Yes and the beautiful greek temples, beautiful egypt temples, beautigul hindu temples, beautiful aztec temples, etc. It always comes back to the same point: Christianity , as any other religion , is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with subjective man made morality and rules out of their historical context.
Gavin, I just wanted to write a comment to say thank you for the intentionality, groundedness, kindness, and quality of the content you have provided with truth unites. I am one of many people who have been so encouraged by your holding together of defending truth and respecting and caring for people who ascribe to ideas you agree and disagree with. In a time of grappling with the problem of evil, hell, and the messy history of the church, it has been both your confidence and clarity in representing the truth, and your humility and kindness towards others/love for your family that have made your channel so encouraging and grounding to me. Now, it's exciting for me to share your videos with a friend who has recently become protestant after growing up nominally Catholic, and I just wanted to say thank you! May the Lord be with you and continue to draw you and your family unto Himself!
I think people are primed to accept the argument of beauty given the overstimulation, burnout and cynicism most face when it comes to intellectual pursuits. They don't read the book, they don't even read a review of someone who read the book. They watch a tik-tok clip that lasts 5 seconds of someone mocking the book and that's all they need. It's easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. But can you stare into the sky, gazing at the northern lights and feel nothing but matter and physics? Do you notice the shadow fall over you from roiling clouds, feel the thunder in your chest without a hint of fear? Don't you see the mountains, forests, hear the birdsong and look back to your phone? I think the biggest issue is most people living in cities so far from nature and beauty. If you spend your entire life in a cave you can't fathom the sun. if you spend your life in a city built by men you can't appreciate a world made by God.
I will also say that a phone is a wonderful piece of technology that does still point towards God because of its intricacy, just not in the same way that a beautiful sunset does.
20:23 Synonyms for "Outrage" that begins with "D" that might work are "Defiance" or "Disgust" or the phrase "Disgusted Defiance". More by ChatGPT: Dissent Disapproval Displeasure Discontent Disgruntlement Disapproval Dismay Distaste Discomfort Disfavor Disapprobation
Still listening, but this is an excellent point. I'm a chaplain by training and have been doing apologetics for 20 years. One of my main points these days is that apologetics should touch the heart. We should touch humans *as humans* so that they can see the beauty of the faith. As an evangelical Thomist who sees beauty, true, good, and existence all as convertible, there's a strong metaphysical foundation for me, too. Wonderful stuff.
Genesis chapter one, in which the Creator makes and sustains all things out of nothingness by Word and Breath is a mysterious and beautiful description.
Those aren't translations; they are critical texts based on different Greek manuscripts of the NT. The Textus Receptus was a critical edition produced by Erasmus of Rotterdam based on a small number of later Greek manuscripts. The Majority Text is based on a much larger number of manuscripts, basically (I am oversimplifying here) assuming that the most typical readings are the most accurate and reliable. Since the MT follows what the majority of texts have, any group of manuscripts (especially later ones) will tend to agree with it, so the TR largely agrees with with the MT. The modern Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society) is based on all known manuscripts (including translations, since it's usually possible to figure out what the original text said) and involves many of the same methods for assessing how accurate the text of the manuscripts are that Erasmus himself used. (If Erasmus were alive today, he would probably be involved with the modern Critical Text, because the methods are essentially the same, but applied to far more manuscripts.)
Thanks for sharing your talk explaining how beauty is a powerful apologetic for God! It brought to mind a key point Robert Adams makes in his book Finite and Infinite Goods. Baggett and Walls in their book Good God aptly summarize Adams' point: "Adams takes as veridical those intimations of a transcendent Good that we experience at certain moments of our lives, mere glimpses though they be. The ultimate Good is transcendent in that it vastly surpasses all other good things and all of our conceptions of it. The same is true of beautiful things that give us a sense of being dimly aware of something too wonderful to be contained or carried either by our experience or by the physical or conceptual objects we perceive. And yet there is something in these beautiful things that draws us in and inchoately promises us fulfillment, not mere fleeting satisfaction, if we could but bathe in its source. Adams thinks this suggests that the ultimate Good is always higher than the human realm, not unlike how Platonism would have it, but certainly in a way that is consonant with certain religious conceptions. Finite goods, on his view, derive their value by relevantly imaging this ultimate Good who is God himself."
"... people who live in the cities that can't see the stars..." Exactly. This is a huge void in the lives of most people on the planet, owing to electric street lights. One of the greatest physical manifestations of God's creation has been virtually hidden.
Why is it that most modern Protestant church buildings are ugly? Most are box-type buildings, like converted warehouses. Their sanctuaries are devoid of any art, dark and gloomy like rock concert halls.
