For someone who declares himself a Christian, I believe that in the end it all boils down to one question, 'Did Jesus of Nazareth die and after 3 days resurrect? '"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile" Corinthians 15:17
veilofreality yes absolutely this. Paul preached what was “of first importance “ namely that Christ died for our sins and was raised to life the third day.
This is actually pretty important. The Resurrection is the central point here. And the way I see it, we have (at the least, there was claimed to be more) eleven men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ and that He instructed them to preach the Gospel. So either they were conspiring together and lying, or what they saw was truly Jesus risen from the dead. Ten of those men were killed and one was exiled for preaching this. Would ten different men choose torture and death to protect a lie? This "lie" never profited the Apostles personally, and two of them, Peter and Andrew, were crucified, aka the most painful form of execution ever devised by man. I don't see this as possible. From there, the only possible explanations are that the Apostles simultaneously witnessed the exact same series of hallucinations, or Jesus actually rose from the dead. I see the latter as being more plausible.
I loved your distinction between the Christian god and pagan gods, I have never heard that before. I find myself frustrated with people atheists that seem to want to debate the existence of pagan gods, but not the god of Christianity. The don't seem to take the question seriously, because I found theology to be much more difficult than calculus, physics or chemistry.
Theology [which I studied for 5 years at British and American universities] is only more 'difficult' than calculus, physics and chemistry because it permits of no rational conclusion!
I have a similar belief about the existence of God. If He created the cosmos, matter, and everything that is measurable, then it should be obvious He is ABOVE matter and that which is measurable. I can't completely grasp what that would mean for defining God. I don't expect Him to be a tangible entity, but something far beyond that. He obviously is an intelligent being, but it stands to reason that we as His creatures cannot conceptualize His qualities & character. It is beyond our capacity. It's like an ant trying to conceptualize a human being. It could never even begin to fathom what we are. At least that's as close as I can explain it. I think atheists want to see the heavens open up and an old man with a bread to appear sitting on a throne in order for them to believe. It's interesting because they call their reason superior to that of the supposedly inferior and medieval reasoning of Christians, yet by being literal they show their limitation to see past that which their eyes can see.
Not so sure about this ‘what makes Christianity unique is this personal relationship with God’. However, Dr. Henry Abramson pointed out that what makes Christianity different from Islam and Judaism is the emphasis on belief in Christianity as opposed to the emphasis on Praxy/ practice in Islam and Judaism. So, the atheist Muslim is ostracized more because their atheism inhibits the ability to practice the cultural and political life of Islam, rather than testing their actual beliefs. Likewise, in Judaism one would likely not be ostracized for atheistic beliefs but rather for not properly participating in the culture and politics. Christianity also has this tendency. My Grandfather went to church, donated money, and was good friends with the congregation, but privately was also a self described atheist. So, I would argue empirically, that this Abramson rule does not universally apply to Christianity either. It seems that what has been coined ‘ the doubt essential to faith’ as described by Lesley Hazleton, Zizek, and many others seems to apply to this topic. A kind of Rumsfeldian ‘unknown known, or known unknown’ seems to be operating as a solution to this theological dilemma. Perhaps, what is being hinted at is a kind of paradoxical Gnostic-agnosticism essential to faith. Linguistically, the shahada in Islam seems to imply this. So, if there is “no god, but god”, is there god or isn’t there? Linguistically, the shahada is hardly a declaration of faith ( there is no god but Allah) as it is translated and understood by Muslims today, but rather can be interpreted as declaration of opening oneself to the mystery of God. This seems to be re-emphasized in Islam’s 99 names of God, which are more akin to attributes of godliness rather than an objectification. So, according to the 99 attributes God is found in truth, light, benevolence, peace, love, etc. By embracing these attributes according to Sufism( and it also seems to be the case in Orthodox Christianity, according to Ted Nottingham) one forms a relationship with God, not necessarily through belief or dogmatic practice. And, creative and artistic pursuits are just one facet of god’s attributes, which can be nullified if not conjoined with these other essential characteristics. (empirically we have Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Kanye West, Maria Abramovitch, and many others to epitomize this axiom ) Forgive me for intruding, I enjoy these talks and interviews immensely. -New subscriber, old school Petersonian, Take care, and godspede
I don't know what you are smoking, but as a Muslim I've never heard of any such garbage ever. The word Allah, whether it originated as a pronoun or as a contraction (al-Ilah, the God), is a pronoun today, and was a pronoun by the time of Muhammad sallahualayhiwasalam and was used by Jews and Christians and Arabs of the Peninsula to refer to God as is recognized in Judeo-Christian culture today. Granted, Christians were saying Jesus Christ is God, and that God was a trinity, and a subset of peninsular Jews were saying God had a child (Uzayr whose identity is obscure today and debated over.) Arab polytheists just had Allah as a sort of master of the other gods, ruler of the universe but still there was a pantheon for them of lesser but still influential gods. What we know from history is that from the start Muhammad was commanding a full on negation of any other gods or partners or rivals to Allah, declaring His authority and power over all of creation as absolute and not in any way shared with anyone. Early narrations show he was promising those who converted everlasting joy in Paradise and warning those who did not would be tormented in everlasting punishment.. This was well before any serious rituals or legislation were passed down. The faith aspect came first. And throughout his lifetime he was definitely warning nonbelievers and fake believers that their deeds would be worthless in the next life if they did not die with conviction. So it's not even slightly true that conviction is not of absolute importance in Islam-at least from an objective, historical view, I don't think anyone could reasonably claim this is how Muhammad viewed it.
I talked to some Mormons today. I find the same kind of problem with talking to them. "believe" and "God" are probably not definitions we share equally. It's almost as if when a standard religious person says something like "When you pray, God will answer." they are unknowingly taking massive gigantic philosophical ideas and shorthanding and layering them into a neat little sentence. It takes like 6 seconds to really translate that sentence into modern terms. It really is like theyre speaking a different language that needs translation. I think it's because they're speaking in image, because the image gets there before the word, but now we have to extract the word from the image.
I have the same experience with atheists, when I talk about God, they have this anthropomorphic image of a bearded old man sitting on a cloud, and when I explain to them that no seriois religious person believes that, and I bring up st.Thomas aquinas for example, they just tell me "thats cool but thats not God, God is a bearded old man sitting on a cloud and thats stupid therefore christianity is stupid".
The danger of apophatic theology is that you can easily lose sight of the fact that God is personal, hears our prayers, and incarnated in the flesh to save mankind. Are we worshiping our own own theological prowess or the personal God who created all things?
That's why we need apophatic and cataphatic theology, a theology of the Trinity, a Theology of the incarnation. and finally a Theological vision of the eschaton. All of those together prevent the excess each of these elements could allow on their own.
The description Jonathan gave in this video fits far more with Taoism (describing the inexhauastable source of all myriad things) than any other description of a legacy of Yahweh or European thought. Was this a more Eastern Orthodox than Catholic or Protestant "definition"?
