This is not your typical book on management or leadership. If you are familiar with the previous works of these two authors you will know they intended it to be dramatically different. They succeeded well with Freedom and Accountability at Work. Peter Block starts this journey by writing the introduction. His task is to create a context by which his colleague's writings can be used to understand the dynamics of the modern workplace. Many of the concepts and ideas found in Freedom and Accountability at Work are taken from two previous books written by Koestenbaum. Both The Vitality of Death and The New Image of the Person were written by Koestenbaum in the '70s. These two philosophical books are at the heart of this new publication. This book is written on the premise that it is time to bring philosophy into the world of business by helping others find answers to their questions about the real purpose of work. It includes ways to bring ethical and spiritual values into the workplace.

Block encapsulates this thought when he writes, "Philosophy is really about a universal form of leadership and the possibility open to each person to shape or create an environment that supports the pursuit of meaning and purpose, rather than our current obsession with financial security and material wealth." Freedom and Accountability at Work provides discerning and near tangible ideas about anxiety, freedom, suffering and death. The authors maintain that viewing the purpose of work from the lens of a philosopher can provide a unique shift in mental perception. They believe that by rising above the mental traps that typically ensnare us, we can make our work places more humane and experience the accountability and real freedom we all want. The authors also provide potential solutions to those whose are presently struggling with personal suffering and depression. They encourage the reader to engage in this profound degree of change that will help one to overcome the cynicism that comes from superficial change. It is their contention that leaders need to ask these deeper philosophical questions to become better role models today and to acquire the enabling vision to lead tomorrow.

This book is a collaborative work by a philosophy professor (Koestenbaum) and a management consultant (Block) that examines an array of philosophical and psychological subjects and ties them to the role of leadership and the nature and experience of work. At its core, it is about what it means to be human in the real world. The purpose of the book is to explore the ideas of existential philosophy, and associated ideas in psychology, in the context of everyday life, particularly at work. It covers such topics as freedom, anxiety, death and evil, and links these to how we think and act. The main theme is what it means to be free and the linkage to accountability. This is not your typical book about work or management. It is about the way each of us encounters the world, experiences living, and defines ourselves. It has deep implications for personal transformation and our interaction with reality. The book is intellectually challenging, mind-expanding, and very thought-provoking, providing fundamental implications for managing people, guidance, counselling, and personal growth.

I have learned from this book! I have learned about Existential Philosophy, human beings and myself. I have affirmed my belief in freedom, human potential and the Grace of God but this book has nothing to do with religion. I have affirmed my belief in my power and responsibility to shape the world. I have learned much about the human condition. I have helped others with the knowledge that anxiety (of the existential kind as opposed to the neurotic kind, the latter being the denial of anxiety) is actually a positive state since if acknowledged it can lead one to a rebirth. I have utilized the information in this book to face conflict in relationships by bringing them into the transcendental realm where we all have a stake. I have realized that failure or the threat of death, in the form of rejection or job loss is not a threat; no one can threaten you with the inevitable. I have affirmed that I can be an idealist while being realistic.

There is much to be explored in this depth of writing; it is a heavy book both in weight and content but by reading it, you can become stronger. There are some parts of this book after first read that I admit I don't quite understand or maybe I am preventing the understanding; I will read this book again. I will continue to explore the depths of my being to bring meaning to my life and hopefully the lives of others. This is how I feel about this book; read it and discover how you feel!

I am sorry to say I did not find this book helpful or Scriptural in any way. I felt I needed to write this review, as I bought the book based on all the other 5 star reviews. Perhaps, some are young Christians who really don't know what Scriptures says. I am just going to point out a couple of things. For instance, on Page 181 and 182, she says to "bind their (the Jewish people) feet to paths of righteousness, bind their minds to the mind of Jesus and bind them to the work of the cross in their lives, so that they can escape the coming destruction that stands at their borders." The whole Great Tribulation is for the "benefit" of the Jewish people. This is what God will do in order to turn the hearts and minds of the Jewish people to recognize that the true Messiah that they are looking for, was already here, 2000 years ago. But they chose to reject His salvation, and now they will face the tribulation, either that or God will have to re-write most of the Bible which I don't think He is going to do.
Also her whole binding and loosing theory, that it was given to believers to bind up things and loose things is totally off. The whole chapter of Matt. 18, is talking about church government, as they were setting up the church. We were not given the keys to the kingdom, Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.....You can't take Scripture out of context and make it a pretext.
These are just a couple of the "wrongs" in the book. I am getting a little tired of Christians planning a "formula" to get God to do His work, in order to sell books. He will do His work and He has a perfect formula.
If Christ walked in to most Christian book stores, these days, He would probably start tossing books out the door left and right.

