I am reading much of the Russian literature of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is so revealing as to what was to occur in Russian history particularly and the world in general. Theology lost its primacy and tradigy ensued. Thank you for this presentation. The age of the mask gave me time for reflection.
In relation to the example of the hypothesis of the rebellious Christ, the difference is that when you talk of Christ you are talking about THE perfect human being in relation to THE perfect Father. That's a situation that will never obtain in human affairs.
Things change. Ideas develop. In the Thomistic tradition no account is taken of anterior ontological excrementalism and the need to distinguish it from protophenomenologcal insufficiency. This lack of insight can lead to an undesirable dependence on speculative enteromorphisms which impede the resonance of true spiritual acuity. In the resulting state of exogenous ambiguity, the thrusting impetus of genuine philosophical inquiry may be diverted into channels of inapplicable incredulity. It is better to keep things simple - and respect the ineluctable motion of intellectual investigation into broader and more ambient vistas. As the poet said, the moving finger moves - let us agree to move with it.
How can faith properly be raised even above the likes of discursive reason? Faith cannot be superior, as faith necessarily implies ignorance, and ignorance thus, unintelligibility, and of what use be unintelligibility? And though you may assent to the fact that ultimately that which is The Ultimate is in actuality ineffable, this does not preclude the possibility of grasping that which proceeds from it and may be in fact known (via the kataphatic way), i.e., the intelligible forms and true Being, by virtue of the light of The Good (effluence, emanation, and wisdom being the knowledge of this Good) and The Divine Nous, these being the source and origin of all intelligible things. How can an understanding, that is, one of faith (i.e., of ignorance) of Christ as a uniquely "historical" divine-incarnate-god-man, be anything but profane as compared to a true knowledge or understanding of that which is represented by his symbolic image as "the door," "the way," which even "reaches unto the division of the soul and spirit?" Did Christ not say, "No man can be my disciple who hateth not... his own soul?" Why would would a man be urged to hate his own soul, lest it not be truly what he is, but rather, himself be that Spirit which St. Paul speaks of when he says "It is not I, but Christ that Lives in me." Therefore, the point of all of this resting in Christ as representation of true metaphysical reality, as being the "way" to the one, rather than a contradictory conglomerate of The Ultimate with gross, corporeal, fading, and indefinite matter. For after all, If God be eternal, and true being, or even the prior of true being, he could not "take on" or "pour himself out" into the corporeal and bodily, for this would imply movement, and thus mutability, for even Aquinas assents to "the unmoved mover" ...
Moreover, can one ever escape the ultimate reliance upon Philosophia in order to discern the truth claims of any faith? For, if the Roman Catholic demands of me that I believe in the Revelation of Christ as revealed through the testament of Holy Scripture, the apostles, The Tradition of The Church, etc., and so too, the Mohammedan demands of me in the same way, a faith in the testimony of revelation by way of Allah or his angel to Mohammad, how else am I to compare which of the two I shall assent to, other than through the light of reason, itself based upon immutable principles inherent in the logos? Then, if I must rely upon said reason (because, otherwise, the decision would be arbitrary), how can it be inferior to faith, if I can only arrive at a said faith through it?
I agree that faith typically comes after reason. But that doesn't make reason higher than faith. In a very human parallel, we wouldn't say graduate level science is inferior to freshman level science because we need freshman level science first.
I am reading much of the Russian literature of the 18th and 19th centuries.
It is so revealing as to what was to occur in Russian history particularly and the world in general. Theology lost its primacy and tradigy ensued. Thank you for this presentation.
The age of the mask gave me time for reflection.
Thank you for this presentation. It helped me to better understand how to engage the sciences of the world from a Christian perspective.
This is an essential reflection.
th-cam.com/video/_RioVzvSMjY/w-d-xo.html
This is one of the most inspiring talks I've heard in a good long while!
A deep thinking lecture on sacred scripture n how it relates to other Sciences and some difficulties may arise between them both.
A *personal* first cause. Important distinction!
In relation to the example of the hypothesis of the rebellious Christ, the difference is that when you talk of Christ you are talking about THE perfect human being in relation to THE perfect Father. That's a situation that will never obtain in human affairs.
Things change. Ideas develop. In the Thomistic tradition no account is taken of anterior ontological excrementalism and the need to distinguish it from protophenomenologcal insufficiency. This lack of insight can lead to an undesirable dependence on speculative enteromorphisms which impede the resonance of true spiritual acuity. In the resulting state of exogenous ambiguity, the thrusting impetus of genuine philosophical inquiry may be diverted into channels of inapplicable incredulity. It is better to keep things simple - and respect the ineluctable motion of intellectual investigation into broader and more ambient vistas. As the poet said, the moving finger moves - let us agree to move with it.
How can faith properly be raised even above the likes of discursive reason? Faith cannot be superior, as faith necessarily implies ignorance, and ignorance thus, unintelligibility, and of what use be unintelligibility? And though you may assent to the fact that ultimately that which is The Ultimate is in actuality ineffable, this does not preclude the possibility of grasping that which proceeds from it and may be in fact known (via the kataphatic way), i.e., the intelligible forms and true Being, by virtue of the light of The Good (effluence, emanation, and wisdom being the knowledge of this Good) and The Divine Nous, these being the source and origin of all intelligible things. How can an understanding, that is, one of faith (i.e., of ignorance) of Christ as a uniquely "historical" divine-incarnate-god-man, be anything but profane as compared to a true knowledge or understanding of that which is represented by his symbolic image as "the door," "the way," which even "reaches unto the division of the soul and spirit?" Did Christ not say, "No man can be my disciple who hateth not... his own soul?" Why would would a man be urged to hate his own soul, lest it not be truly what he is, but rather, himself be that Spirit which St. Paul speaks of when he says "It is not I, but Christ that Lives in me." Therefore, the point of all of this resting in Christ as representation of true metaphysical reality, as being the "way" to the one, rather than a contradictory conglomerate of The Ultimate with gross, corporeal, fading, and indefinite matter. For after all, If God be eternal, and true being, or even the prior of true being, he could not "take on" or "pour himself out" into the corporeal and bodily, for this would imply movement, and thus mutability, for even Aquinas assents to "the unmoved mover" ...
Moreover, can one ever escape the ultimate reliance upon Philosophia in order to discern the truth claims of any faith? For, if the Roman Catholic demands of me that I believe in the Revelation of Christ as revealed through the testament of Holy Scripture, the apostles, The Tradition of The Church, etc., and so too, the Mohammedan demands of me in the same way, a faith in the testimony of revelation by way of Allah or his angel to Mohammad, how else am I to compare which of the two I shall assent to, other than through the light of reason, itself based upon immutable principles inherent in the logos? Then, if I must rely upon said reason (because, otherwise, the decision would be arbitrary), how can it be inferior to faith, if I can only arrive at a said faith through it?
I agree that faith typically comes after reason. But that doesn't make reason higher than faith. In a very human parallel, we wouldn't say graduate level science is inferior to freshman level science because we need freshman level science first.