Marvel Comics To Introduce Muslim Superhero

Post Reply New Topic

It appears those who wished to participate in the original topic have had their say.

My oh my. Alright. Let me try to punch through this wall: God is moral; yet God's morality is beyond human comprehension; therefore God has his morality whereas I have mine (which He gave me, but....)? A good thought-experiment, resolvable only in the equation "faith= irrationality "; or another route: we assume that God and man are in some mysterious way not related which would impugn some rift within the Hypostatic Union (resulting in a split between the "divine" Jesus and the "human/historical" Jesus. Oh, wait a minute...that actually did happen didn't it? You mean ideas actually have consequences? Yes, Virginia, there really is no Santa Claus.

So I can draw a quick philosophical sketch and say that I don't like Kierkegaard's model of human modalities, because it fails to support the Unity of the two Natures in the One Person of Christ.

Let's work with that: Would you agree that one of the hallmarks of reason is conclusions that follow from their premises, or starting at the conclusion and working back to premises?

I love this question. The link between the premise and the conclusion is the "propter quid." Whether you go backward or forward -- that is not the issue. What is essential is to identify the cause which links the two. But how? As Voegelin once remarked, we don't have a beginning nor a middle nor an end until we have the whole. The proper parts -- once myopic yet now seen with greater clarity, come together only after the mind sees the entire picture. And then we construct our linear argument.

Because the mind can grasp the passage of time, its reasoning process is not limited by time's ordering.

I love this question. The link between the premise and the conclusion is the "propter quid." Whether you go backward or forward -- that is not the issue. What is essential is to identify the cause which links the two. But how? As Voegelin once remarked, we don't have a beginning nor a middle until nor an end until we have the whole. The proper parts -- once myopic yet now seen with greater clarity, come together only after the mind sees the entire picture. And then we construct our linear argument.

Because the mind can grasp the passage of time, its reasoning process is not limited by time's ordering.

I agree, and it sounds as if we agree. But that's not where I'm going with this. If a premise is necessary for sound and valid reasoning, then per Aristotle, we are faced with an unmoved mover which eliminates the need for an infinite regression of premises, which is irrational in itself, or, per Nietzsche, we are faced with premises based upon faith. While my preference is decidedly for the latter, as it is more naturalistic, in either case, our reasoning is based upon faith always. It is simply a limit of human intelligence.

Now, if God has perfect intelligence, he must be in a realm that is a quantum leap away from ours; we can't get there from where we're at. So, God having different reasoning isn't so unreasonable. Nor would the dual nature of Christ be unreasonable if we take into account the limits of our own reasoning.

Where am I going wrong?

I need to know precisely where you think you are going wrong.

I just ordered a pizza. I can't wait for it to arrive.

I'm not at all sure I am going wrong. What I'm doing is defending Kierkegaard's position by showing that it is at least logically plausible--at least within the realm of human epistemology. I won't go any farther though.

I like pizza too, but dairy just doesn't agree with my anymore. So, it's steak with refried beans and some fried chile peppers. It's a Texas thang.

We don't understand God's mind. What we can say, however, is that when Christ died on the cross, he addressed the question of faith and suffering, including the faith required by Abraham to offer his son Isaac. The intellective mode is salvific, not rational. Its locus of intellective reconciliation is not propositional but personal -- the Person of Christ. The reason for God's actions cannot be systematized, since a person is not a system.

I have no more to say on the matter because I'm at a loss for words. Christ did what he did, and either I follow him or I do not.

I can't wait for my pizza to arrive.

I think we only came to understand the will of God with Christ, when he spoke to us as a human being.

I would only disagree with you on Abraham being called to kill Isaac. Faith would only require that Abraham believe. The blind obedience that God demanded of Abraham is something else altogether--at least if we accept that it is possible to believe in God without obeying him

There is a quote from the French decadent Baudelaire I think applies here: The condition of modern man is that he finds it much easier to believe in God than to love him; and much easier to love the devil than believe in him. Faith and obedience are not necessarily contingencies.

What do you mean by intellective?

Intellective = our understanding

It required great love and trust on Abraham's part to do what he did. But Abraham was given a very special grace unlike none other, for he was chosen to be the image of God the Father, who allowed his own son to be sacrificed -- which he preordained to occur as an act of love. How can anyone dare make sense of this? what morality includes Deicide as its capstone? I'm stymied. Are you? But I do believe.

My pizza is here!

I just ate the whole pizza. I feel so much better now.