text:
Indiana Assault or Domestic Violence Laws
Indiana Home Page and
A Indiana Online Anger Management Class
Indiana Anger Management Classes
The Temper Talk™ online anger management class is among the most widely accepted, comprehensive, affordable and effective way to gain anger management skills. This anger management class was written and prepared for court ordered clients, students, employees and for personal growth. The Temper Talk™ online anger management class is listed as an accepted anger management program throughout the United States, including Indiana, Canada, and abroad. Our web-based online anger management class includes:
* A complete 8, 10 or 12 hour anger management class based on the book The Psychology of Anger , by Steven M. Houseworth, MA.
* Where we find an average of $195 for similar anger classes, ours if much more affordable.
* A self-paced anger management class online learning experience.
* Log in, Log out 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
* Online exam following each chapter and a final exam.
* Immediately upon completion printable Certificate of Completion for verification.
* Accepted by Court, Probation Officer or Schools in Indiana, or money-back guaranteed.
This Indiana online anger management class was designed to meet Indiana court, probation department, diversion program, school and human resource department requirements. Our online anger management classes are an effective, convenient and less expensive way of learning how to better manage and control anger related problems that may arise for you and others needing a Indiana anger management class.
Is the Temper Talk™ Anger Management Class Right for You?
Anger Management programs can vary a great deal in terms of content and delivery method. Like many things on the internet they are not always what they "appear" to be. Fortunately most of the anger classes offered online are good and reputable, however, there are a few anger classes offered that are either a bit deceptive about pricing (i.e., one price is all you really pay), certificate delivery (is it mailed or does it cost more?) or simply do not meet a high professional quality standard .
A Nationwide Program
Temper Talk™ is a Nationwide Company that has a reputation across the Nation for our high quality programs. We have been providing anger management classes since 1994 as our Temper Talk program.
Some "Online" anger programs are not actually a real online service. These anger classes indicate they are an online program because they can be found and purchased on a web page, but in reality the anger class is really a book you purchase or a download file that you put on your computer. This is really not an online class but rather a product you purchase on the web.
When we say we offer a Online Indiana Anger Management Class, we mean "Online."
With our anger class you will register online, create your username/password so that you can log in and out of the program as many times as you want 24/7. You make your anger class purchase online. You take all of your coursework online as well. There are no downloads or anything else. The system will "remember" you and all of your scores as you log in and out of our secure system. You will also be able to print the Anger Class Certificate of Completion directly from your screen upon successful completion of the program.
A Workbook Class is available too
As an alternative to the online class, please note we do also offer a workbook/correspondence course for those without internet access.
Credentials, Experience and Qualified
If you are comparing programs we encourage you to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. What is the history of the company providing the course? What kind of experience, education and training qualifies them to offer classes?
Temper Talk™ staff began researching and working with anger management clients in 1994. At the onset the service was called Temper Talk. Now, Temper Talk™ is a nationwide service providing high quality evidence based anger management services. All Temper Talk™ counselors are required to complete rigorous training prior to becoming a certified counselor. All Counselors are required to have a minimum of a Bachelor's Degree and are supervised by staff with a minimum of a Master's Degree.
Can a judge, probation officer or attorney contact the agency to verify credentials?
Of course! If your specific court is not familiar with our program you may wish to print our court approval documentation, (click here to get document). to give them further information. If they contact our office we will also provide them access to our online anger class so they can view the program and its integrity for themselves.
The Psychology of Anger
What is the program based off of? Is there substance or just feel good babble? The Temper Talk™ anger management class is based on the book The Psychology of Anger, written by Steven M. Houseworth, MA who is a consultant for Temper Talk™ Listed below are the objectives of our program.
OBJECTIVE 1: Empowerment: To assist the client in developing a sense of personal responsibility for each decision they make. Prior to completing our online course each client will acknowledge that anger behaviors are learned and utilized, either because they appears effective or because of a lack of alternative anger skills.
OBJECTIVE 2: Education: To inform each client of myths associated with anger. Further, to educate each client about the source of the anger emotion and orient to the process of choosing anger behaviors. The purpose is to have each client perceive anger quite differently and to question his/her existing attitudes, values and beliefs.
OBJECTIVE 3: Skills: To facilitate the development of an anger strategy and expose the client to a variety of "in the moment" mental and behavioral anger management techniques. The need to identify specific strategies and techniques and practice is encouraged and emphasized.
OBJECTIVE 4: Victim Awareness: Special attention is paid to identify the impact that inappropriate anger emotions and behaviors has on strangers, friends, family, fellow students and work colleagues, and particularly the immediate victim of angering behaviors. Prior to the completion of the anger class, the client will be aware that inappropriate anger behaviors create victims.
OBJECTIVE 5: Empathy Development: To have each client consider the value he/she places on "others." This objective entails having the offender look into him/herself, introspectively and weigh the value placed on SELF vs. the value placed on OTHERS. Prior to, and long after completing the course each client will question themselves - asking, seriously, how important they believe others really are.
Do they offer a refund policy? What happens if your court does not accept the program?
Temper Talk™ stands behind its program and offers a full money back guarantee. Click here to view the Temper Talk™ Guarantee.
Why is the Temper Talk™ price so reasonable?
At Temper Talk™ we strive hard to keep our overhead costs low so that we can pass on the savings to you. We are well aware of all the other financial obligations that were likely placed upon you by the courts. We want you to be successful at completing your court orders. We give you, what we believe to be a solid honest fair price for our service. With our program I am very confident that you will be receiving one of the best anger management programs available.
Anger Management skills can be learned in many ways. For some, an online program is best. No need to take time off work or out of your busy schedule. You complete the course in your home or at any internet connection on your schedule. Our classes are available 24/7. For others, sitting in a group or with a live instructor might be the best option. Either way make sure the program that you utilize measures up .
The Temper Talk™ Anger Management Classes
Temper Talk™ Inc. provides anger management classes as an 8 hour anger management class, a 10 hour anger management class or a 12 hour anger management class. The anger management curriculum is based on, "The Psychology of Anger" by Steven Michael Houseworth, MA. Our anger management classes teach behavior change methods, explore anger and anger management, confront myths about anger management and totally separate the anger emotion from anger behaviors. A key component of an effective anger management class is to educate the student about the dangers of mental rehearsing anger reactions. No anger management class would be complete if it did not include anger management strategy and anger management techniques. All three anger management classes work under the assumption that the way a person thinks guides the way a person behaves. The Temper Talk™ anger management classes use a cognitive restructuring approach which basically follows the tenant of Norman Vincent Peale (1898 - 1993): "Change your thoughts and you will change your world." Our anger management classes ask the client to explore their attitudes, values and beliefs. Each of our anger management classes end asking the client to figure out what they believe, who they are and to identify their value system. To this end, our anger management classes have a victim focus and work toward understanding and developing empathy.
The Temper Talk™ anger management classes outline communication skills which include active listening. In addition active listening is an important part of anger management, as is developing and understanding of assertiveness and assertiveness skills. Our anger management classes work with the premise that a genuine apology is the only meaningful apology. Those in our anger management classes are not instructed to make an apology but are told of the potency of an apology.
Simply stated our anger management classes are designed to help people, young and old, learn healthy anger management. The consequences of unhealthy anger management include: anger management related health problems, anger management related family problems, anger management related financial problems, anger management related legal problems, and anger management related relationship problems. Anger management class referrals come from courts, employers, schools and of course people make their own anger management class referral. We do not recommend juveniles take our ten or 12 hour anger management classes.
The Temper Talk™ anger management classes began in 1994. As practitioners in the criminal justice field it was very clear that most crime is driven by theft (shoplifting, car theft, burglary, robbery etc.) and by anger management problems (assault, menacing, domestic violence, harassment, road rage, etc.). As a result, it only made sense to focus on a specialty of theft and anger management. Our first anger management class was called Temper Talk and we quickly learned that conducting anger management classes is a formidable task. Initially we spent most of our time on techniques and, through trial and error, our anger management class evolved into the anger management class it is today. Our education, the volumes or research and practice has proven that an anger management class has little likelihood of being effective unless a key component is included - the attitudes, values and beliefs of the person with the anger management problem. Anger management clients need to change their thinking if they want to overcome their anger management issues.
As more and more famous people (movie stars, professional athletes and politicians) have experienced anger management problems and been required to complete anger management classes, communities have become more and more aware of the problems associated with anger management. If you put in a "Google Alert" for the words "anger management" you will be flooded on a daily set of anger management emails resulting from anger management problems across the country. Unfortunately, stress is directly correlated to anger and as our culture becomes more stressed we should anticipate more incidences of anger management problems. The good news is that with increased public exposure to famous people with anger management issues people like you and I are more open to seeking anger management classes. These days, most of the anger management clients I meet are not feeling stigmatized by being referred to an anger management class. In fact many of them see anger management classes as an opportunity for personal growth.
What types of people go to Anger Management Classes?
Let's face it, most people don't seek out anger management classes without a precipitating anger management event. The anger management event is typically a set of behaviors that got the person in trouble. "Trouble" with anger management comes in many forms but most commonly those who complete our anger management classes have an anger management problem that got them in trouble with the legal system. There is no law called "anger management problem" but it is common knowledge that assaults, domestic violence, harassment and even murder is often anger related. The next most common group of people who take our anger management classes come as the result of an anger management conflict at work, school or even in their home. What types of people go to anger management classes? Typically the person who goes to an anger management class has been required to attend an anger management class by a judge, probation officer, employer, school official, or even a spouse or parent. Though most people who attend our anger management classes are required to attend, there are people who are tired of the problems their anger have caused and as a result seek anger management classes on their own.
