



It was removed due to one of my former calvinist asked me about this teaching of yours

I can name several former and ex-Calvinists who are now Lutherans who agree with me. One of them is a chaplain there in USA.

It is a great shame that Waltherianism has so much influence in Lutheranism in America.

In some respects, I understand now why some Aussie Lutheran pastors here are quite skeptical of him.

Also I am not at all offended that my blog was taken out of your endorsement.

My blog stand on its own merits. There is also a time when it the blog has done its job to be retired. That will be true for ExtraNos one day.


Brett Meyer said...

Thank God he has died for and forgives backsliding, all sin and false doctrine. May we be granted true repentance and this forgiveness.

UOJ contradiction - God forgives all sin ~ May we be granted this forgiveness.

It is a different god that UOJ confesses than the One True God of Scripture and the Confessions. This is not to throw a hot iron into anyones eye. It is only to point out that the god of UOJ is contradictory, imperfect, lacking the righteousness to pay for everyone's sin of unbelief, etc. etc. It reminds me of the WELS defense of UOJ on Bailing Water blog where one soul confessed with Seigbert W. Becker - In those words God revealed himself to Moses as the God who in grace and mercy forgives sins and, at the same time, (we might almost say, in the same breath), as the God who punishes all sin, the God of justice, who will never declare the guilty to be righteous. To human reason this must always be a stumbling block and an offense. The mind of man will never discover a way to reconcile these two: God forgives every sin—God punishes every sin. This is the stubborn contradiction with which every earnest student of God’s Word must finally come to grips. page 3/4

Also reminds me of the WELS CDS principal who stated, "The whole world is saved, just not heaven saved." ~gag~

LPC said...

In my view, UOJ forces one to believe in a contradictory God. Now when one sees this opposition, the immediate response is that the anti-UOJ is the one that is being rationalistic.

There is a great deal of difference.

UOJ hides this contradiction and relabels this as paradox. Hence, they keep on multiplying paradoxes. A contradiction is an outright falsehood, it is not a true statement.

In my discipline, we have 1 paradox. This paradox does not lead into many more paradoxes.

A system of belief that multiplies so called paradoxes is subject to suspicion, in fact it is subject to being useless for if at every turn you wind up having more labeling of paradox, it is virtually non-sensible.

UOJ forces one to be absurd and look at God as an absurd God! If Calvinism depicts God like Allah who is capricious and can do anything he wants, UOJ depicts God as double minded, i.e. cannot do what he wants because he does not know what he wants. UOJ depicts God as unable to forgive and has forgiven already at the same time. UOJ implies God is contradictory and even contradicts himself!

Kilcrease wants to import the hiddeness and revealedness of God in Justification. Yet Luther and the BoC did no such importation. The latter kept such theories in their approach to Election but they never did it in their approach to Justification.

So a new invention has to be created to prop up UOJ since it lacked Scripture support or at least it misreads Scripture properly speaking.