วีดีโอ

I want to read the book, but it is way too expensive.

Why did John Milbank risk ritual pollution and come in proximity to Zizek, an unwashed spastic clown, an acolyte of a French bigamist con artist?

I can say with certainty that there is no Finnish translation of _The Doors to the Sea._ The only works of Hart available in Finnish are _The Mystery of Castle MacGorilla,_ _Atheist Delusion,_ and his essay _Anarcho-Monarchism_ (published unironically by a far-right website).

21:20 Maurice Blondell 26:50 32:36 Maxixmus Confessor 38:40 non dualist 47:45 51:30 55:17 Gnosticism

Be waquf se bhari padi hai duniya sir ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

DBH, in manically trying to win internet fights (new atheists, anti universalists) that he never wins (he convinces only those already convinced) is effectivly becoming a Schleiermacherian. This is sad.

An article in the peer-reviewed journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, _Perspectives_, argued that Noah's Flood was regional, in the area of the Black Sea, even though it seemed to the locals to be worldwide. The author also identified the town where Noah probably lived. Whether or not the story had any element of historical veracity, it makes the point that there is ultimate accountability. If Hawking's Grand Design had a Grand Designer, it would make sense that the Designer's masterpiece, humanity in possession of some degree of free will, would be held accountable for how it exercised that free will. I believe it was CS Lewis (possibly Tom Holland--sorry) who said, "It's only in Christendom that you see the breaking up of this pagan model of 'the ruler is it, and the ruler says what happens, and whatever the ruler does...Sometimes the ruler is divine, as in late and decadent Roman pagandom, the ruler's even a God. And you just don't have that. Now you have the prophetic voice of the Church, using the gospel of Jesus Christ to confront the ruler and set boundaries around the ruler."

Ordered and I should get it Friday!

more god drivel about your imaginary friend and his pals getting into scrapes but eventually burning people alive so everyone is happy.

Besides the fantastic content, which I love, I also can't help but wonder if one had to choose... is it better to have the most impressive hair on top of one's head or on the bottom of one's head?

Nothing is unchanging but change. Flux. Dao. Change is the natural state of the universe; it moves like the sea's tides, between opposites like ebb and flow, high and low, front and back.

What a wonderful conversation, Jake! The argument with God is central to my respect for Judaism - that certainty is not the requirement for faith.

Who is Aruguna (20:20 onwards)?

As the subject was Hart’s book, I could have done with a good deal less Milbank and a good deal more Hart.

DBH is my spirit animal

Bentley Hart is a true Christian windbag.

45:00 😂

I beg to differ I will never refer to myself as a GOD nor do I have a desire to be one it was given to me at a young age to never attempt to try to hold that title or worship anything or anyone other than Christ

How Can I get this book?

Milbank with your turn man

That’s a priest? LOL

What you clicked on the thumbnail to view, namely the interview, starts at 16:35

yes, we come from God, but we are not God. "Christian monism" would seem to mean: we are God, not by nature but by grace, or by participation. so no, the analogia entis is not negated. but the (neo)Thomists of the Strict Observance want to revive the "pure nature" theory and therefore want to position themselves politically to take control of power in the world...

Seeing God in Alice in Wonderland as enfolded into the story of Grace is a key to seeing how God and grace are in EVERYTHING.

Kurt Godel makes a good moderator.

@40:06 LOL 😆 He’s talking about Prof Ed Feser. These guys beef all the time

Does anyone know where Maximus says we are destined to become uncreated?

David Bentley Hart is an anathematized heretic. Pay him no mind. See my article refutation of universalism. The link is in the Community and "About" sections of my channel.

😔 "promosm"!!!

Does anyone know if/where DBH interacts directly with process thought? He mentioned theogonic becoming in the interview and gave his reasons for rejecting it. Namely, it makes God’s identity violent, transgressing actus purus and divine simplicity. God has no history, etc. I would love to hear DBH review Iain McGilchrist’s work, The Matter with Things, in which process thought factors prominently. Any leads would be appreciated!