It is Eastern Orthodox, but is nonetheless traditional in all mystical strains of Christianity, it just happens that EO has retained its mystical core. There is a wonderful book called "Christ the Eternal Tao" written by Hieromonk Damascene.
I wonder if a large element of the rumoured "Christian Revival" will be the adoption of beneficial aspects of Christian history / symbolism / practice within the larger Western spiritual milieu. I doubt there will be many new converts to Christianity, but I can see the more sophisticated understanding of theology promoted by the likes of JBP and Jonathan influencing the development of new religious movements.
The Bible says no one has seen God the father. To see God would result in death, as the Bible states “for Jan shall not see me and live.” God showed Moses his glory passing by, and his glory shone on Moses for some time.
The mystic Meister Eckhart wrote that God Himself could not so much as PEEK into the Castle in the center of the Soul unless He gave up His name and all his person-like properties.
This fits better the eastern description of an inexhaustable source of all things - the maya(infinite masks) of hinduism, or the taoist cosmology of being emerging from non-being. Both are most feminine in quality, for one. Wheras the Christian God has always been depicted/personified in a male sense. A "patriarchal gap" between east and west in their basic approach to the ground of being. So I am having trouble with this description, as most westerners either never touch on these distinctions, or simply refer to god in the masculine as if by default or habit. For example, many regard their religion as their 'rock' or ground of being - yet mystics or taoist will say "No, non-being gives rise to being." It may well be that the western mind has erroneously sought to always designate what 'is', for lack of any good term at all, "the void" - with a personal god. *"Seeing a space there? Well then, by George... fill it with something!"* We are, for whatever reason, socially uncomfortable with the paradoxical qualities of reality. So one strays from 'no-nonsense" interpretations at one's own risk.
You speak only out of ignorance of the Christian tradition. Though the masculine pronous is used, the idea that God is beyond Being and Non-Being or "super-essential' has been there since very early, you find it in St-Gregory of Nyssa, In Dionysus the Aeropagite up the line all the way to very late mystics. Here is a quote from the 17th century European mystic Angelus Silesius. God is an utter Nothingness, Beyond the touch of Time and Place: The more thou graspest after Him, The more he fleeth thy embrace. The "personal" God is the Hypostatic God, we could even say that the personal God is the Logos. If you are interested in the full vision of Orthodox Mystical theology, I would suggest you read the book "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Genesis 5
shaft9000 this definition of God is more alike or even beyond the very idea of Para-Brahman since Maya is like the illusion that made so that there would seems to be something that is not-Brahman when in fact, all of it is Brahman and just Brahman When one say of the two things that defy or different with eachothers, they belong to one thing definable as concepts and not non-concept like many suppose nothingness is So to say it simply, God is beyond and transcends all that are beyond and transcend and beyond and transcend and beyond and transcend (this goes on beyond ad infinitum) the concepts and non-concepts along whatever again, beyond and transcend "them" "I am that I am" simple as
Jonathan, in your study, would you say the pursuit of truth is a fundamental Christian ethic/idea? Of course this makes me think of "the way, the truth, the life", but this seems a very Christian ideal.
I think this relates to the word logos, which I see all these thinkers talking about. It's a word that means a lot. It's something like truth, it's what Christ embodied. I highly recommend looking up a proper explanation of it. Maybe from Jonathan or Peterson.
So these questions arise to me from this: If God is not phenomenological and is on the same category as "love", why pray? Isn't praying nothing but reflecting on things then? And is anyone listening or able to intervene in response to that? Yes, love can be responsible for things to happen but: It doesn't exist without or outside of us; We're the ones who bring it forth by choosing to act on it; It is self-evident in the sense that no one's waiting for proof of its existence or whatever; And we don't pray to it and expect it to listen and intervene accordingly and with good judgement. And if God is that what is the Holy Spirit then? I always thought of the Holy Spirit as being the manifestation of God in that level of reality while God Himself would be an entity, for religious people.
tasfa10 Love is complicated isn't it? But one could not be how one could bring it out when The Love God has gotten as His Face is not the same as ours but something else beyond us? As for praying, I think it's important to do as it's a way we join the aura, you could say, of God since the Holy Spirit is what gathers us into that very relationship
tasfa10 but I don't profess to hold all knowledge in this matter since if you are talking about the Love and the Holy Spirit, it has crossed into the Trinity
@@themdapxe I'll leave a quote from Blake: "as the plow follows words, so God rewards prayers" Sadly, this means that I'm talking to myself when I pray, and I cannot think out of this conclusion whenever hearing Jordan (started following Jonathan to see if I can find a different conclusion)
@@curtisjackson5793 Maybe the book "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning" by Viktor Frankl would be of help. It sounds like you're conceptualizing God as an individual being who is completely separate to yourself. When you're talking to "yourself" during prayer, what *part* of yourself are you talking to?
@@Crime_Mime to the part that "listens", I guess. I see your point. So not only do our future selves call out to us by redirecting our attention consistently, we can also "appease" them by making compromises and promises or, as Jordan would say: "bargain" with the future. Would God be then that part of me which makes it possible that I not only acknowledge the unrealized potential, but also interact with it? This is the God of Abraham, essentially - I really like Jordan's view on a multifaceted God depicted differently in the first 5 books of the bible. Ultimately, God would form the very "structure" of reality, which I guess is what Johnathan argues. Btw Frankl is on my "to read" list.
The Modal Ontological Argument: P1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. P2. A maximally great being exists in some possible world. P3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. P4. If a maximally great being in every possible world, then it exists in every possible world. P5. A maximally great being exists in the actual world. C. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. If God is a maximally great being then God exists necessarily and cannot cease to exist.
T.J. What if we change P1 to “It is possible that a maximally great being doesn’t exist”? Following the same logical steps we arrive at the conclusion that God can’t exist... I don’t see how this could be considered a good argument.
T.J. Alright, so I watched the video and I didn’t understand why did he change P2 to “If it is possible that God doesn’t exist, then he has to be shown to be logically absurd and can’t exist in some possible worlds”. By this logic couldn’t the atheist just revert the original argument by stating “If it is possible that God exist, then it must be shown that his non existence is logically absurd and can’t exist in some possible worlds”?
T.J. I just reverted the “new” P2 that he offered. That’s what I’m saying btw, it doesn’t make sense, but as far as I understood that’s exactly what he did to my objection.
I understand your concept of God, mostly from reading David Bentley Hart’s the Experience if God. But I have to ask.... would you affirm or deny the literal historicity of Christ’s incarnation?
Jesus [assuming he existed] was certainly a man, and nothing more. 'Christ' is a Jewish category into which Jesus has been forced by Procrustean sleight-of-hand.
Not sure I would make a video on that, but the reason it is such a controversy is that in order to come to full communion, we cannot simply roll over the differences, but rather we must engage them and work things out before there is communion. In terms of Catholicism, there is also the question of trust. Many OC are suspicious of the RC intentions in this regard because of how on one hand Catholics want ecumenism, but on the other hand they have Byzantine rite Catholic churches and Catholics have in the past invaded or simply evangelized Orthodox countries, all of which then appears to many as a kind of lure to pull people away from Orthodoxy. The idea is that if we actually believe in ecumenism, we have to stop evangelizing other Christians first.