Our anger management classes separate anger into two categories, anger emotions and anger behaviors. Though there are many consequences for extreme, frequent or prolonged anger emotions, most anger management classes serve clients who have displayed inappropriate anger behaviors. Anger management problem behaviors problems are most commonly verbal or physical. Verbal abuse, threatening, loud tirades, verbal threats and verbal assaults are quite common ways people display an anger management problem. As you can well imagine, this kind of verbal reaction to anger is not acceptable in the workplace, at school or in the home and results in consequences. Physical anger management displays often come as an explosion or "blow out" when there is assault, pushing or fighting, a road rage incident or throwing and breaking items, even punching walls and doors.
What are you going to try to do to me in your Anger Management Class?
Strangely enough this anger management question is quite important! It is of high importance to Temper Talk™ that we don't try to do anything to you. Our anger management classes do not try to fix you. Our anger management classes do not judge you. Our anger management classes do not try to force anything on you and have no intent of imposing change on you. Critical to the success of an anger management class is the need to: a) be respectful of the anger management client, b) not be judgmental of the anger management client, c) not try to impose "the truth" on the anger management client and d) not try to impose change on the anger management client. Our anger management class is education oriented and works under the assumption that if you learn you will change your thoughts. If you change your thoughts you will change your behavior, your life and your world. Yes, with great confidence we are strong believers in education, we attribute education to have converted the human animal to the human being. Any change that comes as a result of taking our anger management classes is change that the client makes. We can take credit for providing meaningful information; the client needs to take credit for changing his/her anger management behavior. Life gets much better, much happier and becomes more fulfilling once anger management problems are in the past. Overcoming anger management problems becomes a self-reinforcing new behavior.
Okay, it is education based, so what can I expect to learn in this Anger Management Classes?
Our anger management classes are based on the book by Steven Michael Houseworth, MA, "The Psychology of Anger." The anger management class curriculum finds a balance between providing new information and providing anger management "stuff" you can try, work on, use to deal with an anger management problem. The education component explains anger in a way you have likely never heard before and then moves right on to asking you to rethink anger management beliefs you may have that are not true - anger management myths. The anger management class provides a formula, (much like a math formula, i.e., 2+3=5) for understanding emotional anger management and another formula for understanding behavior anger management. These two formulas together become the anger management formula. If you take the time to understand the anger management formula you will likely change the way you think about anger. The second element of our anger management classes is the "stuff" you can do to work on, if interested, when not working your anger management class. The "stuff" we are talking about is called developing an anger management strategy (anger management activities you can engage in now, not waiting for another anger incident to occur) and developing anger management technique (anger management activities you can engage in when angry.) In each chapter the anger management student will learn either a new piece of information and/or a new anger management skill.
When should someone know to take one of your Anger Management Classes?
Our anger management class discusses anger in terms of frequency (how often), intensity (how extremes) and duration (how long). If a person has high frequency, high intensity or long durations they likely need an anger management class. We find this simple measures provides a good barometer for people to self asses if they need an anger management class.
Another way to determine if someone needs an anger management class is to simply ask if there are problems in their life as a result of anger management issues. If the person is having anger management related legal problems, school problems, employment problems or family problems, etc. they likely would benefit from taking an anger management class.
What is the best way to take an Anger Management Class?
Anger management classes come in many forms. The old traditional counselor in a chair method of dealing with people with anger management problems may be right for you. Counselors, psychologists and some social workers specialize in anger management and, if you have insurance or can afford their fees, you would do well to explore that route. Personally, I recommend a counselor or psychologist when the anger management problem is quite frequent, quite intense or lasts for substantial long periods of time.
Another popular way to take an anger management class is by attending an in person anger management classroom. This form of anger management class is often available in bigger cities. Basically, there are two forms of in person anger management classes; there is the anger management class and the anger management group . Anger management classes tend to be time fixed and often occur over several weeks. The anger management class is typically education and practice oriented. Anger management groups tend to be ongoing. They are usually more education and support oriented. If you don't like to read or don't mind sharing your anger management problems, or simply prefer a group or classroom setting, an anger management class or anger management group might be suited to you.
Temper Talk™ offers two other forms of anger management classes. Our anger management classes are offered as an online anger management class or a anger management workbook (study at home). As previously noted our anger management classes are educational in nature and provide anger management tips, tricks, techniques and strategy - much like the in person anger management classes. One huge benefit of an online anger management class is fidelity. Online anger management classes are delivered consistently the same way for each client and eliminate natural human errors and omissions.
Our workbook anger management class consists of the same content as the online class but is in a workbook format versus online.
Tell me about the online anger management class.
It really is pretty simple. The first thing you do is get registered so you can take your online anger management class - it's free to register. Try not to register more than one time, you will likely lose track of usernames and passwords and need to call our help center.
When you register you will be asked to input your email address. This becomes important because after you register for the online anger management class you will be sent an auto generated email confirming your registration. If you don't get an email right away I suggest you check your spam or junk-mail to see if it is there. You will also be asked for the email address of the person who referred you to our anger management class (If you have it). It is usually worth taking the time to get that person's email address because that person is sent a confirmation that you got registered for the anger management class and again when you complete your anger management class.
Once you are registered you need to pick the anger management class you want to take, the 8 hour anger management class, the 10 hour anger management class or the 12 hour anger management class.
Pick your class, click on the PayPal/Credit Card icon to pay for your anger management class and you are ready to go. We do have two tutorials that show you how to a) register for your anger management class or b) get to your anger management class.
Are there added costs or other things to buy?
The Temper Talk™ Online Anger Management Classes are 100% online. There are no additional items to buy and there are no added costs.
Will the Temper Talk™ Online Anger Management Class be accepted by the person who referred me to an anger management class?
Temper Talk™ is a nationwide premier provider of online anger management classes and has been accepted in every state in the country. That said, there is no national standard for anger management classes and any judge, probation officer or employer can accept an anger management class or reject it. We do offer a money back guarantee (be sure to read the details) if our online anger management class is not accepted.
Can I really take my anger management class anytime - day or night?
That's right! You can take your anger management class anytime, day or night, 23 hours a day 7 days a week. You also only need to work on your anger management class for as long as you want to. Stop and start when you want - they system will remember where you last ended your anger management class.
Are your anger management class exams difficult to pass?
Our exams do have fairly high standards. If you want to be sure to successfully complete any one chapter in your online anger management class you will very likely pass the exam if you simply read the material in that chapter. The only people who report our anger management class exams to be problematic are the people who tried "skimming" without learning. Our exams are typically reported to be easy after the person actually reads the chapter.
What if I need help, have a problem or need support?
Support to our anger management customers is very important to Temper Talk™. We offer email support seven days a week 15 hours a day. We provide phone support 10 hours a day on weekdays are often available by phone on weekends. You can email email@example.com and you will typically get a response in ½ or less.
How do I get my anger management class completion certificate?
After you have completed all of your anger management class a Completion Certificate is immediately made available to you. If you want Temper Talk™ to mail or email you a certificate, just ask - no added fee. Mailed anger management class Completion Certificates are embossed and can be sent directly to the person who referred you to our anger management class.
Last Updated: Sunday, December 22, 2019
Alabama Anger Management Classes
Alaska Anger Management Classes
Arizona Anger Management Classes
Arkansas Anger Management Classes
California Anger Management Classes
Colorado Anger Management Classes
Connecticut Anger Management Classes
Delaware Anger Management Classes
Florida Anger Management Classes
Georgia Anger Management Classes
Hawaii Anger Management Classes
Idaho Anger Management Classes
Illinois Anger Management Classes
Indiana Anger Management Classes
Kansas Anger Management Classes
Kentucky Anger Management Classes
Louisiana Anger Management Classes
Maine Anger Management Classes
Maryland Anger Management Classes
Massachusetts Anger Management Classes
Michigan Anger Management Classes
Minnesota Anger Management Classes
Mississippi Anger Management Classes
Missouri Anger Management Classes
Montana Anger Management Classes
Nebraska Anger Management Classes
Nevada Anger Management Classes
New Hampshire Anger Management Classes
New Jersey Anger Management Classes
New Mexico Anger Management Classes
New York Anger Management Classes
North Carolina Anger Management Classes
North Dakota Anger Management Classes
Oklahoma Anger Management Classes
Oregon Anger Management Classes
Pennsylvania Anger Management Classes
Rhode Island Anger Management Classes
South Carolina Anger Management Classes
South Dakota Anger Management Classes
Tennessee Anger Management Classes
Texas Anger Management Classes
Vermont Anger Management Classes
Virginia Anger Management Classes
Washington Anger Management Classes
West Virginia Anger Management Classes
Wisconsin Anger Management Classes
Wyoming Anger Management Classes


text:
The ESV Large Print Compact Bible combines the benefits of a compact format with the easy readability of larger text. This Bible's 8-point type set in a double-column format gives the Large Print Compact Bible the right balance between portability and usability. Bible readers of all ages will find this the perfect edition for travel and on-the-go reading.
- Concordance
- Words of Christ in red
- Ribbon marker
- Smyth-sewn binding
- Packaging: O-wrap

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The idea is simple. Pick a design, then pick your background color. You build it and I make them! Since tiedye is unique, each item may vary.
If you would like any other items or sizes, pick a design and background and e-mail email@example.com or call (808) 315-0111
Thank you for checking out tiedyehobo.com
- 9930 reads


text:
Where Is God?
"And He is with you, wherever you may be; and God sees all that you do." (Qur'an 57:4)
The idea that Allah is All-Watching is something most of us have grown up with. Even other faiths that believe in a god share the belief of an Omniscient and Omnipresent Being. Yet when we try to understand 'where' He is, it becomes confusing.
