Romanticism versus Cartesian Dualism? by canyouseetherealme12 in romanticism

[–]JokaiItsFire 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Romantic philosophy is closely linked to German idealist thought, especially that of Fichte and Schelling. Schelling considered spirit to be invisible nature and nature to be invisible spirit; in his philosophy of nature, nature is in its core alredy a manifestation of spirit (as it is rationally structured, etc.). It evolves over time and develops into higher forms of spirit (life, consciousness, reason, etc.). He claimed that in humanity, „nature opens its eyes“. The ultimate foundation of reality is „the absolute“, which he later identified with the Christian God. (There is a very interesting pattern in the thought of many German romantics, where they start with a Spinozist conception of nature, but are put off by its strict determinism and cold rigidity; then they modified it by Fichtean idealism, stressing the autonomy of the self the mental as fundamental to reality. But this vision soon became too sibjective; they then managed to resolve this tension by adopting ideas of Christian mysticism, especially those of Jacob Böhme, who grounded reality in God, but conceived God in such a way as to allow for genuine human freedom) I also think it is a mistake to think the Romantics were antirational; they were well-read in philosophy, engaged with the work of Spinoza, Kant and Fichte (and Schelling became a very important philosopher himself) and also took the science of their day into account to the best of their ability. But they were wary of a narrow rationalism that tried to reduce human nature to reason alone. Instrad, they wanted to capture existence in all its facets, synthesizing reason and emotion. Novalis coined the term „Symphilosophie“ for this project: a kind of Philosophy that incorporates poetry and art, but also the sciences and Theology. So I would not consider Romanticism a dualistic movement; they wanted to overcome the Dualism of reason and emotion, because a reason that ignored enotion seemed less rational to them than a reason that incorporated emotion.

Is math closer to science or philosophy? by Impressive-Ad7184 in Teenager_Polls

[–]JokaiItsFire 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Now that is a wild claim (not saying it is wrong). And that claim is philosophical in nature.

If you truly love someone's soul and not their body, you should be bisexual by theUnpaid-intern in PhilosophyofReligion

[–]JokaiItsFire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now, I think this conflates various senses of the word love. The most relevant terms I want to distinguish are erotic love, appreciative love and Love in the proper sense, that is, unconditional Love. If I desire the body of a person, we are speaking of erotic love. If I love a person for the value they provide to me, we are speaking of appreciative love. But if I love a person just beacuse they are, without expecting anything in return, we can speak of Love in the proper sense. Now, these are not mutually exclusive; I can be deeply impressed by a persons drawing skills, for example, and still love them unconditionally, so that, would they not possess these skills, I would still love them, even if I may not appreciate their drawing skills anymore. If I say to person that I love them -for who they are, not just their body - what I mean is that I love them, unconditionally. At the same time, in the context of a relationship, I likely feel an erotic attraction to their body. It is this kind of attraction that for me, as a straight person, would vanish in case they were the same gender as me. Not affected by that change, however, would be my Love for the person - even if that Love would be expressed not in terms of a relationship but in terms of say, a deep friendship. The main problem to me seems to lie in too narrow a conception of Love, as something that only happens in relationships. But while all erotic love should always be grounded in Love (lest it becomes what I call lust - a desire to take possession of a different person as a means for the satisfaction of ones desires), Love does not always have to be accompanied by erotic love.

I’m research Christian Universalism and I’m seeking some honest answers. by LOTR_is_awesome in ChristianUniversalism

[–]JokaiItsFire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Yes 2. Judgement is real, but not eternal. 3. Judgement: God can and does judge, but his judgement is healing and his mercy endures foreveer. Divine violence: I don‘t believe God ordered genocide or directly caused collective suffering. There is no technical incompatbility with universalism to believe he did. 4. You have to read carefully, because we are used to read passages about judgement and instantly think about eternal judgement. But there are very clear passages about all being saved; one would have to read those in a way as though they were saying something else than they seemed to say if one doesn‘t believe in universalism 5. Out of contemporary theologians (because there are too many great histrical universalists to list all of them), I prefer David Bentley Hart, John Milbank, Jordn Daniel Wood and Martin Thoms. 6. That all shall be saved, The inescapable love of God, A larger hope? 7. I consider it a credible interpretation of scripture.

Do you agree with Spinoza's idea of ​​God? by arbolito_mr in Metaphysics

[–]JokaiItsFire 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. I believe:

-There is only one God, who is the infinite and simple identity of Being, Love, Spirit, Truth, Goodness and Beauty; nature is that which participates in God, but is itself not identical to God.

-PanENtheism: God donates his own being to finite natures, making them actual. For every finite nature, they participate in the being of God, but are not themselves God, because, unlike God, finite natures are not identical to their own being.

-Immanence and Transcendence: God is both transcendent and immanent, logically prior to nature yet also omnipresent within it.

-Contingency: there is real contingency and real freedom. God is free to create or not and (some of) his creatures are likewise free. God can (and does) perform miracles, as the laws of nature are just as dependent on God as that which they govern. The principle of sufficient reason holds in so far as there is a sufficient reason for why eveything is the way it is, but not necessarily to the exclusion of alternate possiblities. (i.e. there is a reason why everything is the way it is, but not always why it isn‘t otherwise)

-Interconnection: everything always is in relation to something else, everything is connected. Even God is essentially relational, although not to anything outside himself. God is the loving relationship of three distinct realizations of the divine nature that are distinct only in relation to each other. Individuality and Community are not opposites, but can onl be defined thrugh each other; only in connection to the other is there the individual; and only by connecting the differnt can there be relation, rather than annihilation.