"He's such a high resolution guy and multiple perspectives and doesn't really give an answer" Yes, I believe that's called dodging the question, but that's another nice way of putting it. He's admitted to that himself when he says that he doesn't want to 'choose a side'. I mean, when Carl Jung was asked if he believed that God existed, he answer unequivocally that he knew that God in fact existed. Jordan Peterson being such a 'Jungian' , it's confounding that he cannot come to answer that question in any satisfying manner. Someone should ask a yes or no question next time, such as, "Yes or no, do you believe in God, Jordan?". It'd be fun watching him work himself out of that.
You realize that this behaviour stems from the vow that he made as a young man to only speak what he believed to be unequivocally true? He refuses to answer because he knows that both a Yes and a No answer won't reflect what he actually believes. And will most likely just be used by his enemies to mis-label and mis-characterize him.
I don't get this obsession with his personal faith. Why is it anyone's business? Whether he believes in God or not has little impact on what he says about the value of western Christian tradition. Even Camille Paglia, an admitted atheist, realizes the Judeo-Christian foundation of western civilization.
Jordan Peterson has recognised - correctly - that there is a good deal of deep psychological truth in the biblical stories. But so there is in Aesop, Lao Tze, Marcus Aurelius, Shakespeare and the great Victorian novelists [to look no further]. So he wants to 'unpack' (and thereby save) that truth by means of Jungian psychology, much as Bultmann tried to save the NT by means of Heideggerian philosophy. It's not necessary!
But the question "Do you believe in God" is too simple and leaves too many things unanswered - such as what you think God is. When Jung said he knows, he was talking about God as an Archetype in the unconscious mind, not a supernatural being who created the universe and literally made Adam from dirt and Eve from his rib. The real question is, how much of the Bible is metaphorical, and what exactly does it really mean? And to dig all the way down that rabbit hole ultimately leads to: what does the idea of God in the Bible represent? Generally when people ask "Do you believe in God?" many of them really mean "Do you take everything in the Bible as literally true?" I don't think anybody really believes it's all literally true, even the most devout believers take some of it metaphorically. The question is how much? As Peterson himself says frequently, the stories in the Bible were never meant as science or literal truth, they are designed to relate profound inner truths in mythical form, like all religions.
I agree with all these,but,for some reason,for the whole God thing to work you have to approach it in a deeply personal way.As if to say,if you dont conceptualize Being,or the Absolute or the Sublime or whatever you wanna call God, as a personal,available,loving reality with which you built a strong relationship(like in the case of Abraham),it just wont work.
Enlightened Anglicans had accepted evolution within a decade of Darwin's 'Origin' [see 'Essays and Reviews' (1860), and 'Lux Mundi' (1891)], but still believed in a Creator, though creation was rendered redundant by evolution! There's nothing like having your cake and eating it too!
Tertullian famously insisted: 'Credo quia absurdam', meaning I believe BECAUSE it is absurd. From such a standpoint, one can prove anything. Our mental health is too important to drink from such a poisoned spring.
If God isn't phenomenological, then can he cause things to happen? Does the answer change if the question is simply, "Can God cause things to happen?" The only way I can think to reconcile these questions with what you said (and I tentatively agree with those things) is if I think of God *as* the universe itself, at least in a sense. Ugh, I sound like an intellectual prick, and I'm just confusing myself. The questions seem unanswerable, that's why I brought them up.
Here is a question. Can love cause things to happen. Can concern cause things to happen. What about the good itself? Look up Aristotle's four causes, and you will see that causing something doesn't necessarily mean a type of material and mechanical cause-effect chain.
Love and concern can motivate, but I don't know if I can think of that as synonymous with "causing". I'll check it out though. Edit: Having read up on the "four causes" and looking at your comment, I'd have to say that the answer to my questions the way I phrased them is "No". "Motivate" instead of "cause" would yield a "Yes" since I don't have access in English to the Greek words that Aristotle did. Sadly the English word "cause" doesn't have the same meaning as Aristotle's chosen word "aitia". This understanding lends itself well to alternative interpretations of the scriptures in which God "causes" things to happen, except in cases where He has direct physical influence. Thinking of Him as not phenomenological works just fine for modern people, but for those who witness live miracles in the Biblical stories, it's at least more complicated than that (narrative/metaphorical, probably). The only way I can begin to wrap my head around both perspectives as a pair is if I think of God as transcendent over causality. And really, why not? Still bruises my meek human brain, but it'll do. The further I descend this rabbit hole, the more I run into technical definition issues. I'm satisfied for now with the answer, "No, not by physical force." In the meantime, I'll try and contemplate better questions.
To transcend is also to contain. Maybe that is the problem you are struggling with. To transcend time is to contain all time within an eternal present. To transcend all things is to contain them, all things are in God. God is in all things. God is All in All.
I describe myself as someone who is trying to be a christian ... My own view is that God _both_ , exists, _and_ , does not exist ... That is, He does not exist (as we do) in Entity, He is not a _thing_ like I am ... God exists as Non-entity, like Love and Truth, He is the ultimate non-entity which existed before anything else could Be anything. Hence the injunctions against trying to 'picture' God or trying to 'name' Him. This is not a logical idea, it's a paradox, that God both exists and does not exist at the same time, like Schrodinger's Cat ... but it works for me.
Tommy Applecore since Concepts like Nothingness, Being, the Beyond,Infinity. God reigns beyond such let alone the Non-Concept which is something He transcends and beyond and even so, He transcends and is beyond whatever beyond and transcend beyond and transcend beyond and transcend (this goes on beyond ad incomprehensible infinitum) the concepts and non-concepts This is because of the very word that He said which is the simplest and most correct way of speaking of God "I am that I Am"
Yeah, it seems strange that Jonathan seems to be calling God the One Beyond Being, like the Neo-Platonists. My understanding is that Being is the one thing that apophatic theology can't say God doesn't have. Which is quite appropriate, since as Kant pointed out, existence is not a predicate.
Because simply, God is beyond existence and non-existence, and all those duality are belonging into concepts something He has beyond beyond beyond ad infinitum transcends, along with the non-concept and the concept of non-concept and non-concept of concept, all thing possible and impossible and beyond possible impossible and even simply beyond beyond beyond that ad infinitum or not, even all that shall never come close to God
If that is how you view God, then who was Jesus Christ to you? Was he a son of God in a different way than you and I are sons of God? If he is different then why? How can the source of all being "pick" a particular son?
God is Existence. God is not a thing "in the world." The Kosmos is the Order of Things, not "everything." The Body of Christ is the Ecclesia (Church) meaning the people, not the buildings. The wrong questions yield the wrong answers.