There are a number of traditions which try to clarify the 'where-ness' of God. Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) asks God, "Are You far away that I should call You, or are You near me that I should whisper to You?" And God replies, "I am (very) close to the one who remembers Me." Imam Ali (peace be upon him) says in the first sermon of Nahjul Balagha, "He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation."
As God Himself says, that He is with us wherever we are, we may find it a bit clearer if we begin by looking at where we are ourselves first. Where we are can be divided into three distinct categories.
The first is the physical location we occupy. This may be the most obvious, but this is often selectively neglected. Take, for example, an 'average' Muslim youth. One who offers his prayers, but sometimes is late in offering them. Or who sometimes listens to the words of God, yet at times doesn't mind the background tracks while watching a movie. Or who is at times in the mosque in the company of the righteous, and at other times in those places that he doesn't mention in front of his parents.
If we do not have these characteristics, we can certainly see it around us. Why such a variety of actions from one person? If we examine only a little, we can find a relation between where a person is and the type of actions that he commits. A person's actions in the mosque would be different to their behavior on a football pitch and would be poles apart to his behavior at a party. The same person, the same beliefs…yet a change in location brings out different personalities.
This is where God reminds us that wherever we are, He is. When at the mosque, God was present to see the youth reflect over himself and his actions. When on the pitch, God was close enough to feel his passion and share his emotion. And at the party, flashing lights and loud sounds did not disturb His Vision and Hearing, and He witnessed the 'new' person that was coming out in secret.
There is perhaps no Muslim today who would act the same way at a mosque as he would in a less reputable place. And yet, from one point of view, the greatest difference between the two may be the intention of the person. When one comes to the mosque, the intention is – or should be – closeness to God. And when one goes to other places, the intention is different. Yet the same God is equally present in both places. Does anyone doubt that He is everywhere, even in the least Islamic gatherings? That He does not see what happens behind closed doors? It is said that when Prophet Yusuf (peace be upon him) was trapped in the room, Zuleikha noticed his unease, so she covered the idol that was in the room with a cloth and said there was nobody left to see him. He replied beautifully, telling her that her god may not be able to see anymore, but that his God is All-Seeing. (Qur'an 12:24) This is further explained in the words of Imam Ali (peace be upon him), who says: "Fear more the sin when you are out of sight, it is where your witness is also your judge." Thus, one who truly comes to the mosque to gain closeness to God should feel the same presence of God wherever he may be.
The second way to interpret this is our position in terms of which phase of existence we are in. We know from the Qur'an that there are three transitions that we make, and each one is a difficult and frightening one. Sura Maryam mentions them as the day a person in born, the day he dies, and the day he will be brought back to life. The period between the first two will set the tone for the rest of existence, so "whoever does an atom's worth of good will see it, and whoever does an atom's worth of evil will see it." (99:7-8) However, it is not just our actions that we carry all the way through; it is also our faith that comes with us. Therefore, a person who has lived his life conscious of the presence of God will not feel the solitude of the grave, nor will he feel alone in the rush on the Day of Judgment.
The third way that we can understand this is with respect to our spiritual position. There are those times that we may feel very spiritual and have the desire to engage in prayer and supplication. At other times, we feel less eager to spend time in worship and must push ourselves to get to prayers on time. Some people have built a 'bond' with God, so that they feel connected to Him at all times, while others have – by their own actions – created veils between Him and themselves. God reminds us in the Qur'an that no matter which of the states of which kind of people we are, He is never far away; rather, He is "closer than your jugular vein". In His words: "And when My servants ask you concerning Me – indeed, I am close."
Similarly, we go through emotional states in which we feel closer or further away from God. When we get something we have been hoping for, or achieve something significant, we thank Him. However, when we lose something important or experience loss or difficulty, we don't feel the presence of God – or indeed, one may experience the complete opposite, which is remembering God only in difficult times, and patting himself on the back when things work out as planned. The Qur'an reminds us that, no matter how close or otherwise we feel to Him, He is always near us. There can be perhaps no example of closeness to God in times of difficulty than that of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him). At the time that the Chief of Martyrs was surrounded by tribulation, he was still reciting:
I have abandoned the creation in Your Love,
I have orphaned my children so that I may see You,
If the swords were to cut me into pieces in Your Love,
Even then my heart would not long for other than You.


text:
Chocolate-Cherry Fruitcake sans nuts
David Lebovitz is always and inspiration to bake something including the most ridiculed and reviled (at least here in the US) of all Christmas season staples: the fruitcake. The on-going joke that somewhere there's a fruitcake being endlessly passed on from one person to another from generation to generation since the first fruitcake was baked could be true because people don't want to throw food away and "re-gift" the dreaded fruitcake. I remember getting one such cake many years ago, it came in a Christmas gift basket with all those beer sausages and cheeses. I felt so guilty when I threw the fruitcake away. Every year there is a fruitcake tossing contest because these people either really hate fruitcakes, have nothing better to do, or just love using their catapults. I can understand why they don't like fruitcake. The first US-made fruitcake we had was in my parents-in-law's house in Texas (the cake was probably a gift). We all hated it. It was bone dry, studded with tasteless hard fruits and nuts, with no cake (flour) visible, cloyingly sweet, and no hint of liquor either. My MIL used to make the darkest, moistest, most delicious will-make-you-tipsy fruitcakes in Manila and the US fruitcakes were a big disappointment.
Anyway, I made the traditional fruitcakes which I will inject regularly with brandy for the next 3 weeks and half a recipe of David's Chocolate-Cherry Fruitcake which was a semi-disaster because I did not add the nuts. I had the recipe in front of me but forgot the nuts were still in the toaster oven when I started mixing and spooned the batter into the pans without realizing the nuts were missing. Oh well, the cake is still very good and will bake another batch a week before Christmas. I sprinkled some of the toasted nuts on top of the sliced cake for the crunch and flavor.
3 cups all-purpose flour
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
½ teaspoon ground nutmeg
½ teaspoon ground cloves
½ tsp allspice
2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
2 cups snipped whole dates
1 cup dried currants or sultanas
½ cup chopped red candied cherries
½ cup chopped green candied cherries
½ cup candied pineapple
¾ cup candied citron
¼ cup candied lemon peels
¼ cup candied orange peels
¼ cup chopped candied ginger
1 cup chopped walnuts or almonds
1 cup soft butter
1½ cups dark brown sugar
4 eggs
¾ cup orange juice
¼ cup brandy plus more for brushing
zest of 1 large orange
- Pre-heat oven to 300°F.
- Grease three 8 x 4 x 2-inch loaf pans, line with parchment paper, grease paper, set aside.
- In a medium bowl, mix fruits and nuts with ¼ cup flour, set aside. Sift the rest of the flour with the spices, salt, and baking powder in a large bowl. Add sugar, butter, eggs, juice, brandy and zest. Mix for 2 to 3 minutes. With a large spatula mix in the fruits and nuts. Spoon into the prepared pans, smooth top. Bake for 2 hours or until cake test done (I use a small wooden skewer). Place on wire racks and let cool in pans thoroughly. Remove from pans and peel off paper. Brush all over with brandy and wrap in plastic film. Keep in a freezer gallon bag in the refrigerator. Moisten loaves with brandy every 4 days for 3 weeks before serving.


text:
Twelve Days of Christmas #3
Kazy Reed
M/M Paranormal Romance
Length: 84 pages
eXtasy Books
Date: December 6, 2019
restaurant owner who can't cook meets a chef who just happens to be
a vampire. Can they each overcome their shameful past and find a
recipe for redemption?
Chambers always dreamed of owning a restaurant, but a car crash when
he was seventeen put those plans on hold. He's paid for his
mistake, in legal terms, but the guilt he carries weighs heavily on
his mind. Nevertheless, Doss is determined to fulfill his dream. He
works hard at his family's market to save whatever money he can and
spends every spare minute learning the business of running a
restaurant. If only he could cook…
Henri Courtan is the best
pastry chef in Paris. Some say it's an odd choice of profession for
a vampire, but after years of self-imposed exile to atone for his
violent past, Henri is finally happy to settle down and live his life
in peace. When dark secrets come back to haunt him, however, he flees
to New York. A progressive clan of vampires take him in, and Henri
suddenly finds himself charge of feeding dozens of vampires
accustomed to eating human food. He's glad to be cooking again,
keeping busy, until a man arrives with a delivery. When Henri opens
the door, he quickly realizes that his man might offer much more than
Neither man is sure of the other's feelings,
until a shared culinary experience reveals a physical hunger that can
no longer be ignored. The flames of passion are lit, but both men
need to forgive themselves before they can share their hearts.
Kazy Reed grew up on
a small island off the Maine coast. At the age of sixteen, she
announced to her parents that she was going to move to Denmark for
six months as an exchange student. That trip changed her life, and
sparked her love of travel, languages, and art history.
After graduating
from college with a degree in Art History, she moved back to the
island where she began to write short stories. When she was
introduced to gay erotic fiction, the seed was planted and she never
looked back. Kazy now lives near the coast of Maine, with her very
understanding husband and two ridiculously precocious children.
30% off all
backlist books at eXtasyBooks
and Devine Destinies!!
the 12 Days of Christmas Blitz HERE
for bonus content and a giveaway!


text:
Omnipotence is the property of being all-powerful; it is one of the traditional divine attributes in Western conceptions of God. This notion of an all-powerful being is often claimed to be incoherent because a being who has the power to do anything would, for instance, have the power to draw a round square. However, it is absurd to suppose that any being, no matter how powerful, could draw a round square. A common response to this objection is to assert that defenders of divine omnipotence never intended to claim that God could bring about logical absurdities. This observation about what is not meant by omnipotence does little, however, to clarify just what is meant by that term. Philosophers have therefore attempted to state necessary and sufficient conditions for omnipotence.