I attended a study bible class,that realy turned out to be more than just a bible class. I breakeing through all the bondages of the mind set that i have aquired after so many years of religious teaching. I began to bine and loose all these things, the old mind sets and begun to accept truth. my eyes begin to come open and i begin to understand the positive and negetive sides of binding and looseing. Must read Pray and get your concordence just as liberty suggest.This is a must read book for all "CHRISTIANS". It's great can't wait for the next class to start. Breaking the power.

I must say that besides the Bible, this has got to be the most powerful book I have ever read. I could sense the heavy anointing on the book by page 9 as I sat and wept. I knew God had nailed me. When He first told me I had strongholds, I didn't really understand what a stronghold was. I thought that it was some evil power that lurked over a city but God showed me differently through this book. He taught me all about mind sets and the scripture really came to life for me, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Plain and simple. I would highly recommend this book for anyone who is seriously pursuing a relationship with God. This book demands change in your life and is not for the carnal christian. Thank you for reading my review and may God bless you as He has me. In Christ!

There are many treasures to be found in this excellent book. According to Rothbard, "laissez faire" economy is not enough. What we require is a theory of justice, because so long as we exchange legitimate rigths to property, it is a philosophical and ethical matter to see what are the standards to establish when a particular title to property is actually just. Economics alone could'nt tell us that. So he sets to build a theory of justice and he is remarkably successful as to that, in general, but not in particular instances. This is a systematic work. It begins with the idea that "natural law" is a correct notion, then continues determining that property is a necessary consequence of the recognition of "human rights" -or rather, that in fact, all "human rights" boil down to property rights- In this respect, the foremost right is that one which concerns one's own person and body. Property rights over exterior objects are the consequence of men mixing their bodies (their labor)with natural resources, whence the right to own land that one has worked on if it was vacant before. Rothbard doesn't support "feudal" land ownership that comes from military conquest and does not imply the owner labor mixed in it. When this happens, the real natural owner is the laborer, the serf or the slave.

I'd wish only that Rothbard were somewhat more humble about his doctrines and convictions. He dismisses everyone else are nitwits and fools. I prefer the temptative and inquisitive style of Nozick or more recently, Jan Narveson. For example, he reviews "alternative conceptions of liberty", criticizing -sometimes quite cogently, but not always- flaws in Mises, Nozick, Hayek and Isaiah Berlin. Even James Buchanan is set upon.

When he departs from his main subjects in his construction of libertarian ethics, he reaches sometimes inconsistent or even preposterous conclusions. For example, when it comes to criminal law, he says that punishments should be the affair of the victim, himself or his heirs, either through private companies to the effect or somehow -Rothbard was, let us remember, the "enemy of the state", the greatest anarcho-capitalist-. The victim could choose the enforcement of the law or even to omit exacting any punishment or relatiation at all. But now I say: let us imagine a murder victim who has no heir or whose legacy is repudiated. Is his death to go unpunished? And what if the heir is the murderer? I'm sure that Rothbard had a answer for that, but it is not in this book.

Another reviewer has remarked upon "children rights" in this book. But I ask you, what do these rothbardian libertarians find so interesting about blackmailers? Rothbard writes pages on end to stress that blackmailers are legitimate suppliers of a good to their (should we say...?) victims. So does Walter Brock in other writings. Well, you go on like this, rothbardians, and I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun, but all by yourselves.

In sum, it is not strange that Rothbard has not found academic recognition. Nevertheless, it is worth reading if you don't take him too seriously because his recklessness is precisely what allows him to show the inconsistencies of other more sedate theorists.

Murray Rothbard was the leading libertarian thinker of the 20th century. In 1982, he published THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY, his central work on political theory and ethics. This work was republished recently with an excellent introduction by Hans-Hermann Hope (the endnotes have been converted into footnotes, a big improvement).

This work is probably the best discussion of libertarian philosophy from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. In addition, Rothbard develops a theory based on natural law, thus distancing himself from other strands of libertarian thought.

