Texas in July 2014

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

In July 2014 I’ll be flying to Houston, Texas, for the first Rethinking Hell conference. I will also be speaking to a class at Trinity School of Theology about theological anthropology and Christology (specifically, how a materialist theological anthropology might work and in hand with orthodox Christology), and in a second public event I will be giving a public lecture at Houston Baptist University on an as-yet unannounced topic related to religion in the public square. (I’ve only put the public events on the picture above.) I’m very excited about this trip and would love to meet you if you’re in the area.

But if you’re not able to be at either of these events (or even if you are), there is room for more! If you’re in the Houston area and you are interested in having me come and speak to a group where you are (or even if you’re not in Houston but you are interested), drop me a line! I realise that many colleges are on holiday during the time I will be there, but the dates that are best are the 8th or 9th of July in Houston, or if you’re further afield (especially California, as I will be going to Houston either via LA or San Francisco) we can talk about when would suit.

Glenn Peoples

Similar Posts:

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.

{ 7 comments… add one }
  • lotharson March 24, 2014, 1:28 pm

    I’m really looking forward to watch this, Glenn.

    There is a popular argument against God called the “arguments from physical minds” according to which God’s existence is extremely unlikely or even impossible because we cannot conceive of a disembodied soul.

    It would be interesting to know if Christian materialism could go as far as asserrting that there is a kind of divine stuff or matter God Himself is made up, though I don’t doubt many would scream loud “Heresy!

    Anyway, after having interviewed Chris Date on conditional immortality, I would feel greatly honored to interview you about more philosophical issues.

    Though I strongly disagree with theistic voluntarism, following theologian Roger Olson, I find that the form of Calvinism you advocate (where reprobation means ceasing to exist instead of eternal torture) is the intellectually and morally most robust version of reformed theology I have ever encountered.

    You are a fascinating man and it is always a pleasure for me to read your elegantly written posts, even if you are way more conservative than I am.

    Lovely greetings in Christ.

  • lotharson March 24, 2014, 1:29 pm

    By the way you look pretty terrifying on the picture πŸ™‚

  • Dan March 25, 2014, 2:12 pm

    So….I’m just noting a little irony in the depiction of America in the photo. Of all the guns silhouetted against the flag, you’ve got German, Israeli, British, Belgian, Italian, an antique muzzleloader of uncertain parentage, and an Italian and a German handgun. Maybe the hand grenade is American?

    Moreover, Budweiser is owned by a Belgian company. Yes, we have now outsourced the manufacture of the nastiest beer-flavored soda pop in the world to Belgium. Instead of a domestic macrobrew, it is now a fancy foreign import from the same people who brought you Stella Artois.

    All that’s left of America is the monster huge burger and the eagle spying on us out of the side of the picture. Over which is superimposed your manic grin.

    What are you really trying to say here, Glenn? πŸ˜‰

  • Andy March 25, 2014, 6:45 pm

    Yep, that’s a truly bizarre and terrifying photo! πŸ™‚

  • Glenn March 25, 2014, 8:22 pm

    Lotharson

    I have had a look at the piece by Olson, I will just say: Don’t sell yourself short. If you want a good discussion of voluntarism, pick somebody who knows a bit more about it (e.g. a critic like Mark Murphy). Olson is not in familiar territory there and it shows (with all due respect to him, criticisng views that he does not hold is a very weak spot for him).

    But in regard to your question, no I certainly wouldn’t countenance the idea of God being made of any sort of matter. In fact I wouldn’t even ask if Christian materialism “could go as far” as to say that. That is not the same position, taken to a further extreme. That is a belief rather different in kind to what I am maintaining. All of us already believe in a physical universe, where physical matter and energy are what it is made of. Being a materialist about human beings, all I am saying is that we are part of the universe.

    But asking whether or not God is part of the universe isn’t just materialism about humans ramped up a notch.

  • Giles March 26, 2014, 2:01 am

    Glenn, just read your open letter to traditionalists. A tour de force. In a boxing match it would be a knockout first round. As a Universalist I actually think that if the focus is narrowly on the texts dealing with the consequences of sin and salvation and damnation, conditional immortality would be streets ahead, with eternal torment and universalism virtually tied for second place. Though I think conditionalism would be stronger if you dropped soul sleep and said that there is an intermediate state but that any torments there are remitted from the final sentence. If we are allowed to reason from the revealed character of God I think it’s a virtual tie for first place between my position and yours.
    Incidentally I don’t get why so many think the case for post mortem salvation is weak. Paul says we are raised with Christ at his coming and that we shall judge the world with him. And we know that some of those judged by us (the sheep/those written in the book of life) will be saved. QED. Further proof the sheep in Christ’s parable are not Christians – they clearly don’t know the parable of the sheep and the goats! Hence their surprise.
    Also anyone who says those who die as infants may be saved (pretty much everyone) must either affirm post mortem chances, deny they need a saviour or affirm that explicit faith is not needed. The latter two options are much more heretical than the first. Anyhow, Kudos.

  • Giles March 26, 2014, 10:34 am

    Ah, just read your critique of Peterson and I see that conditionalism works best if you affirm Jesus didn’t exist between death and resurrection. Then you can say he took our penalty. Fair enough. One point you could have made in the other paper, re the mistranslation they has us being shut out of Jesus presence, is that even if you go with that translation, to be shut out of omnipresence is to be shut out of existence. Keep pulling up people who misrepresent others. There’s so much theological dishonesty and you are a breath of fresh air.

Leave a Comment

Remember: All comments should conform to the blog policy and you must use your real name. Comments that do not conform may be removed in whole or in part. You can review the blog policy here.

 Characters remaining