Plessey Mathews which truth if logically drawn up to its ultimate reality, reveals that God is the freest of all beings in His inability to sin, neither can He be tempted with it. Jesus words comes to mind “you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free” and again “so if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Jesus quoted these statements in response to inquiries and denials of sin saying “the one who obeys sin is a slave of sin” are very revealing statements God gives about Himself and ourselves. He said I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father except through me. God points us to Himself as the all satisfying source of all we are looking for in sin and every way we have turned. Augustine’s words are an enlightened reflection. Fascinating!
@daniel sebold You can know too. Not only is He unable to sin, He cannot even be tempted with evil. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. James 1:13-17 Creatures like you, me and angels..can be tempted with evil and absolutely can fall into sin (sin is transgression against God's laws). And that sin (course of action) left uninterrupted (by repentance) leads to death. Which death find its ultimate definition in being banished from God's glorious presence. God can never be banished from God's presence. God Himself is the standard of all that is righteous, just and true and He by His eternal unchanging nature, He cannot sin against Himself. But always does what is in accordance with His own righteous character and thereby uphold the glory of God. Our sin consists in our failure to do this...namely do all things in accordance to His revealed law (which speaks of Him). By this we are described as "all have sinned and fallen short of His glory". God is righteous and He is also immutable (unchangeable). For God to ever become unrighteous (sin) He would have to undergo a change. Becoming imperfect, fallible, impure and by this He would be a complete denial of Himself. Being a God of unchangeable truth. He is incapable of this. Rather all His words and actions prove who He is..even if the dead, darkened and deviating hearts of men cannot perceive these things.
39:00 or so... that is what’s up. I heard Scott Hahn saying the same thing. People began to think of God as absolute “will” only. That is the theological root of the modern problems he was discussing for the first 40 mins. Voluntarism
i thought the rebuttal by dr. brennan was pretty weak... hegel very much is drawing from a theological tradition (and this is not a fact at all obscured by zizek, who ostensibly argues this himself in fragile absolute, puppet and the dwarf, etc.) not to mention hegel's own writings on religion ( i mean, geist = spirit ffs); nor is heidegger merely "authoritarian jargon" (again, zizek himself would affirm heidegger amongst the philosophical canon)... i think the link between notions of the will as developing through a particular strain of christian thought (post-thomist, late medieval) is incredibly relevant to how all post-cartesian philosophers (not the least of them hegel, nietzsche and heidegger) are responding to the question of technicity and nihilism... and dr. brennan's own argument (that modernity has latent potentials not realized by the technocratic enframing criticized by nietzsche/heidegger) undermines the very critique he's offering of dr. hart (that theology has latent potentials not realized by late modern thinkers ) ... so... seems like a very partisan, religion-phobic response, to say the least... (though, given dr. hart's own genealogy as to how this predicament has came about, i suppose an understandable response)
This talk made me reflect on Cervantes Quixote, and his romantic quest for meaning. Unamuno in "The Tragic Sense of Life," saw the eternal knight as the pure expression of the Spanish, Christian, if ultimately tragic soul.
The humanities would still be alive if they were driven by the vision and conviction voiced here by DBH. Instead, the humanities are dying because they are represented by people like Dr. Brennan, who can't really even grasp Hart's central claims much less respond to them in any meaningful way. Brennan is so out of his depth. He can only wring his hands over DBH's use of Heidegger--in spite of the fact that Hart is taking issue with Heidegger as much as he is endorsing Heidegger. Brennan's other argument is that his Indian relatives wouldn't care about Christianity. I can't imagine the restraint it took on Hart's part not to unload his deep understanding of Vedantic thought on Brennan.
Garbage rebuttal. Nietschze and Heidegger aren't the sort of sources that one would want to make appeals to in developing a theology? Because they weren't bible-belt pulpit-pounding preachers? Theology must draw from Theologians, philosophy from Philosophers, etc... I can't stand that sort of isolated thinking...
I think there are two: 1. There is a modern sense of freedom, seen in philosophers like Hegel, that isn’t voluntarist 2. Hart’s account is too Eurocentric/western, cause there are cultures where this tradition doesn’t matter, like India. Both are pretty irrelevant imo. The first doesn’t render nihilism not a thing or not sourced from what Hart was talking about. The latter is obviously true, and again doesn’t really affect Hart’s points because they are about our culture where it is relevant.
Great lecture. Also interesting how Christians in the United States seem to have been able to integrate this new view of personal freedom into their theology much better than other christians.
I never really understood why Hart connected totalitarianism to voluntarism/nihilism. I guess there might be a link of a necessary connection, but the idea of making a perfect man seems like it requires moral realism (rather than requiring anti-realism).