I'd be interested on your thoughts regarding "The Phantom Tollbooth" by Norton Juster. Regardless of his religious background (I have no idea) the way he looks at the world rivals that of Tolkein and Lewis
You should look up what the Catholics teach about the analogy of faith. Beauty as "Claritas" seems to apply to that. I am watching now, maybe you got to this point.
I don't think that fundamentalist Christianity has a very strong hold on you. I'm confident that God's acceptance of you is independent of your belief or unbelief.
YOUR BEAUTY SEDUCTION COMES BACK TYO THER SAME POINT: Christianity , as any other religion , is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with subjective man made morality and rules out of their historical context. The bible is only 3000 years old, humans like us (homo sapiens) exist for 300,000 years. In none of the millions of artefacts, cave paintings, scriptures or any other testimony in the 297,000 years before the bible, a "one and only God YHWH” or "Adam and Eve" was ever mentioned. Any archaeological testimony of that version of a god is out of the short "biblical time" when people already invented that story and believed in it. This version of a "one and only God YHWH" is an invention only 4000-3000 years old. One day also this religion will disappear, like all other religions, spiritual people then will still go on existing: ) Have a great day :)
Why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? The fallible teachings of Gavin Ortlund, have made me a stronger Catholic Christian! Thank you Gavin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@littleboots9800 Truth must always be defended! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
But simply put, having a theology to defend against theologies is one thing. It can be beautiful. It can be immensely logical. But I have a hard time finding not the logical validity or validity of its beauty, but the validity of there even being the right for the theology to exist itself, and for the right that one may make a church with their theology, rather than defend an already made church with it’s theology. Is there a right for the Protestant church to even exist to make a theology, that in itself makes the Protestant church? Because if a war exists, then there certainly are two sides (or more). But there is also the justification of there even being a war. One side has to justify their existence to even be their side and not the other one. And war is a poor analogy because the world works to where the “correct” side is only correct because it wins. However, Christianity is a belief that is one truth uniting, making all people clean and acceptable to God, worthy of being part of the Body of Christ because Christ made us worthy through his blood. Since when has the one sacrifice of Christ seen a division? Since when did Christ’s blood ever allow the formation of any more bodies of Christ? And if Protestant Churches are defined by their theology, and there are many divisions because of many theological differences, then how can Protestantism seem to be at all valid under the one Law and Covenant of Christ? How can the reformers seek one truth to the detriment of unity? And how can we even know which one is true if a Protestant sect says they are alone the only one? If their theology agrees with their theology, I’d say this is only obvious, but never a proof of anything more than this, because then again who said other than themselves that their theology is correct? But again, who said they can have theology or that they are “they.” As in there is separation in Christ? And last but not least: can a Protestant answer these questions not with theology or even interpretive differences? …because is not the question how can Protestants have a right to having theology or conflicting interpretations in the first place? And if one says “to challenge theology is to have one’s own theological differences,” then I’d say that’s true but making entire churches is much further then a theological debate within the church. To make one’s own church is more than a theological difference internally or even externally. But what of Christ’s body is outside of Christ’s body that can persist to present theological battle? Especially when even justification is at hand: different views of Christ’s One Sacrifice…
I fully agree! This is one of the reasons I'm so vehement about taking back beautiful historic churches one way or another
Protestants have no claim to any beautiful churches.
Yes and the beautiful greek temples, beautiful egypt temples, beautigul hindu temples, beautiful aztec temples, etc.
It always comes back to the same point:
Christianity , as any other religion , is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with subjective man made morality and rules out of their historical context.
New I’d find redeemed zoomer on a video about beauty 😂😂😂
The Ortlund family: **happily watching Frozen 2**
Dr. Ortlund: **contemplating the philosophical implications of Into the Unknown**
He just like me fr fr
Dr. Ortlund analyzing "love is an open door":
That's not normal? I'm pretty sure my kid will reach that point in about 2 years.
As a Christian fiction writer, I resonate with this message. Beauty and awe are essential to my storytelling. With out its magic my words fall dead.
I GO TO THIS UNIVERSITY HOW ON EARTH DID I NOT KNOW GAVIN ORTLUND WAS COMING
Gavin, I just wanted to write a comment to say thank you for the intentionality, groundedness, kindness, and quality of the content you have provided with truth unites. I am one of many people who have been so encouraged by your holding together of defending truth and respecting and caring for people who ascribe to ideas you agree and disagree with. In a time of grappling with the problem of evil, hell, and the messy history of the church, it has been both your confidence and clarity in representing the truth, and your humility and kindness towards others/love for your family that have made your channel so encouraging and grounding to me. Now, it's exciting for me to share your videos with a friend who has recently become protestant after growing up nominally Catholic, and I just wanted to say thank you! May the Lord be with you and continue to draw you and your family unto Himself!
