I like your posts there Mitchel…i cant help but feel that existentialism will always face problems because of the following fundamental:
Existentialism grapples with the question of meaning in a world that may not offer inherent purpose. It emphasizes the individual’s struggle to find or create meaning in the face of this perceived absurdity
Its almost as if because of a rejection of God, the very idea forces the notion that we form/create our own purpose…that is self.centred not God centred.
Christ gave us a model of seeking to help others in order to obtain riches in heaven. Does existentialism have room for that notion i wonder? (perhaps it could)
In one sentence you have both highlighted a problem you face and answered it.
The thing is, i dont really ever face that problem and its because my general theology doesnt change nor do my interpretations.
The reason interpretations dont change isnt because im blind or choosing to be blind, its because those interpretations are intrinsic to the writings themselves…ie the bible always explains itself.
I never take doctrine from.specific readings…thats the importance of cross referencing…and its also a significant reason why we have so many different denominations…each chooses to go only so far and no further…they stop cross referencing and essentially straw to pluck and its at this point stagnation occurs.
Never take doctrine from isolated texts…thats a really bad idea i think.
Those who refuse to agree with that fundamental principle always struggle with their faith because of the very obvious inconsistences that causes…and its foolish to claim otherwise, one is just kidding themselves when they do that.
I’ve been swamped with work this week and have been following this thread with delight. I’m sorry not to have responded earlier and now only superficially and minimally. I hope to work through it more this week end. For now (and a few days after I had started this reply:
Nothing. Sorry.
From your discussion with @jay313 It sounds like:
*Aquinis’ work is representative of classical concepts of essence and existence
*in classical thinking essence preceeds existence.
I guess (thinking about what @knor said) that (classical) order could be possible, but that that essence couldn’t be made known until one had lived a bit, or a lot. So, it’s hard to hold that view in practical terms, I think.
I find the idea that “God tells us what we are” in more detail than “image bearers” (which is never exactly defined in the Bible) and harder to take. As it seems that “God’s” statement of who and what I am is more reflective of a particular cultural view of women, for example, than any ultimate statement God made in the Bible. If God doesn’t change, He certainly seems to change his mind about me over time and place, if one relies on various theological statements based on the Bible. Or a very tiny subset of people has ever rightly got the message.
Kierkegaard, the “Father of Existentialism” was a Christian. I am reading his work (Sickness Unto Death at the moment. A very long moment, by the way.). There is no question in his work that God exists or who God is or our relation to God. Yet he talks about the absurdity of faith. It is something unprovable. In Sickness his narrator sarcastically addresses the way a pastor might try to demonstrate rationally with 3 points in a sermon things beyond understanding. It is absurd.
Absolutely. The idea is that you are what you do. Helping others is a virtuous thing to do. So do it. Make your life count for something.
Adam, your view of scripture and hermeneutics - like everyone else’s - is the result of many things over long periods of time. It feels like the right one, and seems like it has always been around. Because our lives - and memories - are short. And our prescience non existent.
The evolution of culture, theology, human thought won’t stop when we are gone, and we have no idea where it’s going. Your great grand children will not see things the same way any of us does now, even if they are Christians. Even if they are SDA.
This is simply wrong. You are projecting your fantasy on to people whose theology and hermaneutics challenge yours.
You do not know or understand my struggle/s. You are too busy diagnosing to listen well or understand.
And you are not willing to understand the blatant flaws that others have pointed out in your own theology ane hermeneutics. Things that would drive me running for the sake of my faith.
Just because human are inconsistent and can change their mind in their choices doesn’t mean their choices are less important. By implication you are equating essence with the thing which doesn’t change. And with humans what does that leave us with? Even our DNA changes as we get older. It would mean human beings have no essence. And when a definition of a word turns it into nothing, it is a bad definition.
No, our DNA does not remain entirely unchanged throughout our lives. While the fundamental DNA sequence within the nucleus of most cells is remarkably stable, it can and does undergo changes over time. (Google AI)
And no I do not and will believe in a magical indefinable something which remains the same in us. Of course I believe in the human spirit, not as some unchanging thing inserted into us like the Gnostic soul, but a product of our own choices. And for me this explains much of Christian teachings. Our choices have consequences because our eternal existence (our essence) is derived from them.
To be sure, God is more consistent. When He makes choices He sticks with them far better than we do. But yes He can change His mind, because interacting with us His choices will depend on how we respond to Him. There are Bible stories which illustrate this: the story of Jonah and the story of Abraham and Sodom, for example.