I appreciated this articulation on WHY BE CHRISTIAN - especially in light of universalism and religious pluralism. Why be Christian instead of Buddhist or Hindu or Stoicism? For me, much of what you articulated better than I could ever imagine to centers on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There is something about the Christ that sets himself apart from the others in a way that it matters (ontologically) to choose Christ over Buddha (for example). Or at least, that is what I have come to think at this stage in my life. Thank you for the lovely, well-argued articulation of why be Christian. Well done.
Your piece is clear and inspiring. I ask you, if the NT account included only the expectation of an eschatological future resurrection for Jesus and all humanity, and if the body of Jesus had been laid to rest until that future day, would you not still be a Christian in the mode of those faithful ancients noted in Hebrews 11:13-16? Thanks for sharing your mind and heart with us,
Very enjoyable piece and very helpful:) Thank you David.
If you'll indulge me I'd like to lay some thoughts out and get your perspective in order for you to possibly guide me in the right direction. For the sake of brevity, this is grossly simplified but hopefully you get the gist.
Take the inverse of Gorgias's arguments
1.) There is Being/objective reality
2.) It is intelligible to us/ we can know it/conceive it/ grasp etc...
3.) With our language we can convey this Reality to one another.
Here is a rough outline to show some of the rational paths I can see justifying the above... again forgive the over simplification and the fact that I'm a noob:)
1.) Metaphysics - realism of some kind (my sensibilities are more Platonic but at times I see Aristotle as more critically solvent) - reading Hart I'm able to get support from other ancient religions at least in regard to God's existence:)
2.) Epistemology - soft empiricism (mainly because of the abstraction Aristotle talks about)
3.) Logic/linguistics - supporting Aristotelian essentialism our language somehow has to map to essences, things in themselves, for us to be able to grow in our understanding.
I know of Thomism... but can you help me fill this out a bit more with other potential options? To get to the same destination? Namely, the rational to refute Gorgias.
This struck a chord with me when you said, "This is not to say that there is no eternal or natural law, or no absolute truth, but that we only arrive at absolute truth through a precarious journey that begins from the contingent truths within which we live and move and have our being."
I have heard Hart say similar things. I can see a rad trad or a ortho trad take issue with this:) haha.
Anyway, this is getting too long... But it seems your above statement undermines (or atleast blunts) maybe the third level above? What upstream consequences do you see this having on the other two? On the ecumenical 7ish;) councils of the EOC (my own tradition)?
Hart has explained (if I understand him correctly) the main rational driving the Trinitarian and Christological councils was to safeguard 1.that we are united with God and 2.) that Christ had to be fully human in order for us to be fully healed. So could we say that this is the "absolute truth" (the #1 of the above) the Church had been shown? But our knowing of this is limited by "contingent truths within which we live and move and have our being"?
I'm wrestling with all of this and again thank you for your thoughts and work:)
A superb piece of writing. Im very glad to have found this blog - or perhaps newsletter. I will be looking forward to your next post.
I appreciated this articulation on WHY BE CHRISTIAN - especially in light of universalism and religious pluralism. Why be Christian instead of Buddhist or Hindu or Stoicism? For me, much of what you articulated better than I could ever imagine to centers on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There is something about the Christ that sets himself apart from the others in a way that it matters (ontologically) to choose Christ over Buddha (for example). Or at least, that is what I have come to think at this stage in my life. Thank you for the lovely, well-argued articulation of why be Christian. Well done.
David,
Your piece is clear and inspiring. I ask you, if the NT account included only the expectation of an eschatological future resurrection for Jesus and all humanity, and if the body of Jesus had been laid to rest until that future day, would you not still be a Christian in the mode of those faithful ancients noted in Hebrews 11:13-16? Thanks for sharing your mind and heart with us,
Randall Paul
This felt like a breath of fresh air. Thank you. Eased some of my neurosis around this stuff. Thank God for good ol’ negative capability.
Very enjoyable piece and very helpful:) Thank you David.
If you'll indulge me I'd like to lay some thoughts out and get your perspective in order for you to possibly guide me in the right direction. For the sake of brevity, this is grossly simplified but hopefully you get the gist.
Take the inverse of Gorgias's arguments
1.) There is Being/objective reality
2.) It is intelligible to us/ we can know it/conceive it/ grasp etc...
3.) With our language we can convey this Reality to one another.
Here is a rough outline to show some of the rational paths I can see justifying the above... again forgive the over simplification and the fact that I'm a noob:)
1.) Metaphysics - realism of some kind (my sensibilities are more Platonic but at times I see Aristotle as more critically solvent) - reading Hart I'm able to get support from other ancient religions at least in regard to God's existence:)
2.) Epistemology - soft empiricism (mainly because of the abstraction Aristotle talks about)
3.) Logic/linguistics - supporting Aristotelian essentialism our language somehow has to map to essences, things in themselves, for us to be able to grow in our understanding.
I know of Thomism... but can you help me fill this out a bit more with other potential options? To get to the same destination? Namely, the rational to refute Gorgias.
This struck a chord with me when you said, "This is not to say that there is no eternal or natural law, or no absolute truth, but that we only arrive at absolute truth through a precarious journey that begins from the contingent truths within which we live and move and have our being."
I have heard Hart say similar things. I can see a rad trad or a ortho trad take issue with this:) haha.
Anyway, this is getting too long... But it seems your above statement undermines (or atleast blunts) maybe the third level above? What upstream consequences do you see this having on the other two? On the ecumenical 7ish;) councils of the EOC (my own tradition)?
Hart has explained (if I understand him correctly) the main rational driving the Trinitarian and Christological councils was to safeguard 1.that we are united with God and 2.) that Christ had to be fully human in order for us to be fully healed. So could we say that this is the "absolute truth" (the #1 of the above) the Church had been shown? But our knowing of this is limited by "contingent truths within which we live and move and have our being"?
I'm wrestling with all of this and again thank you for your thoughts and work:)