In Jesus name, we are the children of the KING of kings, ALMIGHTY LORD of lords, the BEGINNING and the ENDING, CREATOR of all creation; GLORY, PRAISE AND HONOR, unto the SAVIOR and MESSIAH (JESUS), that was promised through prophets of the old testimant, who SACRIFICED himself for our salvation!!! PRAISE the FATHER GOD FOR SENDING HIS ONLY SON TO DIE FOR OUR SINS!! Thank you JESUS!! HE is WORTHY!! For there shall come the day that wver knee shall bow and every tounge EXLAIM THAT JESUS IS LORD!!! Bless HIS name the NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Time and space do not determine if something exists or not. From our limited perspective time and space provide a referential lens to view and understand things within our perceivable universe. There may be extra dimensional aspects of our existence that are not perceptible and do not interact with space and time the way we understand it today.
Dillahunty is a pompous prig, as mired in the SJW mindset that Jordan Peterson so rightly deplores as the odious Steve Shives. And Sam Harris is right about Islam, but wrong about free-will [as Dan Dennett has shown].
“God does not exist” is so misleading for the twisting of words you do after Jonathan. I watch your other content and it’s good, but “god can’t be measured” the son certainly can be. He existed in his entirety, anything else is a heresy. His followers could see his literal stigmata when he rose. Jordan Peterson is leading you astray
Jonathon, I was settling in to enjoy this until you said “the most illiterate... uh.. farmer.” What is it about farming that people think is easy and means a person is illiterate? My father, a farmer, was one of the wisest, most literate men I’ve ever known. You have messages to share and I appreciate that, but I don’t appreciate your supposition about farmers at all. Wow, lost some respect there.
Yes, sorry for that, my mind was swimming in the Middle ages, where peasant farmers mostly would have been illiterate. Obviously this does not appy to modern farmers who often have to be business men and managers before they even walk out to the field.
Jonathan Pageau thank you. By watching your other videos I could tell that statement was not intended the way I first heard it. (I went ahead and watched more anyway. Haha) You are clearly a very thoughtful young man. FYI - My dad was a small family farmer just as that lifestyle was becoming untenable. He raised 10 kids successfully, and believe me, we all noticed him reading books, the Bible, and fixing everything instead of buying new. He passed away a year ago at 94. Great, great man. I’m thrilled to have had contact with you here. Isn’t the internet amazing?! I plan to see you and Dr. Peterson speak in person someday! I have never been to Canada, but It is on my wish list. God bless you.
The smartest person in the world can be a farmer. But you don't have to be the smartest person to be a farmer. A farmer can also be an academic. But you don't have to be an academic to be a farmer. A boxer can be fluent in 10 languages and be filled with knowledge and insights on literature, but you don't have to be that to be a boxer. It is just a different profession. A farmer can be smart and he cant be illiterate. It's just a single example. Come on... You can't just take things like this offensively. You can't ever say anything if you take words like that.
When someone asks you do you believe in God, they're simply asking you do you believe in a creator and not in like a pagan hindu way where creation is God but Christian God who created the whole show. This whole word salad which I see in so-called intellectuals like you and Jordan Peterson and Jung (who was a occultist, currently in hell) and Nietzsche who was a wicked evil man..you are the so-called wise men The Bible condemned. Why not take the LEAP OF FAITH? You'll have plenty of time to learn in heaven and without the evil knowledge this time, anyways I'm ranting because new age
Amazing mental gymnastics. So anyone can make up anything and it will work. No No, Yahweh is different from all the other gods. Sorry it is not. Yahweh is a Hebrew God.
That moment when an Atheist who knows nothing of Christianity tells a Christian who has extensively read the Church Fathers what Christians believe. In the second century Justin Martyr was already saying that Socrates and Plato were Christians before Christ. I love it when people argue into the air.
There was a big divide in early Christianity between those - like Justin and Origin, whose background was in neo-Platonism, and others, like Tertullian on the place of earlier philosophers. The Platonists wanted to 'baptize' them as 'Christians before Christ', while those like Tertullian saw them as diabolical counterfeits for the real thing. Who can forget Tertullian's cry: "What has Christianity to do with Philosophy? What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? [His answer: Nothing!] Fortunately for Christianity, the Platonists won the argument. In Islam, on the other hand, it went the other way, and with a vengeance!
Well, in terms of uniting the semitic and hellenistic traditions, Origen won despite the controversy around him, especially in the East, especially with the line going through Dyonisus the Areopagite, St-Maximos the Confessor and St-Gregory Palamas. We are on pretty firm ground until today. And if modern Evangelicals can often be seen as a recasting of Tertullian, one cannot limit the horizon of Christianity to these folks. To do so is intellectually dishonest.
+Jonathan Pageau Such arrogance, I have studied the religious history of the three major Middle Eastern Religions. You clearly have very little knowledge on this subject. So find me a peer reviewed paper without pleading to authority that refutes what I have stated. And I want this from biblical scholars not theologians. I equate theologians as alchemists or creationist. In addition when you come up with empirical evidence to support your hypothesis of this sky god, I will cheer for you as you receive your Noble Prize. Good luck.
For someone who declares himself a Christian, I believe that in the end it all boils down to one question, 'Did Jesus of Nazareth die and after 3 days resurrect? '"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile" Corinthians 15:17
veilofreality yes absolutely this. Paul preached what was “of first importance “ namely that Christ died for our sins and was raised to life the third day.
Paul is absolutely right: but the truth is Jesus did not rise from the dead, and therefore [as Paul correctly insists] faith is futile.
saltburner2 wow thats a pretty bold statement
You could only subvert it by showing that Paul was wrong.
This is actually pretty important. The Resurrection is the central point here. And the way I see it, we have (at the least, there was claimed to be more) eleven men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ and that He instructed them to preach the Gospel. So either they were conspiring together and lying, or what they saw was truly Jesus risen from the dead.
Ten of those men were killed and one was exiled for preaching this. Would ten different men choose torture and death to protect a lie? This "lie" never profited the Apostles personally, and two of them, Peter and Andrew, were crucified, aka the most painful form of execution ever devised by man. I don't see this as possible. From there, the only possible explanations are that the Apostles simultaneously witnessed the exact same series of hallucinations, or Jesus actually rose from the dead. I see the latter as being more plausible.
This is criminally under viewed
This is probably the best video of him I've seen. And yet it has such little views, what great food people are missing.
I loved your distinction between the Christian god and pagan gods, I have never heard that before. I find myself frustrated with people atheists that seem to want to debate the existence of pagan gods, but not the god of Christianity. The don't seem to take the question seriously, because I found theology to be much more difficult than calculus, physics or chemistry.
Theology [which I studied for 5 years at British and American universities] is only more 'difficult' than calculus, physics and chemistry because it permits of no rational conclusion!