These proposed analyses are evaluated by several criteria. First, it must be determined whether the property described by the analysis captures what theologians and ordinary religious believers mean when they describe God as omnipotent, almighty, or all-powerful. Omnipotence is thought to be a quite impressive property. Indeed, the traditional God's omnipotence is one of the attributes that make Him worthy of worship. If, therefore, an analysis implies that certain conceivable beings who are not impressive with respect to their power count as omnipotent, then the analysis is inadequate.
Second, when a particular analysis does seem to be in line with the ordinary use of the term, the next question is whether the property described is self-consistent. For instance, many proposed analyses of omnipotence give inconsistent answers to the question of whether an omnipotent being could create a stone too heavy for it to lift. Third, it is necessary to determine whether omnipotence, so understood, could form part of a coherent total religious view. Some analyses of omnipotence require that an omnipotent being be able to do evil, or to break promises, but God has traditionally been regarded as unable to do these things. It has also been argued that the existence of an omnipotent being would be inconsistent with human freedom. Finally, divine omnipotence is one of the premises leading to the alleged contradiction in traditional religious belief known as the Logical Problem of Evil.
A successful analysis of omnipotence is one which captures the ordinary notion, is free from internal contradiction, and is compatible with the other elements of the religious view in which it is embedded.
Table of Contents
The Self-Consistency of Omnipotence
The Stone Paradox
Act Theories
Result Theories
Omnipotence and Time
Omnipotence and Necessary Moral Perfection
Omnipotence and Human Freedom
Omnipotence and the Problem of Evil
References and Further Reading
1. The Self-Consistency of Omnipotence
a. The Stone Paradox
Could an omnipotent being create a stone too heavy for it to lift? More generally, could an omnipotent being make something it could not control (Mackie 1955: 210)? This question is known as the Paradox of the Stone, or the Paradox of Omnipotence. It appears that answering either "yes" or "no" will mean that the being in question is not omnipotent after all. For suppose that the being cannot create the stone. Then it seems that it is not omnipotent, for there is something that it cannot do. But suppose the being can create the stone. Then, again, there is something it cannot do, namely, lift the stone it has created.
Although the argument is usually initially stated in this form, as it stands it is not quite valid. From the fact that a particular being is able to create a stone it cannot lift, it does not follow that there is in fact something that that being cannot do. It only follows that if the being were to create the stone, then there would be something it could not do. As a result, the paradox is a problem only for necessary omnitemporal omnipotence, that is, for the view that there is a being who exists necessarily and is necessarily omnipotent at every time (Swinburne 1973; Meierding 1980). There is no problem for a being who is only omnipotent at certain times, because the being in question might very well be omnipotent prior to creating the stone (but not after). Furthermore, the stone paradox provides no reason to suppose there could not be a contingently omnitemporally omnipotent being; all the being in question would need to do is to decide not to create the stone, and then it would be omnipotent at every time. Nevertheless, the Stone Paradox is of interest because necessary omnitemporal omnipotence has traditionally been attributed to God.
The Stone Paradox has been the main focus of those attempting to specify exactly what an omnipotent being could, and could not, do. However, even for those who do not wish to insist on necessary omnitemporal omnipotence, a number of questions arise. Could an omnipotent being draw a square circle? Descartes notoriously answered "yes." However, the Western philosophical and theological traditions have, at least since Aquinas, almost universally given the opposite answer. The view that an omnipotent being could do absolutely anything, even the logically absurd, is known as voluntarism.
Simply rejecting voluntarism does not give an answer to the Stone Paradox. Creating a stone too heavy for its creator to lift is a possible task. Another possible task which an omnipotent being can apparently not perform is coming to know that one has never been omnipotent. For human beings, this is a fairly simple task, but for an omnipotent being it would seem to be impossible. The general problem is this: The fact that it is logically possible that some being perform a specified task (the task itself does not contain a contradiction) does not guarantee that it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to perform that task. Coming to know that one has never been omnipotent is an example of a single task that is logically possible for some being perform, but which is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to perform. The Stone Paradox provides an example of two tasks (creating a stone its creator cannot lift and lifting the stone one has just created) such that each task is logically possible, but it is logically impossible for one task to be performed immediately after the other.
In order to meet these challenges, it is necessary to say something more precise than to simply affirm that an omnipotent being would be able to do whatever is possible. These more precise theories can be divided into two classes: act theories, which say that an omnipotent being would be able to perform any action; and result theories, which say that an omnipotent being would be able to bring about any result.
b. Voluntarism
René Descartes, almost alone in the tradition of Western theology, held that God could do anything, even affirming that "God could have brought it about … that it was not true that twice four make eight" (Descartes 1984-1991: 2:294). If this doctrine is adopted, then the Stone Paradox is dissolved: If an omnipotent being could make contradictions true, then an omnipotent being could make a stone too heavy for it to lift and still lift it (Frankfurt 1964). However, this doctrine is of questionable coherence. To cite just one difficulty, it would seem to follow from the claim that God could make 2 x 4 = 9 that possibly God makes 2 x 4 = 9. However, it is a necessary truth that if God makes 2 x 4 = 9, then 2 x 4 = 9. In standard modal logics, possibly p and necessarily if p then q together entail possibly q, so it seems to follow that possibly 2 x 4 = 9.
Descartes does not accept this consequence, but it is not clear how he can avoid it. It has been suggested that he may be implicitly committed to the rejection of one or more widely accepted modal axioms (Curley 1984). These sorts of absurdities have led to the nearly universal rejection of voluntarism by philosophers and theologians.
c. Act Theories
Once voluntarism is rejected, it is necessary to specify more precisely what is meant by saying that an omnipotent being could do anything. One natural way of doing this is to give a definition of the form:
S is omnipotent =df S can perform any action A such that C
where C specifies some conditions A must satisfy. Such theories of omnipotence may be conveniently referred to as act theories. The simplest (non-voluntarist) act theory is:
(1) S is omnipotent =df S can perform any action A such that A is possible
This act theory deals with the problem of drawing a round square and making 2 x 4 = 9: these are not possible actions. There is some difficulty in saying exactly which acts should count as possible, and this threatens to make the condition too weak. For instance, a being who could perform only physically possible actions would not be omnipotent. The usual response, dating back at least to Aquinas, is to say that an action is possible, in the relevant sense, if and only if it consistent, that is, if it is not self-contradictory.
The Stone Paradox is most effective against act theories. Making a stone one cannot lift is a possible action, so, in order to count as omnipotent according to (1), a being must be able to perform it. However, if any being performs this task then there is a possible task which that being cannot perform immediately afterward, namely, lifting the stone one has just made. It might be objected that this task is not possible for the being in question, but this qualification is not permitted by (1). Definition (1) requires that an omnipotent being should be able to perform any logically possible action, that is, any action which could possibly be performed by any being at all, in any circumstances at all. It is clearly possible that some being perform the action lifting the stone one has just made, so, according to (1), a being who had just performed the action making a stone one cannot lift could not possibly be omnipotent.
This is not a problem for a being who is only contingently omnipotent: such a being might perform the first task, thereby ceasing to be omnipotent, and so be unable to perform the second task, or the being might refrain from performing the first task, and so continue to be omnipotent. However, the Paradox does show that on the contemplated theory no being could be necessarily omnitemporally omnipotent.
It has sometimes been thought that this problem could be solved simply by recognizing that creating a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is an impossible action, and therefore an omnipotent being need not be able to perform it (Mavrodes 1963). However, this line of objection fails to recognize that, in addition to the impossible action creating a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift, there are also such possible actions as creating a stone one cannot lift and creating a stone its creator cannot lift.
There are further problems. Possible actions also include coming to know that one has never been omnipotent, which, since no one can know falsehoods, no omnipotent being could do. Additionally, this kind of view causes problems for various traditional religious views, such as the assertion by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that it is "impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18) since lying is a possible action.
Medieval philosophers prior to Aquinas often attempted to deal with this problem by claiming that an omnipotent being could perform any action which does not require a defect or infirmity. However, there was very little success in spelling out the meaning of this assertion (Ross 1969: 196-202). Here is a definition which cpatures the basic idea of these Medieval analyses:
(2) S is omnipotent =df S can perform any action A such that it is logically possible that S does A.
This is similar to the Medieval suggestion since, according to classical theology, God is necessarily without defect or infirmity, so that, if the action A requires a defect or infirmity, (2) does not require that God, in order to count as omnipotent, should be able to do it. However, (2) runs into the famous 'McEar' counter-example (Plantinga 1967: 170; La Croix 1977: 183). Suppose that it is a necessary truth about a certain being, known as McEar, that the only action he performs is scratching his ear. It follows that, if McEar can scratch his ear, he is omnipotent, despite his inability to do anything else. This result is clearly unacceptable.
One response, considered by Alvin Plantinga and advocated by Richard La Croix, is to claim merely that an otherwise God-like being who satisfied this definition would be omnipotent. If the concept of God is otherwise coherent, then this claim is probably true. It also has the benefit of being guaranteed not to create any inconsistencies, for it is built into the definition that God has power only to perform those actions such that it is possible that he perform them. However, to adopt this strategy is to give up on the project of providing a general analysis of omnipotence. Furthermore, this claim, on its own, does not answer the question of the Stone Paradox: is it possible for God to create a stone he cannot lift?