It's connected to metaphysical voluntarism precisely because what is "perfect" in the totalitarian worldview is declared by the power of political _decree._ This is what Carl Schmitt himself proclaims in his philosophy of decisionism. What is _perfect_ in the totalitarian worldview is precisely that which is _most powerful._ And if might is what makes right, then domination is what determines moral good.
@@Synodalian was he saying that power as such is a value or that value is just whatever the most powerful deems to be valuable? Because I don’t think they’re interchangeable. The former is being realist about a specific value, albeit not a usual one for realism. The latter is explicitly voluntarist.
10 minutes in and I know where this is going. Alright, I think presuppositions might have something to do with explaning the willingness to embrace nihilism. In people embracing this worldview which would contradict absolutely empathy for other people in this type of framework the question then becomes how does one prevent hedonism which hurt everyone and helps no one? I think the saying goes something like..have your cake and eat it too
The takeaway from this 1:41:26 is that to be an academic is to be masturbatory. Does anyone have any solutions about our run away climate change dilemma? Here’s an easier problem ... can anyone review their grade 10 science books and the explain how the World Trade Center buildings experienced controlled demolitions by pilots who failed their single engine Cessna flight tests??
"The freedom from which we began in creation is the freedom not to sin but the highest freedom would be the inability to sin."..DBH quoting Augustine.
Plessey Mathews which truth if logically drawn up to its ultimate reality, reveals that God is the freest of all beings in His inability to sin, neither can He be tempted with it. Jesus words comes to mind “you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free” and again “so if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Jesus quoted these statements in response to inquiries and denials of sin saying “the one who obeys sin is a slave of sin” are very revealing statements God gives about Himself and ourselves. He said I am the way the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father except through me. God points us to Himself as the all satisfying source of all we are looking for in sin and every way we have turned. Augustine’s words are an enlightened reflection. Fascinating!
@daniel sebold You can know too. Not only is He unable to sin, He cannot even be tempted with evil.
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
James 1:13-17
Creatures like you, me and angels..can be tempted with evil and absolutely can fall into sin (sin is transgression against God's laws). And that sin (course of action) left uninterrupted (by repentance) leads to death. Which death find its ultimate definition in being banished from God's glorious presence. God can never be banished from God's presence. God Himself is the standard of all that is righteous, just and true and He by His eternal unchanging nature, He cannot sin against Himself. But always does what is in accordance with His own righteous character and thereby uphold the glory of God. Our sin consists in our failure to do this...namely do all things in accordance to His revealed law (which speaks of Him). By this we are described as "all have sinned and fallen short of His glory".
God is righteous and He is also immutable (unchangeable). For God to ever become unrighteous (sin) He would have to undergo a change. Becoming imperfect, fallible, impure and by this He would be a complete denial of Himself. Being a God of unchangeable truth. He is incapable of this. Rather all His words and actions prove who He is..even if the dead, darkened and deviating hearts of men cannot perceive these things.
i realize Im kinda randomly asking but does anybody know of a good place to watch newly released series online ?
@Avi Skylar I would suggest FlixZone. Just search on google for it :)
DBH is genius here. Total genius
Thank you for uploading this. Wonderful.
39:00 or so... that is what’s up. I heard Scott Hahn saying the same thing. People began to think of God as absolute “will” only. That is the theological root of the modern problems he was discussing for the first 40 mins. Voluntarism
i thought the rebuttal by dr. brennan was pretty weak... hegel very much is drawing from a theological tradition (and this is not a fact at all obscured by zizek, who ostensibly argues this himself in fragile absolute, puppet and the dwarf, etc.) not to mention hegel's own writings on religion ( i mean, geist = spirit ffs); nor is heidegger merely "authoritarian jargon" (again, zizek himself would affirm heidegger amongst the philosophical canon)... i think the link between notions of the will as developing through a particular strain of christian thought (post-thomist, late medieval) is incredibly relevant to how all post-cartesian philosophers (not the least of them hegel, nietzsche and heidegger) are responding to the question of technicity and nihilism... and dr. brennan's own argument (that modernity has latent potentials not realized by the technocratic enframing criticized by nietzsche/heidegger) undermines the very critique he's offering of dr. hart (that theology has latent potentials not realized by late modern thinkers ) ... so... seems like a very partisan, religion-phobic response, to say the least... (though, given dr. hart's own genealogy as to how this predicament has came about, i suppose an understandable response)
Dr. Brenan was going on and on about nothing
In short, Brennan is a Communist.
This talk made me reflect on Cervantes Quixote, and his romantic quest for meaning.
Unamuno in "The Tragic Sense of Life," saw the eternal knight as the pure expression of the Spanish, Christian, if ultimately tragic soul.