@@saltburner2 “I went to college so I know it’s all made up” that’s you
True, nevertheless…
I have a similar belief about the existence of God. If He created the cosmos, matter, and everything that is measurable, then it should be obvious He is ABOVE matter and that which is measurable. I can't completely grasp what that would mean for defining God. I don't expect Him to be a tangible entity, but something far beyond that. He obviously is an intelligent being, but it stands to reason that we as His creatures cannot conceptualize His qualities & character. It is beyond our capacity. It's like an ant trying to conceptualize a human being. It could never even begin to fathom what we are. At least that's as close as I can explain it. I think atheists want to see the heavens open up and an old man with a bread to appear sitting on a throne in order for them to believe. It's interesting because they call their reason superior to that of the supposedly inferior and medieval reasoning of Christians, yet by being literal they show their limitation to see past that which their eyes can see.
Not so sure about this ‘what makes Christianity unique is this personal relationship with God’. However, Dr. Henry Abramson pointed out that what makes Christianity different from Islam and Judaism is the emphasis on belief in Christianity as opposed to the emphasis on Praxy/ practice in Islam and Judaism. So, the atheist Muslim is ostracized more because their atheism inhibits the ability to practice the cultural and political life of Islam, rather than testing their actual beliefs. Likewise, in Judaism one would likely not be ostracized for atheistic beliefs but rather for not properly participating in the culture and politics.
Christianity also has this tendency. My Grandfather went to church, donated money, and was good friends with the congregation, but privately was also a self described atheist. So, I would argue empirically, that this Abramson rule does not universally apply to Christianity either.
It seems that what has been coined ‘ the doubt essential to faith’ as described by Lesley Hazleton, Zizek, and many others seems to apply to this topic. A kind of Rumsfeldian ‘unknown known, or known unknown’ seems to be operating as a solution to this theological dilemma. Perhaps, what is being hinted at is a kind of paradoxical Gnostic-agnosticism essential to faith. Linguistically, the shahada in Islam seems to imply this. So, if there is “no god, but god”, is there god or isn’t there? Linguistically, the shahada is hardly a declaration of faith ( there is no god but Allah) as it is translated and understood by Muslims today, but rather can be interpreted as declaration of opening oneself to the mystery of God. This seems to be re-emphasized in Islam’s 99 names of God, which are more akin to attributes of godliness rather than an objectification. So, according to the 99 attributes God is found in truth, light, benevolence, peace, love, etc. By embracing these attributes according to Sufism( and it also seems to be the case in Orthodox Christianity, according to Ted Nottingham) one forms a relationship with God, not necessarily through belief or dogmatic practice. And, creative and artistic pursuits are just one facet of god’s attributes, which can be nullified if not conjoined with these other essential characteristics. (empirically we have Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Kanye West, Maria Abramovitch, and many others to epitomize this axiom )
Forgive me for intruding, I enjoy these talks and interviews immensely.
-New subscriber, old school Petersonian,
Take care, and godspede
I don't know what you are smoking, but as a Muslim I've never heard of any such garbage ever. The word Allah, whether it originated as a pronoun or as a contraction (al-Ilah, the God), is a pronoun today, and was a pronoun by the time of Muhammad sallahualayhiwasalam and was used by Jews and Christians and Arabs of the Peninsula to refer to God as is recognized in Judeo-Christian culture today. Granted, Christians were saying Jesus Christ is God, and that God was a trinity, and a subset of peninsular Jews were saying God had a child (Uzayr whose identity is obscure today and debated over.) Arab polytheists just had Allah as a sort of master of the other gods, ruler of the universe but still there was a pantheon for them of lesser but still influential gods. What we know from history is that from the start Muhammad was commanding a full on negation of any other gods or partners or rivals to Allah, declaring His authority and power over all of creation as absolute and not in any way shared with anyone. Early narrations show he was promising those who converted everlasting joy in Paradise and warning those who did not would be tormented in everlasting punishment..
This was well before any serious rituals or legislation were passed down. The faith aspect came first. And throughout his lifetime he was definitely warning nonbelievers and fake believers that their deeds would be worthless in the next life if they did not die with conviction.
So it's not even slightly true that conviction is not of absolute importance in Islam-at least from an objective, historical view, I don't think anyone could reasonably claim this is how Muhammad viewed it.
I talked to some Mormons today. I find the same kind of problem with talking to them. "believe" and "God" are probably not definitions we share equally. It's almost as if when a standard religious person says something like "When you pray, God will answer." they are unknowingly taking massive gigantic philosophical ideas and shorthanding and layering them into a neat little sentence. It takes like 6 seconds to really translate that sentence into modern terms. It really is like theyre speaking a different language that needs translation. I think it's because they're speaking in image, because the image gets there before the word, but now we have to extract the word from the image.
Нова Bravo! 👏
I have the same experience with atheists, when I talk about God, they have this anthropomorphic image of a bearded old man sitting on a cloud, and when I explain to them that no seriois religious person believes that, and I bring up st.Thomas aquinas for example, they just tell me "thats cool but thats not God, God is a bearded old man sitting on a cloud and thats stupid therefore christianity is stupid".
so, how would you extract the word from the image? How would you translate the sentence "When you pray, God will answer." into modern terms?
Odd, in scripture the word of God was revealed before the image of God, both in man and Christ.
Very good conversation between you guys
Sup Jonathan, you cool
The danger of apophatic theology is that you can easily lose sight of the fact that God is personal, hears our prayers, and incarnated in the flesh to save mankind. Are we worshiping our own own theological prowess or the personal God who created all things?
That's why we need apophatic and cataphatic theology, a theology of the Trinity, a Theology of the incarnation. and finally a Theological vision of the eschaton. All of those together prevent the excess each of these elements could allow on their own.
Thankfully these questions do not arise for the pagan Classical Theist.
The description Jonathan gave in this video fits far more with Taoism (describing the inexhauastable source of all myriad things) than any other description of a legacy of Yahweh or European thought. Was this a more Eastern Orthodox than Catholic or Protestant "definition"?
It is Eastern Orthodox, but is nonetheless traditional in all mystical strains of Christianity, it just happens that EO has retained its mystical core. There is a wonderful book called "Christ the Eternal Tao" written by Hieromonk Damascene.
I wonder if a large element of the rumoured "Christian Revival" will be the adoption of beneficial aspects of Christian history / symbolism / practice within the larger Western spiritual milieu. I doubt there will be many new converts to Christianity, but I can see the more sophisticated understanding of theology promoted by the likes of JBP and Jonathan influencing the development of new religious movements.
The Bible says no one has seen God the father. To see God would result in death, as the Bible states “for Jan shall not see me and live.” God showed Moses his glory passing by, and his glory shone on Moses for some time.
The mystic Meister Eckhart wrote that God Himself could not so much as PEEK into the Castle in the center of the Soul unless He gave up His name and all his person-like properties.