Although not everyone agrees that La Croix's response is satisfactory, it is widely held that the prospects are not good for a consistent general definition or analysis of omnipotence in terms of acts (Ross 1969: 202-210; Geach 1973; Swinburne 1973; Sobel 2004: ch. 9).
d. Result Theories
The main alternatives to act theories of omnipotence are result theories, theories which analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds. A possible state of affairs is a way the world could be. Philosophers also sometimes recognize impossible states of affairs, that is, ways the world could not be. For instance, the sky's being blue is a possible state of affairs, and John's being a married bachelor is an impossible state of affairs. A possible world is a maximal consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be.
Equivalent, or approximately equivalent, result theories can be stated in terms either of states of affairs or of possible worlds. The simplest (non-voluntarist) result theory can be stated, in terms of possible worlds, as follows:
(3) S is omnipotent =df S can bring about any possible world
In other words, for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way. This account of omnipotence was first clearly laid out and endorsed by Leibniz, who pioneered the philosophical use of the notion of a possible world (Leibniz 1985: sects. 7-8, 52, 416). More recently, James Ross has advocated a similar account, though Ross prefers a formulation in terms of states of affairs (Ross 1969: 210-213):
(4) S is omnipotent =df for every contingent state of affairs p, whether p is the case is logically equivalent to the effective choice, by S, that p
Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs (Ross 1980: 614), that is, some one possible world. Ross's definition therefore entails Leibniz's.
The Leibniz-Ross theory neatly handles all of the objections raised against act theories. First, the Stone Paradox depends on the existence of reflexive actions, that is, actions whose descriptions refer back to the actor. Although states of affairs can refer to agents, a state of affairs does not have an actor. Thus, the phrase 'there being a stone one cannot lift' fails to specify a state of affairs, since there is no actor for "one" to refer to. In order to specify a state of affairs, it is necessary to replace "one" with some expression that defines which agent or agents cannot lift the stone. However, there being a stone an omnipotent being cannot lift is clearly not a possible state of affairs. An omnipotent being could therefore not bring it about. On the other hand, there being a stone its creator cannot lift is a possible state of affairs, and could be brought about by an omnipotent being, under the Leibniz-Ross theory, for an omnipotent being could bring it about that some other being created a stone which that being could not lift. Therefore, the Stone Paradox is not a problem for the Leibniz-Ross theory.
The Leibniz-Ross theory is likewise invulnerable to the objection regarding coming to know that one is not omnipotent, for, in this theory, an omnipotent being must be essentially omnipotent, and it is not possible that an essentially omnipotent being should come to know that it is not omnipotent. Therefore, as in the stone case, the omnipotent being could bring about someone's coming to know that she is not omnipotent, but not an omnipotent being's coming to know that it is not omnipotent. Finally, no analog to the McEar objection arises for the Leibniz-Ross theory.
While there are no obvious contradictions involved in the Leibniz-Ross theory, there are a number of metaphysical consequences which some have thought odd and, indeed, absurd. First, the Leibniz-Ross theory implies that an omnipotent being exists necessarily. According to Leibniz's formulation, an omnipotent being would be able to actualize any possible world, but it is absurd to suppose that an omnipotent being should actualize a world in which it never existed. It follows that no such world is possible. On Ross's formulation, the obtaining of any state of affairs is logically equivalent to its being chosen by an omnipotent being. Therefore, the obtaining of the state of affairs of no omnipotent being ever existing is logically equivalent to an omnipotent being effectively choosing that no omnipotent being should ever exist, but if no omnipotent being ever exists, then no omnipotent being ever chooses. As a result, the state of affairs of no omnipotent being ever existing cannot possibly obtain (Ross 1969: 213-214). Leibniz and Ross are both proponents of the ontological argument for the existence of God, so they both regard this as a benefit of this theory of omnipotence. Others have, however, found it implausible.
Although many people find it intuitive to suppose that there are possible worlds in which there is no omnipotent being, the Leibniz-Ross theory of omnipotence rules out this possibility. The Leibniz-Ross theory may narrow the space of possible worlds even further, for God, the being Leibniz and Ross believe to be omnipotent, is also supposed to be necessarily morally perfect, and there are worlds which intuitively seem possible which a necessarily morally perfect being could not, it seems, create–for instance, worlds in which the only sentient creatures suffer excruciating pain throughout every moment of their existence. On the Leibniz-Ross theory, if the omnipotent being could not create these worlds, then these worlds are not possible.
Furthermore, the Leibniz-Ross theory entails that an omnipotent being not only cannot create beings it cannot control, but cannot create beings it does not control (Mann 1977). In the Leibniz-Ross theory, an omnipotent being must choose every state of affairs which is to obtain, including all of the choices of its creatures. This is often thought to be a serious threat to human freedom.
All of these concerns with the Leibniz-Ross theory point the same direction: the suggestion that there are logically possible states of affairs which it is nevertheless logically impossible that an omnipotent being, or an omnipotent being who also has the other traditional divine attributes, should actualize. This line of reasoning has led Plantinga to dub the view that God can actualize any possible world "Leibniz's Lapse" (Plantinga 1974: 180-184).
There is disagreement about exactly which, or how many, possible states of affairs cannot possibly be brought about by an omnipotent being. For instance, philosophers disagree about whether the claim that an omnipotent being exists is necessarily true, necessarily false, or contingent. If it is a contingent matter whether an omnipotent being exists, then the state of affairs of no omnipotent being ever existing is possible, but nevertheless cannot possibly be brought about by an omnipotent being. Perhaps the most widely accepted examples, and those Plantinga focuses on, are statements about the free choices of creatures. Plantinga believes that it is logically impossible that any being other than Caesar should bring about the possible state of affairs such as Caesar's freely choosing not to cross the Rubicon, for if Caesar's not crossing the Rubicon had been brought about by some other being (for example, God), then Caesar would not have freely chosen.
If it is accepted that there are some possible states of affairs which it is impossible that an omnipotent being should bring about, a more complicated analysis of omnipotence is needed. An obvious candidate is:
(5) S is omnipotent =df S can bring about any state of affairs p such that it is logically possible that S brings about p
However, this brings back the McEar objection, which the Leibniz-Ross theory had escaped. It is essential to McEar that he never bring about anything other than his own scratching of his ear. It is therefore impossible that McEar bring about some other state of affairs. As a result, this definition, once again, wrongly counts McEar as omnipotent, provided only that he is able to scratch his ear. Some philosophers have responded by arguing that there could not possibly be such a being as McEar (Wierenga 1983: 374-375). Others have given up on the project of giving a general analysis of omnipotence (La Croix 1977). Still others have advocated theories of omnipotence which make special accommodation to creaturely freedom (Flint and Freddoso 1983).
An entirely different approach to the problem is advocated by Erik J. Wielenberg (2000). According to Wielenberg, omnipotence cannot be analyzed simply by consideration of which states of affairs an omnipotent being could or could not bring about. Instead, it is necessary to consider why the being could or could not bring them about. Wielenberg proposes the following analysis:
(6) S is omnipotent =df there is no state of affairs p such that S is unable to bring about p at least partially due to lack of power
This analysis avoids attributing omnipotence to McEar since McEar's limitation seems to be at least in part due to lack of power. It also solves the problem of the consistency of God's inability to do evil with omnipotence, since God's inability to do evil is not due to lack of power. Finally, according to Wielenberg, if it is really true that even an omnipotent being could not bring about Caesar's freely choosing not to cross the Rubicon, then this must be due not to lack of power, but to the logic of the situation. The chief limitation of Wielenberg's account is that it makes use of some unanalyzed notions whose analysis philosophers have found quite difficult. These are the notion of lack of power and the notion of one state of affairs obtaining partially due to another state of affairs obtaining. Without analyses of these notions, it is hard to tell whether Wielenberg's analysis is self-consistent and whether it is consistent with other traditional divine attributes.
e. Omnipotence and Time
The Leibniz-Ross theory entails that the exercise of omnipotent power cannot occur within time. This is because, in this view, to exercise omnipotent power is to choose some particular possible world to be actual. To think of such a choice as occurring in time would be to imagine that some possible world could, at some particular time, become actual, having previously been merely possible. This, however, is absurd (Ross 1980: 621). Therefore, on the Leibniz-Ross theory, an omnipotent being can act only atemporally.
The notion of an atemporal action has, however, been found difficult. To give just one example of such a difficulty, it is widely held that acting requires one to be the cause of certain effects. However, many philosophers have also held that it is part of the concept of a cause that it must occur before its effects. Since something atemporal is neither before nor after anything else, there cannot be an atemporal cause, and, therefore, there cannot be an atemporal action.
On the other hand, even apart from the Leibniz-Ross theory, there are difficulties with the notion of being omnipotent at a time. This is because there are contingent states of affairs about the past, but the notion of changing the past is generally agreed to be incoherent (see Time Travel). Thus, omnipotence at a point in time cannot be defined as, for instance, the ability to bring about any contingent state of affairs because, although many past states of affairs are contingent, nothing done in the present, even by an omnipotent being, could possibly bring about a past state of affairs.
Richard Swinburne has proposed an analysis of omnipotence at a point in time based on definition (5) above (Swinburne 1973):
(7) S is omnipotent at time t =df S is able at t to bring about any state of affairs p such that it is consistent with the facts about what happened before t that, after t, S should bring about p
If the notion of changing the past is incoherent, then (7) does not require that an omnipotent being be able to change the past. However, (7) inherits (5)'s flaw when it comes to McEar: Since it is inconsistent to suppose that McEar (who, by hypothesis, is necessarily such that he only scratches his ear) does something other than scratch his ear, he need not have the power to do anything else in order to count as omnipotent. Additionally, there are well-known problems with specifying which facts are about the past. For instance, consider the fact that the U.S. Declaration of Independence was issued 232 years before President Obama took office. It is difficult to say whether this is a fact about 1776 or about 2008. (Intuitively, it is about both.) In order for (7) to succeed in dealing with the difficulties of temporal omnipotence, there must be a distinction between those facts which are, and those which are not, about the past. However, relational facts like the one under discussion show that it is quite difficult to draw this distinction.