The book is particularly comprehensive. Starting with a discussion of natural law, Rothbard turns to practical issues such as voluntary exchange, contracts, and the rights of children. He then discusses the concept of the state. He ends the work with discussions of different approaches to rights and a strategy for advancing liberty. The comprehensive nature of the work is also its greatest weakness. Rothbard discusses too many subjects in too few pages. For example, the difficult question of the rights of children takes all of 15 pages. Yet there is no more difficult question for any theory of rights than that question.

Rothbard's discussion of the rights of children is emblematic of the weakness and at times superficial nature of this work. Take Rothbard's discussion of when the parents' "jurisdiction" over a child ends. He states: "Surely, any particular age (21, 18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution to this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his FULL rights of self-ownership WHEN HE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE HAS THEM IN NATURE-in short when he leaves or 'runs away' from home." [p. 103; emphasis in the original.] First of all, it may be arbitrary to establish the age of emancipation at 18 rather than 17, but such decisions are found in all areas of life and are not thereby rendered "completely arbitrary." In any event, is it "completely arbitrary" to set it at 18 rather than 5? Moreover, Rothbard's "solution" is in most respects even more arbitrary. For example, if Junior Jones runs away when he is 8 years old, does that mean his parents cannot force him to stay? What if Junior is 5 and wanders off his parents' property and stays at the Smiths' house, asserting that he would prefer to live with the Smiths. Has he then demonstrated a "right to self-ownership" in nature? Would it be wrong for the Joneses to take him back? Rothbard uses a similar argument against Laissez-faire advocates of limited government who believe the state may provided limited protection services. Supposedly their views fail because how much or little services such a government might provide can only be "purely arbitrary." [p. 181.] This type of argument leads Rothbard to advocate abortion-on-demand, a position with which I strongly disagree.

For whatever flaws it contains, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY it is certainly one of the most provocative books you will ever read.

This is a very powerful work to say the least. Rothbard pushes natural rights and the non-initiation of force arguments to the full extreme. Despite this, I still disagree with him on one major point; the necessity of government. Although the idea has only been lightly touched upon by theorists, government is possible without any initiation of force against the governed. In fact, it is this ideal government that is the only alternative to both anarchy and statism. Nevertheless, Rothbard keeps you on your toes at all times. It is impossible to challenge anarcho-capitalism without an indepth understanding of this book. Ultimately, the premises of this book are virtually irrefutable, it is only the conclusions that one may dispute.

I hope this book goes back in print because it is a good book to teach tolerance of cultural differences. The Araboolies are a colorful people who like to have fun. Yes they do shake up the neighborhood and push limits of conservative decorum, but they represent the change in our communities to more multicultural neighbors. Fun illustrations and a good story!

What a great book to start off the school year! I'd even recommend it for up through eighth grade.

Liberty Street is a quiet street where the residents live in fear of upsetting the General. Everything is the same, same, same. Each house is the same, everyone follows similar schedules... ho-hum boredom!

Until... the Araboolies move in. See what they do to change an everyday ho-hum street into a street that is worth living on.

This book not only examines the differences in people and life (which make the world a not-so-boring place!) and actually celebrates them! A great way to start off the school year.

Hooray! This book is back in print!!!

Such a delightful book! I first learned of this book when our minister read the book to the children one Sunday. When I learned that the book was out of print, I began to search for used copies, but had no luck. Then one day I discovered that the book was being re-printed and I signed up immediately to have it delivered to me.

The story of the Araboolies changing colors each day and sleeping on the front lawn always brings a smile to me and to my children. This book teaches tolerance in a way that is easy to understand. I plan on giving a copy of this book to all of my closest friends with children.

Thea Kozak is in her wedding dress and about to walk down the aisle when she gets the news. Her fiance and the father of her unborn baby, Maine State Trooper Andre Lemieux, has been kidnapped by the Katahdin Constitutional Militia. This terrorist, anti-government organization wants to exchange him for one of theirs, a Jed Harding sitting in jail. Thea, knowing she'll never be able to simply watch the investigation from the sidelines, convinces the State Police to let her go undercover as a waitress in Merchantville -- the little northern town now turned hotbed for militia activity -- and see what her ears pick up. But, being Thea, it isn't long before she's not just listening but also doing and has gotten herself in as much trouble as her beloved.

