Copleston’s “A History of Philosophy”

Yesterday I put my set of Durant’s The Story of Civilization up for offer. I said “you may expect more posts like this one in the near future.” The near future has arrived.

Here’s what Frederick Copleston‘s classic A History of Philosophy, a 15-volume paperback set, looks like on one of my library’s shelves. They’re clean and in great shape. Here’s the Wiki entry.

To repeat part of yesterday’s post, please “do your research about what this set is going for elsewhere and then, if interested, make inquiry. If we come to terms, I will lovingly wrap and package them, which are in very good condition (clean, no handwriting, no underlining, no highlighting) and [take] the box to the post office; you’ll have them in about a week. (Those of you who know that these are not idle words are free to leave testimonials to that effect below.)”

For background on this offer, please go here.

“The Story of Civilization”: Yours for a (yet undetermined) price.

One of this blog’s first posts was a tribute to Will Durant, the author (and beginning with Volume VII, co-author with wife Ariel) of The Story of Civilization.[1] I regret never having made the time to peruse every page of this series, unique in its high literary and esthetic quality, which more than compensates for the shortcomings that specialists have found reason to complain about. I no longer believe that the prospect of luxuriating in these volumes can compete with the urgent tasks that demand my attention.

I must part with these eleven tomes (1975 edition), pictured above, as I must with so many other books, asking something in return from visitors who have benefitted from what they’ve found on this site. Scholars who are still in their book-accumulation stage are my preferred customers for the contents of my library. So, do your research about what this set is going for elsewhere and then, if interested, make inquiry. If we come to terms, I will lovingly wrap and package them, which are in very good condition (clean, no handwriting, no underlining, no highlighting) and wheel the box to the post office; you’ll have them in about a week. (Those of you who know that these are not idle words are free to leave testimonials to that effect below.)

As I must accelerate the book-liquidation phase I’m in, you may expect more posts like this one in the near future.

Thank you for considering this offer. Whatever you think of it, at least have a(nother) look at that old post; it’s not half-bad.

Note

[1] “Will Durant: Fending off ‘the Reaper’ for almost a century,” November 20, 2028.

Trump’s Gaza proposal, if accepted, would be a humane response to, not an instance of, ethnic cleansing

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump hold a Gaza Strip crisis press conference, February 4, 2025

Ethnic cleansing is the explicit goal of Islamists regarding Palestine: they seek to make it judenrein in the clinical, Nazi sense of the term. To that end, Hamas—one faction of that demonic movement, composed largely of Palestinian Arabs—unleashed an orgy of sadistic, fiendish slaughter on October 7, 2023. That day, they murdered 1,200 Israelis—Jewish Palestinians living and celebrating near Gaza—without mercy, sparing neither women nor children, not even infants, whether in or ex utero. Another 250 they abducted, holding them as bargaining chips to secure the release of hundreds of Islamist fiends imprisoned in Israel so that they can resume their genocidal operations.

Israel responded to this enormity by purging Gaza of Hamas, in course of doing so rendering it virtually uninhabitable. In the aftermath of this devastation, President Trump has proposed a humane but temporary refuge for Gaza’s beleaguered civilians—an alternative to the ruin that defines the enclave. No one, least of all Trump, has advocated forcible expulsion or barring the return of those who accept the offer. The goal has never been to make Gaza araberrein (frei von Arabern), any more than it has ever been Israel’s aim so to render the Jewish state. Rather, Israel and the civilized world—against whom the Islamists have declared war—have insisted upon a Gaza that is terrorfrei (frei von Terror).

A Palestinian woman holds her daughter as she walks past the rubble of houses destroyed during the Israeli military offensive, Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, July 10, 2024. (Reuters Photo)

Trump’s proposal is a humanitarian response to the wreckage wrought by October 7—the Islamist attempt to render all of Palestine judenrein. If successful, he will not be making Israel safe again, but safe, period—or at least as safe as any nation can be this side of God’s manifest Kingdom.[1] For this, he deserves not calumny, but recognition as one of the Righteous Among the Nations (חסידי אומות העולם, Chasidei Umot HaOlam).

Note

[1]  That’s when Ezekiel’s prophecy (and so many other prophecies about ingathered and restored Israel) will be fulfilled: “After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell SAFELY all of them.” Ezekiel 38:8 (emphasis added). Dwelling safely has never characterized the life of Israelis since the founding of their secular state in 1948 (which fulfilled no biblical prophecy).