Some philosophers have attempted to meet this difficulty head-on by adopting particular theories of temporal facts (Flint and Freddoso 1983), while others have tried to sidestep the concern by formulating theories of temporal omnipotence which do not require a distinction between past and non-past facts. For instance, Gary Rosenkrantz and Joshua Hoffman advocate the following analysis (Rosenkrantz and Hoffman 1980):
(8) S is omnipotent at t =df S is able at t to bring about any state of affairs p such that possibly some agent brings about p, and p is unrestrictedly repeatable
Rosenkrantz and Hoffman introduce a number of further qualifications, but the central point of their account is the notion of unrestricted repeatability. Intuitively, an unrestrictedly repeatable state of affairs is one that can obtain, cease to obtain, and then obtain again indefinitely many times, throughout all of history. Mt. Vesuvius's erupting is unrestrictedly repeatable, but Mt. Vesuvius's erupting prior to 1900 is not, since the latter cannot obtain at any time after 1900. Rosenkrantz and Hoffman hold that an omnipotent being could, before 1900, have brought about Mt. Vesuvius's erupting prior to 1900 by, at that time, bringing about Mt. Vesuvius's erupting. After 1900, an omnipotent being could still bring about the latter state of affairs, though not the former. Since the former state of affairs is not unrestrictedly repeatable, the inability to bring it about after 1900 is no bar to a being's counting as omnipotent.
2. Omnipotence and Necessary Moral Perfection
According to the New Testament, "God cannot be tempted with evil" (James 1:13) and it is "impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18). Traditionally, these divine inabilities are taken quite seriously, and are said to follow from God's attribute of impeccability or necessary moral perfection. According to this view, it is impossible for God to do evil. It seems, however, that no being could be both omnipotent and necessarily morally perfect, since an omnipotent being could do anything, but there are many things a necessarily morally perfect being could not do.
The argument can be formulated as follows (Morriston 2001: 144). Consider some particularly evil state of affairs, E, such as every sentient being suffering excruciating pain throughout its entire existence. Then:
(1) If any being is necessarily morally perfect, then there is no possible world at which that being brings about E
(2) If any being is omnipotent, then that being has the power to bring about E
(3) If any being has the power to bring about E, then there is some possible world at which that being brings about E
(4) No being is both necessarily morally perfect and omnipotent
Some theists have simply accepted the conclusion, replacing either necessary moral perfection or omnipotence with some weaker property. For instance, Nelson Pike famously argued that, although no being would deserve the title "God" unless that being were morally perfect, there are nevertheless possible worlds in which the being who is in fact God is not morally perfect, and therefore is not God (Pike 1969). Pike's view is, in essence, a rather complicated version of the claim that God is only contingently morally perfect, a view which some have regarded as extremely objectionable from a theological standpoint (Geach 1977).
A number of philosophers who have accepted the incompatibility of omnipotence with necessary moral perfection have regarded the latter as more central to religious notions of God, and have argued that divine omnipotence should therefore be rejected (Geach 1977; Morriston 2001; Funkhouser 2006).
Defenders of the compatibility of omnipotence and necessary moral perfection must deny at least one of the premises of the argument, and, indeed, each of them has been denied. Premise (1) is perhaps the most difficult to reject. To be necessarily morally perfect is to be morally perfect in every possible world, but there seem to be some states of affairs such that bringing them about is inconsistent with moral perfection, and so it seems that if any being is necessarily morally perfect, then there are some states of affairs which that being does not bring about in any possible world. However, defenders of certain sorts of divine command theories of ethics are committed to the claim that God is morally perfect only in a trivial sense, and these views will have the result that (1) is false. If what is morally good depends on God's choice, then, if God chose something else, that something else would be morally good. If this is right, then (1) is false: God could bring about E, but if he did bring about E, then E would be morally good. However, most philosophers regard this line of thought as tending to show the absurdity of these versions of divine command theory, rather than the falsity of (1).
Premise (2) can be rejected by those philosophers who regard omnipotence as the ability to perform any action or bring about any result which is consistent with the actor's nature, as in definitions (2), (5), and (7). However, these definitions fall prey to the McEar objection and, more generally, open the door to all kinds of limitations on what an omnipotent being can do.
Many philosophers of action take it as an axiom that there are no necessarily unexercised powers (or abilities, or capacities), and (3) is merely an instance of this general principle. Nevertheless, the rejection of (3) is defended by Wielenberg (2000), who argues by means of the following analogy. Suppose that Hercules is "omni-strong" that is, he has sufficient strength to lift stones of any weight. Suppose, however, that a certain stone is too slippery for him to get a grip on. He therefore cannot lift it. Hercules' inability to lift the slippery stone does not count against his omni-strength, since the stone is not too heavy for him, but only too slippery.
In the same way, Wielenberg argues, there are many things which it is not possible for God to do. However, God is omnipotent, since it is not for lack of power that God is unable to do these things, but for other reasons, such as his necessary moral perfection. The aptness of Wielenberg's analogy is still open to dispute, and the principle that there are no necessarily unexercised powers continues to be widely accepted.
3. Omnipotence and Human Freedom
It is sometimes argued that if the existence of an omnipotent agent is possible, then the existence of a non-omnipotent free agent is impossible. According to this line of thought, if Caesar was free, then Caesar, and only Caesar, could have brought about Caesar's freely refraining from crossing the Rubicon. However, if Caesar could have brought about that state of affairs, then it must be a possible state of affairs, and an omnipotent being could therefore bring it about. This, however, cannot be correct, for if someone other than Caesar brought about Caesar's refraining, then Caesar would not have refrained freely. Therefore, an omnipotent being could not bring about this state of affairs. But if even an omnipotent being could not bring it about, then surely Caesar, who is not omnipotent, could not bring it about either. Therefore, Caesar was not free and, by parity of reasoning, neither is any other non-omnipotent agent.
The Leibniz-Ross theory renders the problem even more acute. According to Leibniz, God chooses precisely which possible world will obtain. God, therefore, chooses whether Caesar will cross the Rubicon. However, if someone else chooses what Caesar will do, then Caesar is not free. Similarly, for Ross, Caesar's crossing the Rubicon is logically equivalent to God's effectively choosing that Caesar cross the Rubicon. The choice is up to God. It is therefore not up to Caesar, at least not in the sense which (according to some philosophers) is required for free will.
Neither Leibniz nor Ross finds this objection particularly troubling. According to Leibniz, since it is possible that Caesar freely refrain from crossing the Rubicon, there must be a possible world which represents him as doing so. In making a world actual, God does not in any way change the intrinsic character of that world (Leibniz 1985: sect. 52). As a result, had God brought about that world, Caesar would still have been free. Similarly, Ross suggests that whatever sort of independence from external determination freedom requires, it certainly does not require that the agent's choice be independent of its own logical entailments. However, in his view, God's effectively choosing that the agent so choose is logically equivalent to the agent's so choosing, and so cannot be inconsistent with freedom (Ross 1980: sect. 2).
Compatibilists about free will may be satisfied with the responses given by Leibniz and Ross. Libertarians, however, have generally not been satisfied, and have argued that an omnipotent being need not have the power to bring about such states of affairs as Caesar's freely refraining from crossing the Rubicon. Most of those who have been so concerned have followed an approach developed by Plantinga (1974: ch. 9). This approach hinges on the existence of a class of propositions known as counterfactuals of freedom. A counterfactual of freedom is a statement about what an individual would freely choose if faced with a certain hypothetical circumstance. For instance, the claim, "If Caesar were offered a bribe of fifty talents, he would freely refrain from crossing the Rubicon," is a counterfactual of freedom. Now, suppose that Brutus wants Caesar to freely refrain. If he uses force to prevent Caesar from crossing the Rubicon, then he has not succeeded in bringing it about that Caesar freely refrains, for in this case, Caesar's refraining has been brought about by Brutus and not by Caesar, and so Caesar did not do it freely. This sort of bringing about is known as strongly actualizing. Only Caesar can strongly actualize Caesar's freely refraining from crossing the Rubicon. However, if Brutus knows that if Caesar were offered the bribe, he would freely refrain, then there is a sense in which Brutus can bring it about that Caesar freely refrains: Brutus can strongly actualize the state of affairs Caesar's being offered the bribe, and he knows that if he does this then Caesar will freely refrain. In such a case, Brutus would be said to have weakly actualized Caesar's freely refraining.
According to Plantinga, in order for creatures to be free, it must not be up to anyone else which counterfactuals of freedom are true of them, so even an omnipotent being could not bring it about that particular counterfactuals of freedom are true. However, an omnipotent being could presumably bring it about that it knows the true counterfactuals of freedom (or if the omnipotent being was also essentially omniscient, then it would already know), and it could presumably strongly actualize many of their antecedents, and so weakly actualize a variety of states of affairs in which non-omnipotent beings acted freely. An omnipotent being could not, however, weakly actualize just any possible state of affairs. For instance, if there were no possible circumstance such that, if Caesar were in that circumstance, he would freely refrain from crossing the Rubicon, then even an omnipotent being could not weakly actualize Caesar's freely refraining.
