Видео

A great exchange! Strange that in the Nicene creed the very foudation stone of Christian dogma, judgement is mentioned but not the everlasting torment factor. Why? Because the first generations following Christ Jesus everlasting torment did not figure in their understanding. A judgement yes, but one that the truth of oneself with much pain and remorse restores us fully to the full image of God. Slowly over time the judgement interpretation became biased reflecting more the human heart rather than God's sovereign infinite love grace and mercy. Theosis and APOKATASTASIS two wonderful and original Biblical concepts that were never abandoned by what we today know as Eastern Orthodoxy. Biblical Fundamentalism since its beginning in the 18th Century with its fear based evangelism has done the true nature and character of God a terrible injustice. Universal restoration causes one to love God/ Christ Jesus in ourselves more, and wanting to be changed into their likeness (Heaven/Kingdom of God) NOW. Not necessarily a salvation in the new life to come. Apologies for the long comment.😊

LETS GOOOOOOOOO

Hot!

Hello. Universalism cannot be held with certainty, but may be argued for as morally virtuous to hope for.

Keeping working but it seems you misconstrue the pair.

Thank you for this, Hunter. Very insightful. I am currently reading Bulgakov's The Tragedy of Philosophy; it is excellent, incredibly sophisticated, and has very important critiques. Also, I have wanted to learn Koine Greek for a while and have a relatively free summer from studies. I would appreciate any recommendations or methods; you seem to have a thorough grasp. Are you fluent? God bless.

Thanks for sharing. Btw Mary was not in the burning bush with Jesus, Mary is the burning bush who contained the uncreated flame of divinity without being consumed, Jesus Christ.

Filioque true btw

These DBH fanbois are all so cringe.

For a "ressourcement" theologian who imbibes Schelling (via the Tübibgen School), there is Ratzinger. Tracey Rowland is good on this, and I talk abt it in my dissertation/book.

great interview! ♥️ Artman!

❤

❤

Ever loving god, drowned the planet, ignores rape and starvation of children, killed 1st borns after hardening the heart of the Pharoah. Sorry, I don't understand how they get there.

Grammatically, all thoughts that can be expressed as a proposition can be in the first person, second person, or third person point of view. “I am X”, “You are X”, “X is X”. In either case, the referent of “I”, “You”, and “X”, can all be the same. God as an omniscient mind can very well enjoy his own self knowledge via the tripartite division of how he can refer to himself by the first person, second person, and third person points of view. We very can do this, as if looking into a mirror and saying “You will do this today!” Or “I will do this today!”In either case I am talking to myself through a different personal perspective. So it isn’t a stretch that God can too. Since God is also divinely simple, and so his act of knowing himself is supremely united with his act of being, these differing perspectives of self-reference in a true thought of oneself may be all the more mystifying, and hence allude to a Trinity of persons in one divine substance.

Just put the mic down

I just don't get it. All of Zizek's games (following Hegel) are _protestant_ in character: not post-Christian, but post-Luther. Christ himself proclaims the death of God? Well sure, but what about Easter? Chesterton drew exactly the opposite conclusion from Christ's last words, because he remembered and believed in Easter. "Christian Atheism" follows from protestantism, not from orthodoxy, which is far more interesting. And who ever said that the Song of Songs was _not_ about actual lovers? Everything that happens is significant, a sign, a metaphor. Literally! That's orthodoxy. Zizek says nothing new. He only forgets to say something old.

nice parody proving hegel is gibberish

Largely Milbank talking to himself for an hour. The kid was clearly out of his depth.

Congrats! Good interview.

I also had, as a child, this intuition of what came to be called universalism. It came to me in a flash as I sat in religion class, I still remember that moment.

This is a really good reading list. Did the Romans also make some philosophical contributions, or is it mostly greeks? Isn't there also a Neoplatonic school, and the Pythagoreans?

I just really enjoy looking at everyone's bookshelves.

Hi Hunter, My apologies for not responding sooner, as I have been ill. I wanted to say thank you for the book recommendation on capitalism. I hope you had a blessed Pascha! God bless you and your loved ones, too.