Technically He can, being Omnipotent and all
But since He is a Good Father, He must abide by His Laws that He has made for His Glory and His Children
This fits better the eastern description of an inexhaustable source of all things - the maya(infinite masks) of hinduism, or the taoist cosmology of being emerging from non-being. Both are most feminine in quality, for one. Wheras the Christian God has always been depicted/personified in a male sense. A "patriarchal gap" between east and west in their basic approach to the ground of being. So I am having trouble with this description, as most westerners either never touch on these distinctions, or simply refer to god in the masculine as if by default or habit. For example, many regard their religion as their 'rock' or ground of being - yet mystics or taoist will say "No, non-being gives rise to being." It may well be that the western mind has erroneously sought to always designate what 'is', for lack of any good term at all, "the void" - with a personal god. *"Seeing a space there? Well then, by George... fill it with something!"*
We are, for whatever reason, socially uncomfortable with the paradoxical qualities of reality. So one strays from 'no-nonsense" interpretations at one's own risk.
You speak only out of ignorance of the Christian tradition. Though the masculine pronous is used, the idea that God is beyond Being and Non-Being or "super-essential' has been there since very early, you find it in St-Gregory of Nyssa, In Dionysus the Aeropagite up the line all the way to very late mystics. Here is a quote from the 17th century European mystic Angelus Silesius.
God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more thou graspest after Him,
The more he fleeth thy embrace.
The "personal" God is the Hypostatic God, we could even say that the personal God is the Logos. If you are interested in the full vision of Orthodox Mystical theology, I would suggest you read the book "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky.
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Genesis 5
shaft9000 this definition of God is more alike or even beyond the very idea of Para-Brahman since Maya is like the illusion that made so that there would seems to be something that is not-Brahman when in fact, all of it is Brahman and just Brahman
When one say of the two things that defy or different with eachothers, they belong to one thing definable as concepts and not non-concept like many suppose nothingness is
So to say it simply, God is beyond and transcends all that are beyond and transcend and beyond and transcend and beyond and transcend (this goes on beyond ad infinitum) the concepts and non-concepts along whatever again, beyond and transcend "them"
"I am that I am" simple as
it is hard to talk about God when you get something nice and then the next moment you find that the manna turned into worms.
Jonathan, in your study, would you say the pursuit of truth is a fundamental Christian ethic/idea? Of course this makes me think of "the way, the truth, the life", but this seems a very Christian ideal.
I think this relates to the word logos, which I see all these thinkers talking about. It's a word that means a lot. It's something like truth, it's what Christ embodied. I highly recommend looking up a proper explanation of it. Maybe from Jonathan or Peterson.
So these questions arise to me from this: If God is not phenomenological and is on the same category as "love", why pray? Isn't praying nothing but reflecting on things then? And is anyone listening or able to intervene in response to that? Yes, love can be responsible for things to happen but: It doesn't exist without or outside of us; We're the ones who bring it forth by choosing to act on it; It is self-evident in the sense that no one's waiting for proof of its existence or whatever; And we don't pray to it and expect it to listen and intervene accordingly and with good judgement. And if God is that what is the Holy Spirit then? I always thought of the Holy Spirit as being the manifestation of God in that level of reality while God Himself would be an entity, for religious people.
tasfa10 Love is complicated isn't it?
But one could not be how one could bring it out when The Love God has gotten as His Face is not the same as ours but something else beyond us?
As for praying, I think it's important to do as it's a way we join the aura, you could say, of God since the Holy Spirit is what gathers us into that very relationship
tasfa10 but I don't profess to hold all knowledge in this matter since if you are talking about the Love and the Holy Spirit, it has crossed into the Trinity
@@themdapxe I'll leave a quote from Blake: "as the plow follows words, so God rewards prayers"
Sadly, this means that I'm talking to myself when I pray, and I cannot think out of this conclusion whenever hearing Jordan (started following Jonathan to see if I can find a different conclusion)
@@curtisjackson5793 Maybe the book "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning" by Viktor Frankl would be of help. It sounds like you're conceptualizing God as an individual being who is completely separate to yourself. When you're talking to "yourself" during prayer, what *part* of yourself are you talking to?
@@Crime_Mime to the part that "listens", I guess. I see your point. So not only do our future selves call out to us by redirecting our attention consistently, we can also "appease" them by making compromises and promises or, as Jordan would say: "bargain" with the future.
Would God be then that part of me which makes it possible that I not only acknowledge the unrealized potential, but also interact with it? This is the God of Abraham, essentially - I really like Jordan's view on a multifaceted God depicted differently in the first 5 books of the bible. Ultimately, God would form the very "structure" of reality, which I guess is what Johnathan argues.
Btw Frankl is on my "to read" list.
Amazing!
The Modal Ontological Argument:
P1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2. A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4. If a maximally great being in every possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P5. A maximally great being exists in the actual world.
C. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
If God is a maximally great being then God exists necessarily and cannot cease to exist.
T.J. What if we change P1 to “It is possible that a maximally great being doesn’t exist”? Following the same logical steps we arrive at the conclusion that God can’t exist... I don’t see how this could be considered a good argument.
Thiago T. The first premise seems plausible but problems arise when following it up with the other premises. th-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/w-d-xo.html
T.J. Alright, so I watched the video and I didn’t understand why did he change P2 to “If it is possible that God doesn’t exist, then he has to be shown to be logically absurd and can’t exist in some possible worlds”. By this logic couldn’t the atheist just revert the original argument by stating “If it is possible that God exist, then it must be shown that his non existence is logically absurd and can’t exist in some possible worlds”?
Thiago T. Can you explain your last sentence? I’m having trouble understanding it.
T.J. I just reverted the “new” P2 that he offered. That’s what I’m saying btw, it doesn’t make sense, but as far as I understood that’s exactly what he did to my objection.
I understand your concept of God, mostly from reading David Bentley Hart’s the Experience if God. But I have to ask.... would you affirm or deny the literal historicity of Christ’s incarnation?
Christ has to have been a man, or else his story and what it entails would not make sense.
Jesus [assuming he existed] was certainly a man, and nothing more. 'Christ' is a Jewish category into which Jesus has been forced by Procrustean sleight-of-hand.
JDM A'F, I don't know who you are arguing with.
To whom are you replying? No one here has even used the word 'testable'.
saltburner2 he seems to be arguing with an imaginary creationist in his mind.
my head hurts now...
I clicked on this video with my eyebrow raised, needless to say it’s been lowered
Jonathan, can you do a video on your thoughts on ecumenism? I don't understand why it's such a controversy in the OC.
Not sure I would make a video on that, but the reason it is such a controversy is that in order to come to full communion, we cannot simply roll over the differences, but rather we must engage them and work things out before there is communion. In terms of Catholicism, there is also the question of trust. Many OC are suspicious of the RC intentions in this regard because of how on one hand Catholics want ecumenism, but on the other hand they have Byzantine rite Catholic churches and Catholics have in the past invaded or simply evangelized Orthodox countries, all of which then appears to many as a kind of lure to pull people away from Orthodoxy. The idea is that if we actually believe in ecumenism, we have to stop evangelizing other Christians first.
Jonathan Pageau Thank you for the explanation. My interest in Orthodox Christianity has been growing as of late and I'm trying to educate myself.