LIBERTY OR DEATH, the sixth book in Kate Flora's series about the educational consultant often turned PI, Thea Kozak, has been a long time coming. And it's a bittersweet experience. Since Flora has always done an excellent job of characterizing a Maine State Trooper, I was disappointed to discover Andre hardly appears in this sequel at all. I understand the plot didn't need him (present, anyway), but I still missed him. Thea herself has toned down some. She's still sassy and in-your-face, but losing her rock seems to have made her more mature (though still willing to throw herself at danger on every other page). The description of the unofficial militia movement is accurate and timely; so is the portrayal of a small Maine town in which everybody's news is everybody else's. Flora tends toward long winded accounts of every thought going through Thea's head, but at least some of the thoughts in this book (contrary to previous enstallments) haven't already been described several times over. And while her writing style never sings, it grows more solid with each attempt. I do have a major complaint with the plot -- the Maine State Police allowing the civilian fiance of one of their Troopers to go undercover? But it does make for good fiction and I certainly enjoyed this latest addition to the Kozak world.

Thea may at times remind the reader of an oversized Nancy Drew, but in LIBERTY OR DEATH she is strong enough to make you both laugh and cry. And want more.

I first read Kate Flora's books a few years ago when they were recommended at my local book store. I missed her first couple of books -- they are hard to get-- but I have read the rest of them. I loved Death by Paradise--it was much better than her previous books. I was very glad to see that she had a new book out. I loved it! Thea, the main character, is great. I love strong female main characters--Kinsey Milhone, Stephanie Plum--and Thea! If you haven't read Thea before--jump right in. I'm glad she's back, and I hope Kate doesn't take so long in between Thea's next adventure!

Pregnant Thea Kozak stands at the altar waiting for the arrival of the groom, her beloved State Trooper Andre Lemieux, to exchange I do. However, instead of her beau, Thea learns that a domestic terrorist cell the Katahdin Constitutional Militia has kidnapped her future spouse. The group demands a trade for an incarcerated member, Jed Harding, who went berserk when the VA rejected his medical claim for his ailing son.

Though Andre's boss and peers prefer Thea stay out of the mess, she has dealt with murder and death before so she insists on participating in the rescue. Andre's supervisor Jack Leonard provides Thea with the cover of a battered runaway spouse Dora McCusick. Thea travels to Merchantville, Maine where she obtains employment as a waitress at Mother Theresa's restaurant. As Thea does what she is not supposed to do (investigate) she begins to learn why Jed prefers jail than the militia as paranoia runs rampant in this part of Maine.

Thea is a powerful lead protagonist who propels the story line forward with her unwelcome involvement yet ironically her soliloquies disrupt the action. Fans of the series will appreciate the lead character that just cannot sit idly by and take notes. Newcomers will need to adjust to this feisty in your face female especially when she provides asides. If given the chance, the tyro will soon gain new fans, as LIBERTY OR DEATH is a fabulous amateur sleuth-police procedural combo that highlights Kate Flora's abilities to entertain the troops.

Harriet Klausner

It is always difficult (and some say impossible) to analyze a society or culture from an objective and apodictic point of view, for the obvious reason that the individuals doing the analysis have to sit outside the phenomena in which they are analyzing. If they characterize a particular society as being dysfunctional or its citizens maladjusted in some way, and they themselves are embedded in this society, then an obvious question arises as to why they have the ability to make this characterization, and are not themselves the products of the problems of this culture. In addition, if such individuals put their analysis in print, and if one or more readers understand and are sympathetic with their opinions, then these readers too, must have not been influenced by the problems of the society. Thus the issue comes down to counting the number of individuals who have escaped the decadent influences of their own culture, which entails the use of statistical and scientific analysis.

The author of this book does not subject the societies that he analyzes to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Thus the contents of the book are merely opinions, but that is not to say that one could not get anything out of its perusal. Its contents are thought provoking, and could serve to motivate readers to perhaps attempt to justify them more quantitatively. There is only one place in the book where the author performs any degree of statistical analysis: he gives tables detailing the number of suicides and homicides and alcoholics per 100,000 of adult populations in sixteen countries. This table is used to give a rough guide to the mental health of these countries. He concludes also, from the data in the table, that affluent societies have the highest incidence of suicides, and therefore are the most mentally or emotionally unstable. He does not however take into account that the data may indicate a transient type of phenomena, possibly from extraneous or extreme historical events, that caused problems in some of the individuals populating these countries. Two world wars may indeed have been a temporary but large perturbation to these individual's mental health, traumatizing them to the degree that suicide or alcoholism was their seemingly only option. And one could perhaps imagine a society where alcoholism and suicide were prevented by some artificial and coercive acts of the government, such as requiring individuals to take mind-altering drugs that will alleviate tendencies to suicide or alcoholism. Thus the mere absence or rare occurence of suicides or alcoholics does not by itself point to a "sane" society.