Half Shekel King Cyrus Donald Trump Jewish Temple Mount Israel Coin מחצית השקל. - Picture 1 of 12
King Cyrus/Donald Trump Jewish Temple Mount Half Shekel Israel Coin מחצית השקל (machatzit hashekel).

Happy Birthday, Wé Ani! (2025 Edition)

In the late ‘70s, I overheard my social democrat Marxist roommate, while laying out[1] an issue of his new political journal, make it clear to a supporter who disagreed with an editorial decision: “This is my journal! Should I convert to Buddhism, this becomes a Buddhist journal!” I feel that way about this site.

My occasional posts about Wé Ani [way AH-nee], a wondrous musical performer, may seem out of place on this site, devoted as it is to theology, philosophy, and history. What her performances have meant to my soul[2], however, justifies my noticing her doings from time to time. Her 26th birthday is one of those times.

AnthonyGFlood.com will not become more of a Wé Ani fan platform than it currently is; it will serve as an outlet for the joy her music brings me. If I’ve lost some of you, I understand.

(In a hurry? Skip down to “Taste and See: Five Indispensable Wé Ani Performances.”)

Here are snippets of posts that capture my sentiments and may move you to read them in context. If they inspire you to check out her videos and ask, “Where has she been all my life?,” then they have served their purpose. Continue reading “Happy Birthday, Wé Ani! (2025 Edition)”

Trump’s dream: A merit-based and color-blind society

His courage and oratory are almost enough to explain how he came to lead the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). We must not, however, overlook his profession: he was the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, an academically trained preacher in the Baptist tradition. Such titles bestow an odor of sanctity. They didn’t deflect the assassin’s bullet—ultimately set into motion by whom, we may never know[1]—but they shouldn’t inhibit us from questioning his message.

Unfortunately, the latter was the Social(ist) Gospel (SG), not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the wolf of socialism in sheep’s clothing of biblical passages. King’s education was downstream to the theology of SG’s American fountainhead, Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), who at Rochester Theological Seminary had studied under the orthodox Reformed Baptist theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836–1921).[2]

The Rev. Howard Thurman

More immediately, King came under the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) and Howard Thurman (1899-1981).[3] Neither man held Jesus’ view of Scripture. The Bible may be profound, insightful, inspiring, they thought, even “inspired,” but not breathed-out by God, the status which it claims for itself, and all that follows from that status.[4] Through reading Thurman the young King discovered the maverick Hindu Mohandas Gandhi.[5]

“So what?,” you may ask. Here’s what: King denied Jesus’ divinity[6] and resurrection[7]. The Bible was not, for King, the inerrant word of God. Such an opinion is nonsense, the product of a naïve, bygone era. For him, it was quite errant. Continue reading “Trump’s dream: A merit-based and color-blind society”

Jimmy and Joe: Progressive bookends of a (soon-to-be-bygone?) era

When the truth is being obscured, one may make an exception to the nil nisi bonum rule.

Joe Biden sold his soul to the Progressives, but Jimmy Carter began his public life as one. The peanut farmer’s folksy demeanor masked his support for the Left’s agenda, arguably more scandalous than “Scranton Joe’s” scam because of Carter’s Christian credentials. Continue reading “Jimmy and Joe: Progressive bookends of a (soon-to-be-bygone?) era”

I really do have a lot of books in need of new custodians

In November of 2023, I spelled out my book problem. Since then a reminder has sat atop the right column of this site’s home page: “Books for Sale! Click and then scroll down to the list under the covers of the books I authored. If something interests you, ask me about it.”

The link will take you to a long but only partial listing of books available. Tell me your interests (philosophy, theology, history, politics, and so forth). You might be pleasantly surprised to see what this bookworm has lovingly curated over the past half-century. It can’t hurt to ask.

If you’re still in the book-treasuring stage of life, please use my contact page to tell me, generally or specifically, your areas of interest. If I have something you’re interested in, we can work out the terms and logistics.

It would be a shame for any of them to be trashed.

Your move.

Anthony G. Flood

“Born again”: Born of Tradition, not Scripture. Otis Q. Sellers’s translation of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (John 3:3)

Heartland, Ford for President propaganda, October 1976 issue.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter (1924-2024), running for president the first time, made news by describing himself as a “born-again Christian,” the first candidate in history to do so.[1] He brought that descriptor into public awareness.