Among those who accept Plantinga's arguments, some have attempted to analyze omnipotence in terms of what an omnipotent being could strongly actualize, and made appropriate qualifications for free actions. It is typically pointed out that it is logically impossible for any being to strongly actualize a state of affairs in which another being makes a free choice, and it suffices for omnipotence that a being be able to strongly actualize those states of affairs which it is logically possible that that being should strongly actualize (Wierenga 1983). This approach, however, runs into McEar-style counterexamples. Others have attempted to analyze omnipotence in terms of what an omnipotent being could weakly actualize. Flint and Freddoso (1983) require that an omnipotent being S be able to weakly actualize any possibly actualized state of affairs which is consistent with the counterfactuals of freedom about beings other than S. However, as Graham Oppy has pointed out, Flint and Freddoso's analysis also seems to make omnipotence too easy, since on Flint and Freddoso's account a being who could not strongly actualize such mundane states of affairs as a five-pound stone's being lifted or a barn's being painted red could turn out to be omnipotent if it was able to weakly actualize them (Oppy 2004, 74-75).
4. Omnipotence and the Problem of Evil
Divine omnipotence is typically used as a key premise in the famous argument against the existence of God known as the Logical Problem of Evil. The argument can be formulated as follows:
(1) An omnipotent being would be able to bring about any possible world
(2) Given the opportunity to bring about some world, a morally perfect being would only bring about the best world available to it
(3) The actual world is not the best possible world
(4) The actual world was not brought about by a being who is both omnipotent and morally perfect
The argument is here formulated in Leibnizian terms, and Leibniz notoriously rejected premise (3). Premise (2) has also been rejected: some philosophers have denied that there is a unique best possible world and others, most notably Robert Adams, have argued that even if there is such a world, creating it might not be the best course of action (Adams 1972). However, the premise that is of present concern is (1). Although (1) is accepted by Leibniz and Ross, considerations related to necessary moral perfection and human freedom have led many philosophers to reject it. This is the central premise of Plantinga's Free Will Defense against the Logical Problem of Evil (Plantinga 1974, ch. 9): If there are worlds that God, though omnipotent, cannot bring about, then the best possible world might be one of these. If this is so, then, despite being both omnipotent and morally perfect, God would bring about a world which was less than the best, such as, perhaps, the actual world.
5. References and Further Reading
Adams, Robert Merrihew (1972). Must God create the best? Philosophical Review 81 (3):317-332.
Aquinas, St. Thomas. 1921 [1274]. The summa theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd ed. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne.
Part 1, Qu. 25, Art. 3 argues that omnipotence should be understood as the ability to do anything that is absolutely possible, that is, that does not imply a contradiction.
Cowan, J. L. 1965. The paradox of omnipotence. Analysis 25:102-108.
Argues, against Mavrodes 1963, that the Stone Paradox cannot be solved by claiming that God can perform only logically possible tasks.
Curley, E. M. 1984. Descartes on the creation of the eternal truths. The Philosophical Review 93:569-597.
Descartes, Rene. 1984-1991 [1619-1649]. The philosophical writings of Descartes. Trans. JohnCottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Defends voluntarism, the thesis that God can do literally anything, even draw a round square. See 2:294 (Sixth Replies) and 3:23-26 (letters to Mersenne).
Flint, Thomas P., and Alfred J. Freddoso. 1983. Maximal power. In The existence and nature of God, ed. Alfred J. Freddoso. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Combines the apparatus of Plantinga 1974 with an Ockhamist account of foreknowledge to develop a result theory sensitive to issues about time and freedom.
Frankfurt, Harry G. 1964. The logic of omnipotence. Philosophical Review 73 (2): 262-263.
Points out that if, as Descartes supposed, God can do the logically impossible, then God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift and still lift it.
Funkhouser, Eric. 2006. On privileging God's moral goodness. Faith and Philosophy 23 (4): 409-422.
Argues that omnipotence is incompatible with necessary moral perfection, and that omnipotence is not a perfection, and therefore should not be attributed to God.
Geach, P. T. 1973. Omnipotence. Philosophy 48 (183): 7-20.
Considers four theories of omnipotence and argues that they are all unacceptable.
La Croix, Richard R. 1977. The impossibility of defining 'omnipotence'. Philosophical Studies 32 (2):181-190.
Argues that every possible definition of omnipotence either renders omnipotence inconsistent with traditional divine attributes or falls prey to McEar-style counterexamples. This article is responsible for introducing the name 'McEar.'
Leibniz, G. W. 1985 [1710]. Theodicy. Ed. Austin Farrer. Trans. E. M. Huggard. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
Argues that God's omnipotence consists in his ability to actualize any possible world, but God is impelled by a'moral necessity' to choose the best.
Mackie, J. L. 1955. Evil and omnipotence. Mind 64 (254): 200-212.
Argues that it is incoherent to suppose that a world containing evil was created by an omnipotent and perfectly good being.
Mann, William E. 1977. Ross on omnipotence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 8 (2):142-147.
Shows that, given Ross's theory of omnipotence (Ross 1969), an omnipotent being cannot freely decide to leave it up to others whether a certain state of affairs should obtain.
Mavrodes, George I. 1963. Some puzzles concerning omnipotence. Philosophical Review 72 (2):221-223.
Argues that an omnipotent being could not create a stone so heavy he could not lift it, since the notion of a stone too heavy to be lifted by an omnipotent being is incoherent.
Meierding, Loren. 1980. The impossibility of necessary omnitemporal omnipotence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1): 21-26.
Formalizes Swinburne's argument that only necessary omnitemporal omnipotence is incoherent (Swinburne 1973).
Morriston, Wes. 2001. Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: are they compatible? Religious Studies 37 (2): 143-160.
Argues that no being could be both omnipotent and necessarily morally perfect.
Oppy, Graham. 2005. Omnipotence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (1): 58-84.
Criticizes several recent theories of omnipotence (Rosenkrantz and Hoffman 1980; Flint and Freddoso 1983; Wierenga 1983) and argues that the God of 'orthodox monotheism' should not be regarded as omnipotent at all.
Pike, Nelson. 1969. Omnipotence and God's ability to sin. American Philosophical Quarterly 6 (3):208-216.
Argues that the individual who is in fact God is able to sin, but that the sentence 'God sins' is nevertheless necessarily false.
Plantinga, Alvin. 1967. God and other minds: a study of the rational justification of belief in God. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Ch. 7, sect. 2 introduced the 'McEar' counterexample to certain definitions of omnipotence (p. 170).
Plantinga, Alvin. 1974. The nature of necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chapter 9 argues that there are possible worlds which God, though omnipotent, cannot actualize.
Rosenkrantz, Gary, and Joshua Hoffman. 1980. What an omnipotent agent can do. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1): 1-19.
Defends a result theory according to which an omnipotent agent can actualize any unrestrictedly repeatable state of affairs.
Ross, James F. 1969. Philosophical theology. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.
Omnipotence is the topic of chapter 5. After a survey of Scholastic theories of omnipotence, Ross argues that no act theory of omnipotence can succeed. Ross then presents his own theory according to which a being is omnipotent if for any contingent state of affairs p, it is up to that being to choose whether p obtains.
Ross, James F. 1980. Creation. Journal of Philosophy 77 (10): 614-629.
Further develops, and defends from objections, the account of omnipotence given in Ross 1969. Section 2 answers the objection that Ross's theory leaves no room for human freedom (Mann 1977).
Swinburne, Richard. 1973. Omnipotence. American Philosophical Quarterly 10: 231-237.
Argues that a result theory can, and an act theory cannot, defeat the Stone Paradox. However, it is conceded that the Paradox shows that no temporal being could be essentially omnipotent.
Wielenberg, Erik J. 2000. Omnipotence again. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1): 26-47.
Criticizes Wierenga 1983 and Flint and Freddoso 1983 and argues for a result theory according to which there is no state of affairs such that lack of power prevents an omnipotent being from actualizing it.
Wierenga, Edward R. 1983. Omnipotence defined. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43 (3):363-375.
Defends a result theory, and argues that a being like McEar is impossible.
Author Information
Kenneth L. Pearce
Email: [email protected]
University of Southern California


text:
Submitted by John Stauber on
UPDATE: Read the post-event report at: https://www.prwatch.org/node/6321
The Center for Media and Democracy is sponsoring a "Coffee with the Troops" in Chicago on Sunday, August 5, 9:30 a.m. during the Yearly Kos extravaganza in the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place. The room is Regency Ball Room C/D on the 2nd level of the Hyatt.
Join Sheldon Rampton and me for coffee, pastries and a moderated discussion of how online activists can better support our troops in their own resistance to the war in Iraq. We'll be discussing the war with Garett Reppenhagen, Aaron Hughes and other soldiers who are the backbone of Iraq Veterans Against the War, IVAW.
I've never attended a Yearly Kos. I'm looking forward to this annual gathering of the Netroots crowd, the online movement that has become a powerful force in Democratic Party politics and fundraising, liberal and left activism, and the news media. The Netroots emerged in 2003 from a convergence of on-line opposition to the Iraq war and the presidential campaign of Howard Dean, the current Democratic Party chairman.
August 5th's "Coffee with the Troops" is an opportunity for Yearly Kos attendees to converse with a constituency crucial to stopping the war, anti-war soldiers themselves. Coincidentally the 40th anniversary conference of Vietnam Veterans Against the War is also being held in Chicago the same weekend as Yearly Kos, and Iraq Vets Against the War will be attending. Appreciation continues to grow for the work and leadership of pro-peace Vietnam soldiers in stopping that war. The 2006 documentary Sir, No Sir! illuminates the activism of thousands of soldiers who demonstrated in the streets, organized war crimes tribunals, and often went to the brig for peace.