But it is free societies that the author is most concerned with, and, thus he argues, in spite of the rise of free time and less burdens placed on modern humans, they still commit suicide and abuse alcohol more than perhaps societies that do not possess the luxury of leisure time. But no case studies are given for the kinds of behavior that the author asserts is present predominantly in free, afluent socieites. Indead, the author engages in a diatribe that is general and philosophical, with no attempt to gather statistics to support what he believes about free, capitalist societies. In addition, he makes no effort to study the individuals who feel very happy to live and work in such societies. The reason for this is perhaps the author's belief that these kinds of individuals were the consequence of a attempt to "mold them for the purpose of the continuing functioning of the society". Thus their happiness is not really genuine, but merely a state resulting from being manipulated to follow some requirement of "social character". "Capitalism", he says, "needs men who cooperate smoothly in large groups; who want to consume more and more, and whose tastes are standardized and can be easily influenced and anticipated." This may be true to a degree, but capitalist societies also need individuals who swim against the current, this need being driven by innovation. Technological change demands independence of thought as well as self-confidence, and a free society cannot survive without having a large collection of its citizens possessing these qualities. The author though seems to be unable to imagine how anyone could be truly happy in a free, capitalist society. And again, the author does not give one example of an individual or case study that would substantiate his claims. Of all the people who live in the societies he criticizes, can't he find one individual who he can cite, perhaps from medical journals or physicians case-histories, that is an example of a maladjusted, dysfunctional, perhaps mentally ill person who exemplifies his assertions? If one is to believe the author's theories, much more than mere dialog will have to be presented. Such studies are difficult but that is the nature of scientific research into mental illness and psychology.

Every human born in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is born into a situation that is not of their own making. And everyone is subject to influences and events that they do not have control over. The fact that we all sometimes do not object to such influences and events is not a sign that we enjoy being dominated and want to escape from our freedom, as the author claims. It may indeed be a sign and proof that we have optimized our emotional and psychological health, that we are genuinely happy, and that we find life in the 21st century exhilirating.

I read this book last semester in my Philosophy 100 class. I thought it was probably the most influential to me because I seem to share a lot of views with Fromm and he can be easier to read than I thought Nietzche was. Very interesting, if you want to read some philosophy and make sense of it, I would recommend this one.

Although this book has been written almost 50 years ago it still provides basic insight into our behavior in the modern world. 'Money, prestige and power are the main incentives today for the largest section of our population - that which is employed'. This probably holds still today whereas some of the major concerns of the fifties are not concerning people any more. A book to read and think about!

When I first started reading "Burning All Illusions" I went into it with an open mind. As I continued my pursuit of "freedom" I was more than annoyed to find yet another book that does nothing but complain about the government and the media. I seems that the media has become the great modern scapegoat, always blamed when there is a problem in society that no one wants to tackle head on. "Burning All Illusions" is no exception to this trend. If there is a social problem from poverty to alienation, it is the government or the media who are at fault, not the public. Any solutions to Edwards alleged grievances are overly idealistic and unable to be implemented. I don't know why Edwards thought that the world needed another cliché commentary on modern society, but he has provided one.

"Burning" is that peculiarly ambitious reading experience which defies categorization. I've personally purchased and given it to nearly a half-dozen friends. The book assumes a need for personal autonomy in a society so committed to denying, even killing that assumption. This book should be cross-references under cultural studies, anthropology, sociology, politics. If you appreciated Phillip Slater's seminal "The Pursuit of Loneliness" or like music by Billy Bragg and Pete Seeger and Sweet Honey in the Rock; if you resent coercion and authority; if you're glad General Pinochet is under arrest; if you question the assumptions of psychology, you'll enjoy this book.

To the other reviews, i would add that this is of the kind of writing that is hard to find after ca. 1930 - one of those rare reminders that the voice of a whole, balanced person is not a neutered voice but a bracingly strong one. Page for page, the writing is easy to read but instantly provides a deep and complex mirror for your own life - kind of like D.H.Lawrence (as an essayist) combined with Gary Zukav.