Not long after, I discovered the writings of Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992), an autodidact devoted to Bible study. I was surprised to learn that he rejected “born again” as a translation of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (gennēthē anōthen) in John 3:3, which the King Jimmy Version (and almost every other English translation) renders “You must be born again.”

Then briefly attracted to the sensationalist dispensationalism underlying Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth, I deem it a blessing that Sellers’s study of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν redirected my studies.

Unfortunately, we’re culturally stuck with “born again” along with the theology that attaches to the Holy Spirit’s enlightening work the unbiblical notion of “baptismal regeneration.” The traditional (mis)translation directs attention, not to begetting, but to birthing. Continue reading ““Born again”: Born of Tradition, not Scripture. Otis Q. Sellers’s translation of γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (John 3:3)”

Religionless Christianity: the afterword to “Christian Individualism”

Moody Bible College student Otis Q. Sellers (1901-1992), in 1921.

Below is a draft of the afterword to Christian Individualism: The Maverick Biblical Workmanship of Otis Q. Sellers, the title of a book-length (103K-word) manuscript I hope to publish in 2025. A search of <Otis Q. Sellers> on this site, which I invite you to do, will return many hits. The book chapters that will, once published, precede this afterword originated as posts; familiarity with them, however, while helpful, is not necessary. Standing apart from them, it is (I hope) intelligible enough to stimulate interest in the larger work. It’s long as posts go, but I’m hungry for feedback. Comments are welcome! So, print it out, or send it to your e-reader, or scan it ocularly.

Does this have anything to do with Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Not directly, but see the fourth reference note.

I wish my visitors a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2025!

Anthony G. Flood

* * *

Allow me first to clarify something that might bother many of you upon reading the title. What Sellers called his walk in Jesus Christ seems to express a contradiction in terms. If Christianity is one of the world’s “great religions,” there couldn’t be a religionless version of it, right?

Wrong. 

What Is Religion?

For one thing, “Christianity” refers to nothing in the God-breathed Scriptures. Reading Acts 11:26, we learn that Jesus’ disciples were first called “Christians” in first-century Antioch (present-day Antakya in southern Turkey). But nothing then corresponded to the abstraction “Christianity,” religious or otherwise.

Being justified by faith, we have peace with God (εἰρήνην πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, pros ton Theon ) through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). That faith is neither a true nor false religion. We are the blessed ones against whom God will not count our sins (Romans 4:8). What religion can give the peace that comes with knowing that?

The only religion (θρησκεία, thrēskeía) that God gave anyone—that is, the only system of outward worship, ritual practices, and religious devotion, rites and rituals, prescriptions and proscriptions governing one’s relation to Him—is found in the תּוֹרָה (to-rah), commonly referred to as the Law of Moses. Continue reading “Religionless Christianity: the afterword to “Christian Individualism””

“I’m doing philosophy; you’re doing apologetics!”

“No, I’m philosophizing Christianly.[1] Together, let’s uncover theWhat is Cultural Apologetics? worldview you’re defending (wittingly or otherwise).”

When an epistemologically self-conscious Christian makes a point that discomfits someone who’s not epistemologically self-conscious, it’s not long before the latter questions the former’s motive. “You’re not interested in the truth of the matter; you’re trying to sign me up for something, you special pleader you!” Since the Christian’s motive is not neutral, they suggest, it’s not pure. It’s suspect.

Christians who engage in apologetics are philosophizing—they’re pursuing wisdom at the highest level of generality—but they do so in dialogue with unbelievers (or inconsistent believers). The apologist may, if it’s called for, employ the analytical tools on display in articles published in peer-reviewed journals labeled “philosophical.”

Qua apologist, however, he is not necessarily trying to negotiate the conceptual terrain at the highest level of analytical exactitude. That is partly because the latter is not necessary for the apologist’s task, which is to present the excellent message or “news” (εὐαγγέλιον, evangelion) of Jesus Christ and demolish the objections to it, if any, that his auditor may throw back at him.

There’s a time and place for analytical depth and scholarly excellence, but the motive of apologetic theoria is to be found in polemical give-and-take of apologetic praxis. The Christian “lover of wisdom” (for whom Christ is the Wisdom of God) does not do apologetics “for its own sake” or to impress his fellows in the common room. He’s trying to get the other guy to recognize his need for peace with God and hopes God will use his (the apologist’s) effort to remove obstacles to that recognition. God has, of course, already ordained the outcome; it’s a discovery process for both parties. Continue reading ““I’m doing philosophy; you’re doing apologetics!””