"He's such a high resolution guy and multiple perspectives and doesn't really give an answer" Yes, I believe that's called dodging the question, but that's another nice way of putting it. He's admitted to that himself when he says that he doesn't want to 'choose a side'. I mean, when Carl Jung was asked if he believed that God existed, he answer unequivocally that he knew that God in fact existed. Jordan Peterson being such a 'Jungian' , it's confounding that he cannot come to answer that question in any satisfying manner. Someone should ask a yes or no question next time, such as, "Yes or no, do you believe in God, Jordan?". It'd be fun watching him work himself out of that.
You can bet that when he answers, he will answer. He is figuring it out and does not want to pretend.
You realize that this behaviour stems from the vow that he made as a young man to only speak what he believed to be unequivocally true?
He refuses to answer because he knows that both a Yes and a No answer won't reflect what he actually believes. And will most likely just be used by his enemies to mis-label and mis-characterize him.
I don't get this obsession with his personal faith. Why is it anyone's business? Whether he believes in God or not has little impact on what he says about the value of western Christian tradition. Even Camille Paglia, an admitted atheist, realizes the Judeo-Christian foundation of western civilization.
Jordan Peterson has recognised - correctly - that there is a good deal of deep psychological truth in the biblical stories. But so there is in Aesop, Lao Tze, Marcus Aurelius, Shakespeare and the great Victorian novelists [to look no further]. So he wants to 'unpack' (and thereby save) that truth by means of Jungian psychology, much as Bultmann tried to save the NT by means of Heideggerian philosophy. It's not necessary!
But the question "Do you believe in God" is too simple and leaves too many things unanswered - such as what you think God is. When Jung said he knows, he was talking about God as an Archetype in the unconscious mind, not a supernatural being who created the universe and literally made Adam from dirt and Eve from his rib. The real question is, how much of the Bible is metaphorical, and what exactly does it really mean? And to dig all the way down that rabbit hole ultimately leads to: what does the idea of God in the Bible represent?
Generally when people ask "Do you believe in God?" many of them really mean "Do you take everything in the Bible as literally true?" I don't think anybody really believes it's all literally true, even the most devout believers take some of it metaphorically. The question is how much? As Peterson himself says frequently, the stories in the Bible were never meant as science or literal truth, they are designed to relate profound inner truths in mythical form, like all religions.
Sublime
I agree with all these,but,for some reason,for the whole God thing to work you have to approach it in a deeply personal way.As if to say,if you dont conceptualize Being,or the Absolute or the Sublime or whatever you wanna call God, as a personal,available,loving reality with which you built a strong relationship(like in the case of Abraham),it just wont work.
Carlos M. Pineda yes, and that's why we feel grateful that the far far far off God is so much closer to us then even ourselves
This was an quite enlightening clip. Chances are I'll move back to Christianity once the churches in my city stop denying evolution.
How about discovering the Catholic or Orthodox Church? No evo-denying there...
Thanks for the tip. It may seem petty to avoid churches on that basis but it's not arbitrary, I do have my reasons for it. Thanks bud
Enlightened Anglicans had accepted evolution within a decade of Darwin's 'Origin' [see 'Essays and Reviews' (1860), and 'Lux Mundi' (1891)], but still believed in a Creator, though creation was rendered redundant by evolution! There's nothing like having your cake and eating it too!
😂🤣
WoW Jordan Peterson is Closer to God than ever and i think Jonathan you are in a parts , let’s say maybe that you are for something!
I love Meister Eckhart. He's like Tertullian and Origen but dearer.
Tertullian famously insisted: 'Credo quia absurdam', meaning I believe BECAUSE it is absurd. From such a standpoint, one can prove anything.
Our mental health is too important to drink from such a poisoned spring.
If God isn't phenomenological, then can he cause things to happen? Does the answer change if the question is simply, "Can God cause things to happen?" The only way I can think to reconcile these questions with what you said (and I tentatively agree with those things) is if I think of God *as* the universe itself, at least in a sense. Ugh, I sound like an intellectual prick, and I'm just confusing myself. The questions seem unanswerable, that's why I brought them up.
Here is a question. Can love cause things to happen. Can concern cause things to happen. What about the good itself? Look up Aristotle's four causes, and you will see that causing something doesn't necessarily mean a type of material and mechanical cause-effect chain.
Love and concern can motivate, but I don't know if I can think of that as synonymous with "causing". I'll check it out though.
Edit: Having read up on the "four causes" and looking at your comment, I'd have to say that the answer to my questions the way I phrased them is "No". "Motivate" instead of "cause" would yield a "Yes" since I don't have access in English to the Greek words that Aristotle did. Sadly the English word "cause" doesn't have the same meaning as Aristotle's chosen word "aitia". This understanding lends itself well to alternative interpretations of the scriptures in which God "causes" things to happen, except in cases where He has direct physical influence. Thinking of Him as not phenomenological works just fine for modern people, but for those who witness live miracles in the Biblical stories, it's at least more complicated than that (narrative/metaphorical, probably). The only way I can begin to wrap my head around both perspectives as a pair is if I think of God as transcendent over causality. And really, why not? Still bruises my meek human brain, but it'll do. The further I descend this rabbit hole, the more I run into technical definition issues. I'm satisfied for now with the answer, "No, not by physical force." In the meantime, I'll try and contemplate better questions.
To transcend is also to contain. Maybe that is the problem you are struggling with. To transcend time is to contain all time within an eternal present. To transcend all things is to contain them, all things are in God. God is in all things. God is All in All.
I describe myself as someone who is trying to be a christian ... My own view is that God _both_ , exists, _and_ , does not exist ... That is, He does not exist (as we do) in Entity, He is not a _thing_ like I am ... God exists as Non-entity, like Love and Truth, He is the ultimate non-entity which existed before anything else could Be anything. Hence the injunctions against trying to 'picture' God or trying to 'name' Him. This is not a logical idea, it's a paradox, that God both exists and does not exist at the same time, like Schrodinger's Cat ... but it works for me.
Tommy Applecore well, looks like I took extra steps above ya because I say God is beyond and yet both exist and not exist
Tommy Applecore since Concepts like Nothingness, Being, the Beyond,Infinity. God reigns beyond such let alone the Non-Concept which is something He transcends and beyond and even so, He transcends and is beyond whatever beyond and transcend beyond and transcend beyond and transcend (this goes on beyond ad incomprehensible infinitum) the concepts and non-concepts
This is because of the very word that He said which is the simplest and most correct way of speaking of God "I am that I Am"
Excellent! You’re nearly right on target as far as Orthodox Christian theology. Existence is something God does.
I found it!
Of course this absolutist description of God also applies to Neoplatonic Pagan conceptions in Classical Theology.
Yeah, it seems strange that Jonathan seems to be calling God the One Beyond Being, like the Neo-Platonists. My understanding is that Being is the one thing that apophatic theology can't say God doesn't have. Which is quite appropriate, since as Kant pointed out, existence is not a predicate.