If that seems a stretch, it's an important one to make - e.g, Edward's treatment of Chomsky by way of Joe Campbell is indispensable. Best of all, Edwards works great references and a keen sense of cultural history into this liberating screed, without ever leaving the here and now for the airy heights of intellectualism, a la 'Irrational Man' or Colin Wilson, etc.

Do yourself and every other living being a favor and give this a shot - it's closer to a Western Mahabharata then anything else you're likely to find. I feel John Lennon's ghost smiling every time i crack this book open.

In his biography of Partick Henry, Vaughan complains that previous biographers were unfair to the legendary statesman. Thus, he moves to correct this historical error by bringing forth a laundry list of glowing facts about Henry. While Vaughan does have a point about previous renderings of Henry's life, he does little to paint a more accurate picture of the orator. Rather, he glosses over Henry flaws, and presents us with a candy-coated version of the man. And Henry was a man--a good man, but a man nonetheless. Unfortunately, this biography fails to recognize that.

What a delightful read this book has been. The author displays a clear and deep admiration for his subject, but I find no fault in that. The book reads very easily without a lot of stilted verbiage, making it a wonderful introduction of the great orator to the student.

There is not a lot of detailed analysis here, but I don't believe that was the authors' intention. This work is meant to be an outline and introduction Henry, the Trumpet of the Revolution.

The work is actually presented as three separate volumes in one binding. Part 1 takes the reader from birth to death, touching on the momentous occasions, as well as a good bit of reference to the details of life which shaped the life of Henry. Part 2 gives Henry's views of some of life's virtues, such as Christianity, patriotism and duty and gives an insightful look at the character of this great American. Part 3 concludes with how Henry has been remembered by history, and how he should be remembered.

Overall, a delightful read which I highly recommend to students or anyone wishing to gain a basic insight to a great American patriot.

It was wonderful to see Patrick Henry's Christian values and belief on the LORD JESUS CHRIST openly written about. I enjoyed it completely and would recommend it to any who enjoy studying the Revolutionary War. BUY IT!

_The Only Wise God_ is a defense of freewill (in the face of divine foreknowledge) and Molinism. Craig turns his attention to the age-old dilemma of human freedom and divine foreknowledge, and attempts a solution. Through a series of discussions on time travel, psychic precognition, and logical fatalism, Craig tries to show that people have freewill even though God knows what they are going to do tomorrow. The strengths of this book include its Biblical defense of divine foreknowledge, and its amazingly clear presentation of the Molinist doctrine of "middle knowledge." However, I do not think that Craig proves his point. His entire case rests upon the reduction of theological fatalism to logical fatalism. That is, Craig thinks that the existence of an omniscient God poses no more of a threat to libertarian freedom than it would if no God existed. But this reductionistic presentation has been sharply critiqued by Nelson Pike and others. I was unconvinced by Craig's book, and I suspect most people will be. The strong intuition that God's past belief about what I will do tomorrow is somehow "fixed" and "unalterable" is hard to deny, and Craig doesn't deal with this issue in any real detail, since he sees it as superfluous.

Furthermore, Craig attempts to refute the major lines of D. A. Carson's argumentation in his book, _Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility_, but in doing so he does not fairly wrestle with the actual Biblical passages. Having read Carson, this severely disappointed me. Craig claims that the Bible says men have freewill, but he produces no clear-cut verses that establish this fact, and he brushes aside the counter-examples given by Carson without any discussion.

I recommend this book for a good defense of Molinism. But for a Biblical critique of Craig's belief in libertarian freewill, I recommend Carson's book mentioned above, and the site,

www.freewill.doesntexist.com

This site offers a storehouse of arguments and Biblical passages used by Calvinists and Arminians alike.

William Lane Craig's book, The Only Wise God, is probably the best introduction to the topic of molinism for beginners of the subject. That is not to say the book is easy reading; it is not. But his clarity and abundance of examples brings out his points nicely such that any casual reader with some intellectual capacity can comprehend his work. There are several positive and negative points of this book. I will highlight each in turn.

Positive Points: (1) The book does a great job explaining God's knowledge of future contingents. He deals with a number of objections, such as those posed by the open theists. (2) He does a nice job explaining Nelson Pike's argument, laying it out formally, and then providing and critiquing three ideas that philosophers have suggested to avoid theological fatalism. (3) In answering the problem with a more reasonable answer, he ties it to questions about precognition, Newcomb's paradox, time travel, etc. He also answers one of the traditional fatalist arguments raised through history about necessity. (4) Lastly, he offers tables to make his points more understandable and he argues his view well.