The "A-list" bloggers and political consultants Jerome Armstrong, who coined the term Netroots, and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, after whose Daily Kos website the conference is named, wrote a 2006 book titled Crashing the Gates: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics. In it, they noted the unique importance of the Iraq war as an issue among liberal bloggers:
The Netroots activist, much like the new generation of grassroots activist, is fiercely partisan, fiercely multi-issue, and focused on building a broader movement. It's not an ideological movement — there is actually very little, issue-wise, that unites most modern party activists except, perhaps, opposition to the Iraq War, (although opposition to the war seems to be uniting the entire country as of late).
With the Democratic Party's Congressional victories in November 2006, the gates have been officially trampled. Many of the blogger barbarians are now comfortably ensconced in the castle, a power within the mainstream Democratic Party establishment. Nevertheless, the US debacle in Iraq drags on unabated. The Democratic Congress has funded the war with no strings attached, and Hillary Clinton who is seen by many as the Democratic presidential candidate for 2008 has told the New York Times that "when" she is president she will keep US forces in Iraq but run a better managed, smarter war. How different is her position from the current Bush policy in Iraq enunciated in the Joint Campaign Plan that calls for US forces to impose "sustainable security" on all of Iraq over the next two years?
What's up with the Netroots and the war? Is stopping the war still an over-arching issue that unites liberal bloggers? Or will the online partisans be taking their lead now from presidential candidates and Party strategists? What can bloggers do to hasten the end of the war and support our troops' own resistance?
Join us for a discussion of these issues at our "Coffee with the Troops," Sunday, August 5, 9:30 a.m., in Chicago at the Yearly Kos.
John Stauber is the founder and executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy. He is the co-author with Sheldon Rampton of 2003's Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, a New York Times bestseller.
OrangeClouds115 replied on Permalink
Spend just a few minutes on the blogs
John Stauber replied on Permalink
The Hillary question
From the
Mutternich replied on Permalink


text:
The national feast Gergyovden (St George's Day), called by different versions of the namein the different parts of the country: Gergyuvden, Gyurgyovden, Gergevden, Jourjovden, is dedicated to the Christian saint St George, which is considered by the national beliefs to be the guardian of shepherds and herds.
The name Georgios in Greek has the meaning of farmer. St Martyr George the Victorious is respected and renowned both by Christians and Muslims. According to the popularized life of the saint, George was born in Cappadocia in Asia Minor.
Having a bright education for his time, at an age of just 20, he was given a high military rank as a talented army leader. Son of well-to-do parents, he becomes an ardent believer in the Christian Faith. Being a strong supporter of Christianity, he was severely tortured and decapitated in 288, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (284-305). George has been turned into the paragon of the ideal Christian warrior and the patron saint of the war and the army. The popular beliefs and legends describe St George as the Dragon fighter - which is usually displayed in each icon of the holy saint.
The roots of the Gergyovden feast has to be looked back into an ancient pagan feast, dedicated to the sheep and goats, and their first milking. In their traditional feast calendar, the cult to St George is rich in complex rituals, connected to his constant dreams of better life, richer and happier.
The typical animal-breeding rituals and customs interweave with rituals connected to farming and old customs for ensuring health and prosperity. In the spring night prior to the feast, young unmarried women and girls gather flowers and herbs in the field, ritually feeding the sheep and the cattle with them, and they make three wreaths from those flowers and herbs: the first one is for the sheep that will be milked first; the second one is for the lamb that will be offered to the saint; and the third one is for the vessel with the milk.
The house, the barns, agricultural buildings, granaries, then they danced horo (i.e. typical Bulgarian round chain dance) but only leading in the left direction, then the bathe in the morning dew, pick bear branches and nettle and they decorate their house front doors, the barn, the cellar, cattle-shed and the sheep pen, and they light candles and they drink three sips of silent water as a cure.
Special place on the table is attributed to the ritual Gergyovden bread. All sorts of bread are made for the feast ? the cross bread, the shepherd's bread, the large ring-bread, as well as small ones, or the special ring-shaped bun baked by the young wife in the house. Right before dawn, the shepherds take the herds out for a short graze. When they come back, after the sunrise, they perform the ritual milking of the sheep.
Each Gergyovden there is a ritual offering of a young lamb to the patron saint (which is called kurban) - the lamb is butchered after being ritually fed and decorated with a Gergyovden wreath of a mulberry branch woven with nettle and some red thread.
Everyone named Georgi (George), Gergana, Ginka, Gina, Galya, Ganka, Gancho celebrate their name days.
The ritual dishes on the feast table should include: roast lamb, ritual bread, fresh milk, feta cheese prepared with such milk, yoghurt prepared with such milk, fresh garlic, boiled wheat, butter-and-cheese-filling pastry, eggs.


text:
Hooters of Katy
We know, even if you're not into spicy, you're into hot. That's why all of our seriously craveable flavors are the best of the best. Wings, burgers, shrimp, all the things that make you drool.
Location Highlights
- Hooters TV
- Delivery
- Gift Cards
- Carryout
- HootClub Rewards
- Smartphone Pay*
- Patio Seating
- Free WiFi
The Home of Ice Cold Brew
Nothing goes with world-famous wings like a tall, frosty beer. That's why you can always count on us to quench your thirst with old favorites, or give you the opportunity to try something new.
Featured Beers
Come in for an ice-cold Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, Dos Equis, or Guinness. They're our featured drafts on tap!
Bud Light
Light LagerAnheuser-Busch BreweryDomestic4.2% ABV -
LagerAnheuser-Busch BreweryDomestic5% ABV -
Busch Light
Light LagerAnheuser-Busch BreweryDomestic4.5% ABV -
Michelob Ultra
Light LagerAnheuser-Busch BreweryDomestic4.2% ABV -
Michelob Ultra
Light LagerAnheuser-Busch BreweryDomestic4.2% ABV -
Blue Moon Belgian White
Belgian WitBlue Moon Brewing CompanyCraft5.4% ABV -
Coors Light
Light LagerCoors Brewing CompanyDomestic4.2% ABV -
Coors Light
Light LagerCoors Brewing CompanyDomestic4.2% ABV -
Dos Equis Lager Especial
Specialty & Seasonal BeersCuauhtemoc Moctezuma CerveceriaSouth of the Border4.2% ABV -
Dos Equis Ambar
Vienna LagerCuauhtemoc Moctezuma CerveceriaSouth of the Border4.7% ABV -
Eureka Heights Buckle Bunny
Cream AleEureka Heights Brewing CoLocal Craft on Draft4.2% ABV -
Golden Road Mango Cart
Wheat AleGolden Road Brewing CompanyCraft4% ABV -
Guinness Draught
Irish Dry StoutGuinness BreweryImport4.2% ABV -
Kona Big Wave Golden Ale
Golden AleKona Brewing CompanyCraft4.40% ABV -
Lagunitas IPA
IPALagunitas BrewingCraft6.20% ABV -
Miller Lite
Light LagerMiller Brewing CompanyDomestic4.2% ABV -
Samuel Adams Winter Lager
BockSamuel AdamsCraft5.6% ABV -
Shiner Bock
BockShiner BrewingLocal Craft on Draft4.4% ABV -
Stella Artois
Euro LagerStella ArtoisImport5% ABV -
Stiegl-Radler Grapefruit
Specialty & Seasonal BeersStieglbrauereiImport2% ABV -
Yuengling Traditional Lager
Amber LagerYuenglingCraft4.5% ABV
Hooters is hiring!
We're looking for a few good men and a lot of great women to help make the world more fun! If you or someone you know is looking for flexible hours, competitive pay, tuition reimbursement, employee discounts and real opportunity to advance, you're ready to join the ranks.
About Hooters of Katy
Enjoy world famous wings -- Original Hooters™ Style, Daytona Beach®, Smoked, Bacon Wrapped, Naked, or Boneless -- in one of 15+ sauces or 5 dry rubs, along with an ice cold beer at Hooters™ of Katy.
Whether you're dining-in, ordering online for carryout, or placing a delivery order, the best food in Katy can be found here. Our BYOB (Build Your Own) burgers are hand crafted with 100% beef. Seafood? We've got that too. It makes sense, seeing as how the first Hooters™ was built in Clearwater, FL. Crab legs? Yup. Steamed shrimp? Check!
Looking for healthier menu options? Make sure to check out the Wise Choice section of our menu! It's the lighter side of Hooters™ for those looking to cut some calories. Whether or not you use those calories on beer is up to you.
Our location offers an extensive beer selection including local and regional craft beers, domestics, and imports on tap, as well as bottles and cans. If a cocktail is more your style, our Legendary Rita, colorful Hooterades, or 3 Mile Island® Bloody Mary will quench your thirst.
We're conveniently located near Westside Mall in Katy, TX. Come see us for lunch, after work, for dinner, or to celebrate an upcoming special occasion.


text:
Increased oxygen content can decisively improve the efficiency of oxidation reactions. The use of oxygen has the following advantages compared to pure air operation:
- Increase in selectivity and product yield
- Possible capacity increase
- Lower costs for product processing
- Greater flexibility in operation
Pure oxygen can be used in a particularly efficient way for gas/liquid reactions. In addition to the optimal feed system, other factors, in which Messer can provide sound expert knowledge, also play a decisive role.
Applications for oxygen- or oxygen-enriched air already exist in the following industrially used processes, or they are in the development phase:
- Terephthalic acid (PTA) and isophthalic acid (IPA) from p-xylene und m-xylene
- Acetone and phenol from benzene and isopropylene via the Cumene-Hydroperoxide-Process
- Styrene and propylene oxide from benzene and ethylene via ethylbenzene-hydroperoxide (Halcon-Process)
- Cyclohexanone/Cyclohexanol (KA oil) from cyclohexane
- Benzoic acid from toluene
- Hydrogen peroxide via the Anthraquinone process