Talk about hitting the mark...brilliant breakdown.
The response is largely beside the point.
He was literally just aping on Zizek without having any thoughts of his own. Poor show from Brennan
DBH clears the bases, two outs- bottom of the 9th.
The humanities would still be alive if they were driven by the vision and conviction voiced here by DBH. Instead, the humanities are dying because they are represented by people like Dr. Brennan, who can't really even grasp Hart's central claims much less respond to them in any meaningful way. Brennan is so out of his depth. He can only wring his hands over DBH's use of Heidegger--in spite of the fact that Hart is taking issue with Heidegger as much as he is endorsing Heidegger. Brennan's other argument is that his Indian relatives wouldn't care about Christianity. I can't imagine the restraint it took on Hart's part not to unload his deep understanding of Vedantic thought on Brennan.
DBH has an ontological posse.
24:40 thirteen years later and this seems all the more explicit
I'm slave to the idea 💡 of being free ✨️
This Brennan guy could drone on for hours without saying anything at all. I listened to him for 20 minutes and have zero takeaways
Garbage rebuttal. Nietschze and Heidegger aren't the sort of sources that one would want to make appeals to in developing a theology? Because they weren't bible-belt pulpit-pounding preachers? Theology must draw from Theologians, philosophy from Philosophers, etc... I can't stand that sort of isolated thinking...
I think there are two:
1. There is a modern sense of freedom, seen in philosophers like Hegel, that isn’t voluntarist
2. Hart’s account is too Eurocentric/western, cause there are cultures where this tradition doesn’t matter, like India.
Both are pretty irrelevant imo. The first doesn’t render nihilism not a thing or not sourced from what Hart was talking about. The latter is obviously true, and again doesn’t really affect Hart’s points because they are about our culture where it is relevant.
Great lecture. Also interesting how Christians in the United States seem to have been able to integrate this new view of personal freedom into their theology much better than other christians.
I don't understand, is bennets argument that since Indians don't care about Christianity its claims cannot be universal?
I only speak English, so E=mc2 only sounds right to me if I hear it in English.
I thought it was that these modern problems have no barring on the whole world. But idk why he thought that beats DBH’s point.
Why does Timothy Brennan drone on like this? Marx this, hegemony that. Jeez Louise, ask a question and let DBH give an answer.
Great lecture!
Maybe our freedom consists in repeatedly erring about gods-- striving to gain insight into the mystery and failing spectacularly?
Minute 26:00 onwards, Wow!
1:10:28 bookmark
40:00 bookmark
I never really understood why Hart connected totalitarianism to voluntarism/nihilism.
I guess there might be a link of a necessary connection, but the idea of making a perfect man seems like it requires moral realism (rather than requiring anti-realism).
It's connected to metaphysical voluntarism precisely because what is "perfect" in the totalitarian worldview is declared by the power of political _decree._ This is what Carl Schmitt himself proclaims in his philosophy of decisionism. What is _perfect_ in the totalitarian worldview is precisely that which is _most powerful._ And if might is what makes right, then domination is what determines moral good.
@@Synodalian was he saying that power as such is a value or that value is just whatever the most powerful deems to be valuable?
Because I don’t think they’re interchangeable. The former is being realist about a specific value, albeit not a usual one for realism. The latter is explicitly voluntarist.
What is that word that sounds like Buynasian I.e. Dominican determinism?
@@jongalan1975 Well, well thank you so much. I have never heard of him. It really is very helpful of you to let me know and I appreciate it a lot.
@@kinglear5952 It's Domingo Banez who argued against Molinism in the De Auxilis controversy.
@@jongalan1975 It's Domingo Banez who argued against Molinism in the De Auxilis controversy.
@@gregbrougham1423 Oh him, that utter heretic!
34:00 - 35:22 *!*
Very helpful
Pity about the recording.
"There Will Be Blood"
Freedom from slavery to our passions
🎸
1:39:00
10 minutes in and I know where this is going. Alright, I think presuppositions might have something to do with explaning the willingness to embrace nihilism. In people embracing this worldview which would contradict absolutely empathy for other people in this type of framework the question then becomes how does one prevent hedonism which hurt everyone and helps no one?
I think the saying goes something like..have your cake and eat it too
59:00
24:00
Hart is mystified by mystery.
Schmee
Ordo amoris
The mystifying mystification of mystery
9:47
The takeaway from this 1:41:26 is that to be an academic is to be masturbatory.
Does anyone have any solutions about our run away climate change dilemma? Here’s an easier problem ... can anyone review their grade 10 science books and the explain how the World Trade Center buildings experienced controlled demolitions by pilots who failed their single engine Cessna flight tests??
Blah Blah Blah....