Negative points: (1) Craig, though I highly respect him, makes some disappointing moves. For instance, he interacts with D.A. Carson, who provides a number of scriptural citations to suggest that libertarian agency is not biblical after all; that is to say that LFW is not what grounds moral responsibility as Craig believes. Here's an excerpt: "Carson counters that there are many cases in the OT where human thoughts and decisions are attributed directly to God's determining (2 Sam. 24:1; Isa. 9:13-14; 37:7; Prov. 21:1; Ezra 1:1; 7:6, 27-28; Neh. 2:11-15). These references, however, are not very convincing and do not even approach a universal determinism.". This is what is called a waving of the hand. I doubt that Carson would find his reply sufficient. (2) There is often this talk about a "genuine freedom." Craig assumes that libertarian agency is genuine when compatibilists will assert that Craig's use of language is an extreme begging of the question. If we in fact do not have the type of control libertarians claim, then it is not genuine at all. (3) I also noticed a loose use of "fatalism." Anyone who apparentely denied the principle of alternative possibilities was rendered a fatalist. Calvinists such as Jonathan Edwards and Paul Helm were noted, along with even Martin Luther. But later, fatalism concerns necessity such that what we will do, we must do. In other words, my writing this review is and has always been necessary. There is no possible world in which I am not writing this review or that this state of affairs could be exemplified. But the "fatalists" mentioned above do not attribute the acts of men as necessary such as the proposition, "God is good," is thought to be necessary. Rather, they denied alternative possibilities and thus libertarian ageny (c.f. "genuine" freedom) because they believed our actions were logically posterior to God's decree and that God's knowledge of our actions were logically grounded in his foreordination. Hence, in the beginning of the book when he does note such people , he is incorrect. When he actually discusses theological fatalism later , I think Craig is on target. (4) The last main problem is that the entire book assumes the existence of libertarian agency. If libertarian agency is incoherent as some philosophers have suggested (i.e. Saul Smilansky), or if determinism (physical or even theological) is true, then the entire book would be completely out of touch with the relationship that actually exists between human beings and God. It would, however, still provide interesting work *if* we were to have libertarian agency. Thus, this book only appeals most strongly to those who already share Craig's assumption.

Though I think Craig is wrong for both philosophical and theological reasons, even if he and Alvin Plantinga state there is no cogent philosophical response (an over-stating of the case in my opinion), I think his work should be read: especially by those who disagree with him. Craig's work has been highly influential, both on the popular and academic level. Despite my vast number of negative comments, as far as I can tell, there is no better place to start than this book for understanding middle-knowledge. I highly recommend it.

If the God of traditional theism is omniscient, then he knows what choices we'll be faced with in the future and how we'll act on them. For instance, if God has always known that I'll write a review of "The Only Wise God" on November 21st, then I cannot do otherwise -- I am "fated" to write this review! For if God has always known that I will write it and I freely choose not to, then God was ignorant of the choice I made. But God cannot be ignorant of my conditional acts, as ignorance is an imperfection. So the question still stands: if God eternally knows our conditional acts, how can true freedom exist? This is the question William Lane Craig attempts to answer.

Craig explains that God's foreknowledge and determination are two different things. For example, I know that spring will occur on March 20th, but I don't "cause" it. My knowing that flowers bloom during this season doesn't "cause" them to do so. Thus God knowing, in His omniscience, how we will respond to His grace does not determine our response. He simply knows the response we will make (being out of time) to that which was necessary for us to act either way (either accepting or rejecting His grace). So although God knew that I was going to write this review before I was born, He did not directly cause my free action. This is a very elementary distinction. If I had chosen to do otherwise, then God would have already known that. This is middle knowledge in a nutshell. Thank you William Lane Craig.

I think that it's a good book for who'd like to begin programming

This book will really teach you C++, it is richly detailed with hundreds of code listings that I was able to type in and compile. It starts very basic and leads up to more complex data structures, classes and objects as well as pointer and references. It is rich and detailed. I really learned usefull c++!

This is one of 3 books that I recommend if you want to learn C and C++. In fact, I think so highly of it that I have had to purchase it several times because I keep giving my copies to friends (who also think highly of it).