Hi Hunter. Thank you for the channel and the work you do. Great interview. Can you tell me what thinker Millbank refers to at 12:40? Allan Kaiye? Also, can you recommend any other books dealing with capitalism and modernity? God bless you! PS: I greatly anticipate purchasing and reading your book on universalism. You played a pivotal, "saving" role in convincing me of apocatastasis.

You are mumbling.

What is the name at 52:21?

But how do Platonists who believe in the recollection theory explain inequalities in intelligence? In other words if our souls contain all truths then why can some people grasp (recollect) abstract concepts and some can’t?

Interesting video, thanks for sharing. I am confused about your position though. You said at one point your view is something similar to Zizek’s, if that’s the case why do you choose to be Orthodox Christian? Atheism seems contradictory to that specific strand of Christianity. If I’m misunderstanding anything I’d appreciate correction, thanks!

I was directed to your channel by looking up Zizek’s new book coming out. I stayed and looked around a bit. What do you think about Holland’s book Dominion? A few years old I think.

@8:32 "Tertullian was quite wrong." Yeah, you clearly aren't familiar with Tertullians writings or the context of that oft-quoted line of his. Tertullian didn't believe in a necessary severring between Jerusalem and Athens. Here's an excerpt from theologian Paul Tyson to fill you in, since you obviously don't have much knowledge on this topic: "Tertullian had, as his polemic targets in his writings, Marcion and Gnosticism. Marcion couldn't reconcile the God of the Hebrew Scriptures with the revelation of God via Christ. He identified "God" in the Hebraic Scriptures as the evil demiurge of Middle Platonism, who creates matter and is thus full of the base passions of this lowly realm. This demiurge, Marcion maintains, is not the properly divine God that Jesus reveals to us. Hence, civilzed and rational Greeks could believe in the Christian revelation only if they clearly dissociated it from its Hebraic origins and the base materialism of claiming that Jesus was God in human flesh. Thus, to cleanse the Christian revelation of characteristics unworthy of Greek theology, Marcion jettisoned the Old Testament, denied that Christ was God Incarnate, and developed his own restricted canon of New Testament writings so as to have a Christian faith that was compatible with the dignity and eternal impassibility of a purely spiritual Greek divinity. Tertullian will have nothing of this. If the vetting of divine revelation by the inconclusive and merely speculative fashions of Greek philosophy is "reason", then Tertullian embraces absurdity. Tertullian's argument, however, is dripping with irony and is a powerful critique of what Marcion thinks of as "reason". For it seems clear to Tertullian that if you were merely dreaming up your own rational theology then of course you would not embrace Christian revelation. What this demonstrates to Tertullian is that "rational theology" is an entirely human invention, not a revelation fo God at all, and as a merely human production it has no truth, and hence no true rationality."

Do you use hair conditioner.... one wash through or two? Your hair looks very soft.

Writing as a sceptic of sorts: if Adam and Eve is not supposed to be material history, why is the Garden of Eden described as having a very specific geographical location? If Adam didn't 'really' exist, why is he included in Luke's geneaology of Jesus? I have also read that many Fathers looked at these stories through both spiritual and material lenses. Like, Origen literally tried to understand what the dimensions of the Ark would have been. Jesus and 1 Peter seem to refer to Noah's Ark quite breezily and plainly, seemingly assuming that these events just did happen. I couldn't quite follow whether you believed that the Ark story had happened.

I love this kid

DBH was one of the people who brought me to Christ as well ❤

Just change your name to ‘Dissatisfied Theology.’

Could you list the books in the show notes?

Can you recommend introductory books on Kant? Is Paul Guyer’s Kant a good starter?

I think i am just stupid bcz i don't understand a single word he just said. Can anyone explain this to me with example. I have a presentation tomorrow. Plz😭

Good summary of Universal Reconciliation.

Awesome collection

Are you doing one of these for 2023?

basonos, can mean interrogation,

are you a marxist?

What about Kaufmann? Anyway, read the book A. Garciadiego, Bertrand Russell and the Origins of thecSet-theoretic 'Paradoxes.' You're probably pretty out of touch with the 20th century, so also read: Piero Sraffa, Production of Commodities By Means of Commodities. Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. By the way, who thinks abstractly?

We have a pretty popular Hegel Discord community if that'd interest you.

Jesus is quoting Psalms 22