Very encouraging testimony, thanks for sharing!
Thank you for your kind words!
I think people are primed to accept the argument of beauty given the overstimulation, burnout and cynicism most face when it comes to intellectual pursuits. They don't read the book, they don't even read a review of someone who read the book. They watch a tik-tok clip that lasts 5 seconds of someone mocking the book and that's all they need. It's easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled.
But can you stare into the sky, gazing at the northern lights and feel nothing but matter and physics?
Do you notice the shadow fall over you from roiling clouds, feel the thunder in your chest without a hint of fear?
Don't you see the mountains, forests, hear the birdsong and look back to your phone?
I think the biggest issue is most people living in cities so far from nature and beauty. If you spend your entire life in a cave you can't fathom the sun. if you spend your life in a city built by men you can't appreciate a world made by God.
I will also say that a phone is a wonderful piece of technology that does still point towards God because of its intricacy, just not in the same way that a beautiful sunset does.
Amen brother! Thats very true
20:23 Synonyms for "Outrage" that begins with "D" that might work are "Defiance" or "Disgust" or the phrase "Disgusted Defiance". More by ChatGPT:
Dissent
Disapproval
Displeasure
Discontent
Disgruntlement
Disapproval
Dismay
Distaste
Discomfort
Disfavor
Disapprobation
So love this!
Still listening, but this is an excellent point. I'm a chaplain by training and have been doing apologetics for 20 years. One of my main points these days is that apologetics should touch the heart. We should touch humans *as humans* so that they can see the beauty of the faith. As an evangelical Thomist who sees beauty, true, good, and existence all as convertible, there's a strong metaphysical foundation for me, too. Wonderful stuff.
I need your tour schedule. Would love to attend 💕
I think this is last year. Gavin is currently on holiday but has lined up some videos to prevent our withdrawal symptoms while he is taking a break
Exactly. God is not dry.
100% agree. We need more of this.
I love this!! So much more than Logic… the Gospel is beautiful!!
Such a great message. Thanks for this!
Universal restoration (salvation) is the best and most beautiful ending possible. Dare we have *that* much hope?
Can anything less claim to be "the best hope IMAGINABLE"?
20:15 Gavin gazing at the stars thinking of the angels
How does this video only have 3.9k views?
20:23 I would recommend Division as a good substitute for Outrage
At 10:25 I was thinking “wow what a great analogy” then I remembered I haven’t the slightest idea what that’s like…
Oh man, I live 20 minutes away, just missed you!
Genesis chapter one, in which the Creator makes and sustains all things out of nothingness by Word and Breath is a mysterious and beautiful description.
Por favor, coloque
Please provide the translation function for your videos. We Portuguese speakers need to study these excellent studies.
Great message!
A lot of this message is similar to what C S Lewis gets at in 'Suprised by Joy' a very good book
This is awesome! Speaking of apologetics could you do a video on Bible translations such as the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical text?
Those aren't translations; they are critical texts based on different Greek manuscripts of the NT. The Textus Receptus was a critical edition produced by Erasmus of Rotterdam based on a small number of later Greek manuscripts. The Majority Text is based on a much larger number of manuscripts, basically (I am oversimplifying here) assuming that the most typical readings are the most accurate and reliable. Since the MT follows what the majority of texts have, any group of manuscripts (especially later ones) will tend to agree with it, so the TR largely agrees with with the MT.
The modern Critical Text (Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society) is based on all known manuscripts (including translations, since it's usually possible to figure out what the original text said) and involves many of the same methods for assessing how accurate the text of the manuscripts are that Erasmus himself used. (If Erasmus were alive today, he would probably be involved with the modern Critical Text, because the methods are essentially the same, but applied to far more manuscripts.)
Adam and Eve were convinced by beauty. We should define what should be beautiful.
Every sin is a corruption of something good. Part of our task is to direct people to the straight when their wills and desires are bent.
Eve was also convinced because she saw the fruit was good for food. We should define food.
@@stevenalexander7776 we should also define fruit.
Thanks for sharing your talk explaining how beauty is a powerful apologetic for God! It brought to mind a key point Robert Adams makes in his book Finite and Infinite Goods. Baggett and Walls in their book Good God aptly summarize Adams' point:
"Adams takes as veridical those intimations of a transcendent Good that we experience at certain moments of our lives, mere glimpses though they be. The ultimate Good is transcendent in that it vastly surpasses all other good things and all of our conceptions of it. The same is true of beautiful things that give us a sense of being dimly aware of something too wonderful to be contained or carried either by our experience or by the physical or conceptual objects we perceive. And yet there is something in these beautiful things that draws us in and inchoately promises us fulfillment, not mere fleeting satisfaction, if we could but bathe in its source. Adams thinks this suggests that the ultimate Good is always higher than the human realm, not unlike how Platonism would have it, but certainly in a way that is consonant with certain religious conceptions. Finite goods, on his view, derive their value by relevantly imaging this ultimate Good who is God himself."