David, the words you are searching for are "Lagomorphic Potential". 'There is no sort of Lagomorphic potential to be found within the Brassicarapa.' - sounds very Hartian. :)

Conversation with Hart begins at 14:30

Some interesting moments in this interview! Nice work!

Found it: A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism by Simone Petrement (Author), Carol Harrison (Translator)

Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance - not its abandonment for pagan ideas!!

𝓟Ř𝔬𝓂𝔬𝐒ϻ

There is an hundreds of evidence, that this man is LIAR, yet some random channel on TH-cam: "here we go again, by inertia"

Could each of us be an , What if?

I am astonished that Dr Hart would attack a divinely inspired institution! What's wrong with the DH? He obviously hates pitchers.

DBH has a beautiful tone of voice. The tone of someone voice means so much to me and is one of the reasons I prefer to spend quite a bit of time alone. I am educated , yet not educated at the level of DBH. I do enjoy very much listening to these talks with DBH because I find gold nuggets just from listening. Point of example - in the last one and two minutes of this talk - the golden nuggets arrived. 🕊🕊🕊🤍📕📕📕

Anyone know the name at 15:05?

The last five minutes. . . 😳

If all it takes for something to be Marxist is to critique existing power relations and inherited power structures, then I guess all the classical liberals and the Framer's of the Constitution were Marxists too!

How is a party that is more attentive to the needs of small town America, restoring the diminishing stature of Christianity, and is more economically populist not a type of identity politics? How is it not the sort of right-wing populist politics pitched by folks like Oren Cass, Josh Hawley, and J.D. Vance? And how would that not generate a backlash among the majority of the country do not live in small town America and see a restoration of Christian values in public life as a threat to their own identities, values and interests? So much of the economic populist rhetoric I hear coming from these new national conservatives cashes out as a very narrow form of protectionism for a very specific sort of work, and a very specific way of life. It's never about giving all workers more power to bargain in their collective interests against the forces of capital, it's about privileging domestic manufacturing in the exurbs and rural communities over service sector work being done in cities. So it's not really egalitarian in its values or goals: they're fine with hierarchies of capital over labor, so long as they're national, and those hierarchies reinforce traditional social structures like the male breadwinner headed nuclear family. In some ways it sounds like the project the conservative movement has had since the very beginning.

Maybe I'm naive, but if you want to overcome the problem of identity politics (assuming it's a problem in the first place), you need to give individuals and groups a sense of belonging to something in common that actually works for everyone. So whether we find ourselves belonging to this identity group or that identity group or political party A versus political party B, we all have some sense of a shared history, however thin, and a shared future where our fortune's and burden's are shared in common. The challenge of our time is economic inequality, and the inequality of fortune and recognition that such unequal material conditions generate. When we're all fighting one another over scarce resources and opportunities, the (innate?) tendency to approach politics in a way that advances the interests of our particular reference group rather than the whole political community becomes harder and harder to resist.

Isn't Hegel's Dialectic a valid ultimate metaphysic of "logos" (as the principle of comprehensibility, and the as the foundational reality experienced)? Why does is it that people want to pretend that Hegel was "trying to pull a fast-one" by thinking that his Dialectic is "God" (an untimely Aristotelian Judao-Christian trinitarian's image of God at that)?

Hasn't it been established that the actual religion is always between the cannon Orthodoxy and the what the church defines as Heterodoxy. I mean lets get a look at those records of a Thousand Years of Inquisition and Thought Policing.... what were they chiefly concerned with suppressing? That was the common religion.

Look forward to reading this book. As an undergrad, I was fortunate to see the apocalyptic, post-malthusian film, "Soylent Green." I realized then, unless humanity did a 180 on fossil fuel use and unsustainable agricultural and industrial practices, our species was doomed. I've witnessed little since to change my mind. No intentional virtue-signaling intended. I still drove internal combustion engines and flew overseas twice. So I remain guilty as charged. We adopted two wonderful children, one opted to limit themselves to two kids. The other opted for the single life and no kids. VHEMT makes its point... Be well.

These two thinkers understand what Good News really means. Thank you for posting this!!

🤗 p̷r̷o̷m̷o̷s̷m̷