Effect of Holy Spirit commences
Also this calls for the idea of the God who is beyond and so far far far away yet He is still closer to us than anything, even ourselves
Because simply, God is beyond existence and non-existence, and all those duality are belonging into concepts something He has beyond beyond beyond ad infinitum transcends, along with the non-concept and the concept of non-concept and non-concept of concept, all thing possible and impossible and beyond possible impossible and even simply beyond beyond beyond that ad infinitum or not, even all that shall never come close to God
Begs THE Question: Incarnation?
(Apophatic / Cataphatic ?)
Thanks
Both at the same time.
How convenient!
@@saltburner2 you must've heard about the alpha and omega, right? Too convenient still?
If that is how you view God, then who was Jesus Christ to you? Was he a son of God in a different way than you and I are sons of God? If he is different then why? How can the source of all being "pick" a particular son?
Christ is the incarnation of the Divine Logos. I do not stray from traditional Christianity in any way.
Was he "sent" or did he become that? Serious question, not attempting a gotcha.
@@thegoldenthread I think he'd say those things are ultimately the same (top-down and bottom-up), but I'm also curious.
God is Existence. God is not a thing "in the world." The Kosmos is the Order of Things, not "everything." The Body of Christ is the Ecclesia (Church) meaning the people, not the buildings. The wrong questions yield the wrong answers.
This sounds exactly like how Daoists describe the Dao🙃
In Jesus name, we are the children of the KING of kings, ALMIGHTY LORD of lords, the BEGINNING and the ENDING, CREATOR of all creation; GLORY, PRAISE AND HONOR, unto the SAVIOR and MESSIAH (JESUS), that was promised through prophets of the old testimant, who SACRIFICED himself for our salvation!!! PRAISE the FATHER GOD FOR SENDING HIS ONLY SON TO DIE FOR OUR SINS!! Thank you JESUS!! HE is WORTHY!! For there shall come the day that wver knee shall bow and every tounge EXLAIM THAT JESUS IS LORD!!! Bless HIS name the NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Existence exists in space, through time.
something outside time and space does not exist.
Some big questions we cannot answer with our current knowledge. I was thinking the big bang and the way it occurred and how.
God, as a maximally great being, exists necessarily and cannot cease to exist.
Time and space do not determine if something exists or not. From our limited perspective time and space provide a referential lens to view and understand things within our perceivable universe. There may be extra dimensional aspects of our existence that are not perceptible and do not interact with space and time the way we understand it today.
This Guy James is now a Vox Day acolyte
Jonathan you have to get on Joe Rogan
Jonathan, I would love to hear you exchange ideas with people like Matt Dillahunty, Harris etc!
Dillahunty is a pompous prig, as mired in the SJW mindset that Jordan Peterson so rightly deplores as the odious Steve Shives. And Sam Harris is right about Islam, but wrong about free-will [as Dan Dennett has shown].
misleading title but good video
Ipsum esse subsistens.
Mathoma I would stick to Dionysius to this matter
Ineffable
“God does not exist” is so misleading for the twisting of words you do after Jonathan. I watch your other content and it’s good, but “god can’t be measured” the son certainly can be. He existed in his entirety, anything else is a heresy. His followers could see his literal stigmata when he rose. Jordan Peterson is leading you astray
@PiK no I don’t, what part of what I said makes you think I think that way
This problem is clearly explained with the Orthodox idea of Essence and Energies.
Jonathon, I was settling in to enjoy this until you said “the most illiterate... uh.. farmer.” What is it about farming that people think is easy and means a person is illiterate? My father, a farmer, was one of the wisest, most literate men I’ve ever known. You have messages to share and I appreciate that, but I don’t appreciate your supposition about farmers at all. Wow, lost some respect there.
Yes, sorry for that, my mind was swimming in the Middle ages, where peasant farmers mostly would have been illiterate. Obviously this does not appy to modern farmers who often have to be business men and managers before they even walk out to the field.
Jonathan Pageau thank you. By watching your other videos I could tell that statement was not intended the way I first heard it. (I went ahead and watched more anyway. Haha) You are clearly a very thoughtful young man. FYI - My dad was a small family farmer just as that lifestyle was becoming untenable. He raised 10 kids successfully, and believe me, we all noticed him reading books, the Bible, and fixing everything instead of buying new. He passed away a year ago at 94. Great, great man. I’m thrilled to have had contact with you here. Isn’t the internet amazing?! I plan to see you and Dr. Peterson speak in person someday! I have never been to Canada, but It is on my wish list. God bless you.
The smartest person in the world can be a farmer. But you don't have to be the smartest person to be a farmer. A farmer can also be an academic. But you don't have to be an academic to be a farmer. A boxer can be fluent in 10 languages and be filled with knowledge and insights on literature, but you don't have to be that to be a boxer.
It is just a different profession. A farmer can be smart and he cant be illiterate.
It's just a single example. Come on... You can't just take things like this offensively. You can't ever say anything if you take words like that.
When someone asks you do you believe in God, they're simply asking you do you believe in a creator and not in like a pagan hindu way where creation is God but Christian God who created the whole show. This whole word salad which I see in so-called intellectuals like you and Jordan Peterson and Jung (who was a occultist, currently in hell) and Nietzsche who was a wicked evil man..you are the so-called wise men The Bible condemned. Why not take the LEAP OF FAITH? You'll have plenty of time to learn in heaven and without the evil knowledge this time, anyways I'm ranting because new age
Amazing mental gymnastics. So anyone can make up anything and it will work. No No, Yahweh is different from all the other gods. Sorry it is not. Yahweh is a Hebrew God.
That moment when an Atheist who knows nothing of Christianity tells a Christian who has extensively read the Church Fathers what Christians believe. In the second century Justin Martyr was already saying that Socrates and Plato were Christians before Christ. I love it when people argue into the air.
There was a big divide in early Christianity between those - like Justin and Origin, whose background was in neo-Platonism, and others, like Tertullian on the place of earlier philosophers.
The Platonists wanted to 'baptize' them as 'Christians before Christ', while those like Tertullian saw them as diabolical counterfeits for the real thing. Who can forget Tertullian's cry:
"What has Christianity to do with Philosophy? What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? [His answer: Nothing!] Fortunately for Christianity, the Platonists won the argument. In Islam, on the other hand, it went the other way, and with a vengeance!
Well, in terms of uniting the semitic and hellenistic traditions, Origen won despite the controversy around him, especially in the East, especially with the line going through Dyonisus the Areopagite, St-Maximos the Confessor and St-Gregory Palamas. We are on pretty firm ground until today. And if modern Evangelicals can often be seen as a recasting of Tertullian, one cannot limit the horizon of Christianity to these folks. To do so is intellectually dishonest.
+Jonathan Pageau
Such arrogance, I have studied the religious history of the three major Middle Eastern Religions. You clearly have very little knowledge on this subject.
So find me a peer reviewed paper without pleading to authority that refutes what I have stated. And I want this from biblical scholars not theologians. I equate theologians as alchemists or creationist.
In addition when you come up with empirical evidence to support your hypothesis of this sky god, I will cheer for you as you receive your Noble Prize.
Good luck.
Two seconds on Google. dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3542&context=etd