Your comment is exactly what I meant that when I wrote:
I am a scientist, philosopher and a spiritual Christian without any logical conflict between any of them nor any conflict with the words of Jesus.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt 5:44ā48)
Any conflicts you do have with Christians on this forum wouldnāt be found in any of these words as I think nearly all of us would claim (or at least aspire to claim) the very same. You have expressed some very idiosyncratic-looking views in other posts/threads, so Iām sure you are correct to say you arenāt in the same place as most here; but as far as these claims go ā¦ agreeing with Jesus ā¦ being able to accept that there is a loving God even while evils exist ā¦ all these things would get nothing but choruses of agreement from most believers here. So Iām not sure why (on these grounds anyway) you feel that youāre so singular here.
In fact, one of the reasons I hold back from quickly jumping all over what I consider to be āfringe viewsā youāve expressed is that I too, in turn, would be seen as fringe in many different companies (just for my anabaptism alone) - but even more than that for [my critical examination of] some various theories of atonement that are held by so many as above questioning. So I donāt point fingers at other self-identified āfringistsā without feeling many more fingers pointing right back at me. Of course Iām not āanti-establishmentā - far from it. I do not make trouble just for troubleās sake, and in fact would love to just bask in the comfort of middling norms. So when I do begin to pursue ideas off of mainstream, I tend to do it only because I see some pretty compelling reasons. Iām sure you would claim the same. But all this is to say, I donāt just go along into fringe areas unless there is solid evidence to do so. In terms of Christian consensus, scientific consensus, and such ā¦ there is a reason it has unfolded, developed, and survived / thrived as it has, and one does well to not just walk away from any [much less all] of that without very good reasons for doing so. Iām not suggesting that you donāt feel you have good reasons - Iām only highlighting the reality you face of needing to provide extraordinary evidence and compulsion before you could expect others to follow you away from orthodoxy. I face those same kinds of questions too. Gamalielās wisdom applies here about waiting to see if Godās hand is in something. Unless the Lord builds the house, they that labor do so in vain.
Dear Mervin,
Happy New Year. I wanted to get back to you on your comment. I believe in the early Christian theory of the Apocatastasis. It was Edward Moore who invited me to the ISNS conference to present my paper Origen: Heretic of Prophet. Moore came to the following conclusion in his work: Evagrius Ponticus and the Condemnation of Origen. It this sentiment that I share with him and have not found here yet.
In closing, I would like to add that my interest in Origen arises not from any desire to start an Origenist movement in the Orthodox Church, or anything of the sort, rather, my goal is to urge Christians of an intellectual bent to examine, philosophically, doctrines of the Church that are harmful to the noble ideal of absolute human freedom, and also to call for compassion for sinners. No doctrine, in my view, shows more compassion for sinners than apokatastasis ā a product of an intellect so inflamed with love for his fellow creatures that he could not even admit that the devil is damned forever.
Good morning, and Happy New Year to you as well, Shawn. I will be spending today mostly on the road and so wonāt have time for very much response - but here is a quick one for now.
While I may not sure what all get packed into that term [Apocatastasis] beyond my initial perusal of it some time ago ā¦ where I gathered it basically means the eventual salvation of everybody and everything ā¦ it may not be as far away as what you think. At least for a couple of us. It was @Randy, I think who first got me reading George MacDonald, and that has had a profound influence on me to now begin to wake up to that, seeing it through wide swaths of scriptures. So while I canāt accept much of what you casually bring up on para-scientific topics, donāt think that you donāt have a sympathetic audience (in at least a couple of us) on this score: that Godās love and justice both ultimately prevail together in unison (not tension) with each other. On that one important note, I am happy to poke right along with you at the edges of orthodoxy.
@Shawn_Murphy, yes, I find that your post on Origen (I like your website) is very similar to George Macdonald. Makes me want to read the Church Fathers more. Thanks.
As still one more person with fringe core beliefs, Iāve got to say that I donāt see a very strong parallel between Christian consensus and scientific consensus. In the case of science, peer review and verifying experimental results by repetition are very strong arguments for accepting conclusions based on the process alone. I am unaware of any equally reassuring processes which should lead anyone to accept theological conclusions. In fact, it is reflection on those processes which leads me to the conclusion that religious belief is first and foremost profoundly personal. While in mathematics and science we may confidently benefit by standing on the shoulders of giants, I think a similar approach for theology would be self defeating since I think the primary value of religious experience is personal transformation itself.
I think the attempt to find a strong parallel here may reflect oneās predilection for the supremacy of scientific methodologies over all other fields of human endeavor - causing them to attempt to measure the validity of those by how well they manage to ape science. Other fields can object to this (and rightly so I maintain) as pretentious scientific imperialism.
But that said, I donāt think a weak parallel is appropriate to note, at least in a wider context of intellectual programs (that could be said to include both science and theology). Theology does have its own history of orthodoxy, and fruitful engagement about that (just as science has had and still has major schools of thought that may attract various camps that oppose each other on certain points.) The fact that the subject matter of theology does not (for the most part) lend itself to empirical resolution is just a reflection that theology isnāt about that kind of stuff. I should no more hold that against theology than I would expect a chef to denounce a mechanicās garage because the smells in it are all wrong and not at all appetizing. We would remind the chef that his agenda is a different one than what a mechanic will have in her garage.
This is what people sound like to me when they accuse theology of not being science.
I likewise do not fault theology for not employing methods that meet the science standard. Nor do I employ such standards for vouchsafing all that I believe regarding religion. It canāt be helped. Some fields just do require some faith. And it can be argued that when groups of experts in relevant fields get together to review, discuss and refine orthodox opinion that they have a better chance to get it right than any one less expert individual.
But in matters of literature, art and religion there will always be some of us who feel that what these things mean is profoundly personal. Each has the capacity to be transformative and that is really the point of these fields. Iām not sure whether it is possible to appreciate the best these fields have to offer by studying the orthodox views of the experts.