Lord revels to me your beauty.
"... people who live in the cities that can't see the stars..."
Exactly. This is a huge void in the lives of most people on the planet, owing to electric street lights. One of the greatest physical manifestations of God's creation has been virtually hidden.
9:00 i want a book with that plot. 😶
Why is it that most modern Protestant church buildings are ugly? Most are box-type buildings, like converted warehouses. Their sanctuaries are devoid of any art, dark and gloomy like rock concert halls.
Which of Fr. Von Balthasar's books would you recommend on beauty?
I'd be interested on your thoughts regarding "The Phantom Tollbooth" by Norton Juster. Regardless of his religious background (I have no idea) the way he looks at the world rivals that of Tolkein and Lewis
You should look up what the Catholics teach about the analogy of faith. Beauty as "Claritas" seems to apply to that. I am watching now, maybe you got to this point.
What questions should we ask non-believers?
Beauty? May I have permission to post the Litany of Loreto?
12:17
33:00 Get bored???
I suck at beauty, when it comes to apologetics.
But one Master of beauty in my opinion is Ravi Zacharias. He makes my hair stand on end.
Is this live? July 30, 2023?
No, this was last year.
It's from 29th October 2022
I don't think that fundamentalist Christianity has a very strong hold on you. I'm confident that God's acceptance of you is independent of your belief or unbelief.
Listening to you speak about beauty & mathematical platonism reminds me of Sir Roger Penrose. He's an atheist that's definitely on your wavelength.
They didn’t give you much of a pulpit to stand behind lol
Small but effective
Distemperment
YOUR BEAUTY SEDUCTION COMES BACK TYO THER SAME POINT:
Christianity , as any other religion , is a subjective interpretation of a possible objective god/gods, with subjective man made morality and rules out of their historical context.
The bible is only 3000 years old, humans like us (homo sapiens) exist for 300,000 years.
In none of the millions of artefacts, cave paintings, scriptures or any other testimony in the 297,000 years before the bible, a "one and only God YHWH” or "Adam and Eve" was ever mentioned.
Any archaeological testimony of that version of a god is out of the short "biblical time" when people already invented that story and believed in it.
This version of a "one and only God YHWH" is an invention only 4000-3000 years old.
One day also this religion will disappear, like all other religions, spiritual people then will still go on existing: )
Have a great day :)
Why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? The fallible teachings of Gavin Ortlund, have made me a stronger Catholic Christian! Thank you Gavin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
And yet you're always here!
@@littleboots9800 Truth must always be defended! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
But simply put, having a theology to defend against theologies is one thing. It can be beautiful. It can be immensely logical.
But I have a hard time finding not the logical validity or validity of its beauty, but the validity of there even being the right for the theology to exist itself, and for the right that one may make a church with their theology, rather than defend an already made church with it’s theology.
Is there a right for the Protestant church to even exist to make a theology, that in itself makes the Protestant church?
Because if a war exists, then there certainly are two sides (or more). But there is also the justification of there even being a war. One side has to justify their existence to even be their side and not the other one. And war is a poor analogy because the world works to where the “correct” side is only correct because it wins.
However, Christianity is a belief that is one truth uniting, making all people clean and acceptable to God, worthy of being part of the Body of Christ because Christ made us worthy through his blood.
Since when has the one sacrifice of Christ seen a division? Since when did Christ’s blood ever allow the formation of any more bodies of Christ?
And if Protestant Churches are defined by their theology, and there are many divisions because of many theological differences, then how can Protestantism seem to be at all valid under the one Law and Covenant of Christ?
How can the reformers seek one truth to the detriment of unity? And how can we even know which one is true if a Protestant sect says they are alone the only one? If their theology agrees with their theology, I’d say this is only obvious, but never a proof of anything more than this, because then again who said other than themselves that their theology is correct?
But again, who said they can have theology or that they are “they.” As in there is separation in Christ?
And last but not least: can a Protestant answer these questions not with theology or even interpretive differences? …because is not the question how can Protestants have a right to having theology or conflicting interpretations in the first place?
And if one says “to challenge theology is to have one’s own theological differences,” then I’d say that’s true but making entire churches is much further then a theological debate within the church. To make one’s own church is more than a theological difference internally or even externally. But what of Christ’s body is outside of Christ’s body that can persist to present theological battle? Especially when even justification is at hand: different views of Christ’s One Sacrifice…