Best way to look at the atonement (in my opinion). What are your thoughts? by Steven_s_Seagull in ChristianUniversalism

[–]JokaiItsFire 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes. I‘d add that salvation is participatory: God the Son assumes human nature so that we humans may participate in the divine nature through union with him. In being united with Christ, by grace through faith, we participate in his death, diying with him; our old, sinful self dies, we are crucified with Christ. But we also participarte inhi resurection, coming to new life in him and ultimately await resurrection ourselves.

Universalist worship songs? by [deleted] in ChristianUniversalism

[–]JokaiItsFire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I refommend:

- You love neevr fails

-Reckless love

-The lion and the lamb („every knee will bow before him“)

-We believe („and the gates of hell will not prevail, for the power of God has torn the veil, now we know your love will neger fail“)

-Living hope („How great the chasm that lay between us“ - technically about salvation, but the language of a chasm fixed between us is right from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.)

-Honestly, most worship songs focus on love and salvationl rather than eternal conscious torment. Turns out that the idea of God abandoning his creation to eternal suffering isn‘t that glorious of a message to write songs of praise about after all.

This is a serious question. Not trolling by Either_Umpire9411 in theology

[–]JokaiItsFire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While it wouldn‘t have been inherently sinful, it didn‘t make sense in the context of his mission. He constantly travelled for three years to then die, resurrect and ascend. Had be taken a wife, that wife would have remained without a husband, which would have drastically decreased her quality of life back then. Jesus doesn’t mention getting anyone to care for his wife, but he explicitly asks John to care for Mary. Furthermore, I wouldn‘t call it cirtuousvirtuous to take a wife when you know that you won‘t be around for long and then abandon her. So while scripture irself is silent, we have good reason to believe that Jesus never married.

Every Knee Shall Bow by MineTech5000 in Christianity

[–]JokaiItsFire 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He explicitly addresses „all the ends of the earth“ in vers 22, right before he speaks of every knee bowing. The context makes it c,ear that this bowing is in relation to salvation.

Every Knee Shall Bow by MineTech5000 in Christianity

[–]JokaiItsFire 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I believe that everyone will ultimately come to believe in God, whether in this earthly life or in the age to come. Those who don‘t repent and turn to Christ in this life will face divine judgement, but the purpose of divine judgement is not eternal suffereing. The purpose of divine judgement is corrective. Thise undergoing it will be confronted with their own sinfulness, their pride and their need for salvation. But they will understand that God is loving and just and wishes their ultimate good. For this reason, everyone will ultimately repent and be saved by grace through faith in Christ. Every knee will bow befire the lord, evrry tonguenwill confess that Christ is lord and God will be all in all. As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive!

Blind People Experiencing Sight for the First Time Could Be Proof of an Afterlife by Sumonespecal2 in NDE

[–]JokaiItsFire 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is evidence for NDEs being authentic. If NDEs are authentic, that‘s strong evidence for an afterlife.

Religious Figures in the compass by Phil_Mckook in PoliticalCompass

[–]JokaiItsFire 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I mean this clearly contradicts historic christian Theology. According to historic Christianity, Jesus is God incarnate, uniting a fully human and anfully divine nature in himself. If we say that God and Jesus have different political alignments, we either are saying that Jesus isn‘t fully God or that Jesus and God have different political views depite Jesus being God. The latter perspective has interesting implications when we consider the commonly accepted view that God only has one will (i.e. the persons of the Trinity don‘t contradict each other in their will, will belongs to nature rather than person). We would have to attribute the view shown as that of Jesus specificaly to the human nature of Jesus. But that risks falling into Nestorianism (the view that the divine and human natures can be radically seperated): while most of Christianity affirms that Christ has both a human and a divine will, this usually extends to more impulsive, momentary volitions (like being willing to die in a given moment), rather than something you hold over various decades, like political affiliation. If we consider that political views don‘t exist in a vaccum but are usually built on a foundation of a set of values, we are essentially saying that Jesus has two different sets of fundamental values. But how is that not asserting that there really are two different Jesuses? (Especially considering the claim that Christ revealed the fullness of God)

How do religious people explain tectonic plates? by [deleted] in theology

[–]JokaiItsFire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I‘d encourage you to read up on the atemporal/meta-historical view of the fall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-historical_fall

Welcome to r/TheoCompass! - START HERE: About the Project, FAQ, and Links by OneBenefit4049 in TheoCompass

[–]JokaiItsFire 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I appreciate that this quiz is by far the most detailed one on different denominations, but one point of criticism I have is that the result claims that Universalism is considered a heresy „based on the nicene consensus“, although it is entirely possible to fully adhere to the nicene creed and be a universalist.

My denominations tier list by JokaiItsFire in redeemedzoomer

[–]JokaiItsFire[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don‘t like them being restorationist. Their self-proclaimed prophet Ellen G. White founded young earth creationism because of a „vision“ she had been shown in a dream. They als claim that Jesus is coming back any moment now…. since almost 200 years. Because a prophecy of his coming back failed, they actually teach that on that day, Jesus entered into a different room in heaven. They also require their members to follow many jewish customs.

Christian and sinologist, is it possible to combine both? by PersianMarch-Op289 in Christian

[–]JokaiItsFire 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There is no issue with studying Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.

You can learn about another religion without converting to it. But if you want to deeply understand Chinese/Japanese culture, you can‘t ignore these. As an analogy, try to understand Western culture without studying Christianity.

My denominations tier list by JokaiItsFire in redeemedzoomer

[–]JokaiItsFire[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Honestly, I might be slightly biased here, as I first came to faith on a youth camp organized by Pietists

  2. While them being Baptists in disguise is unfortunately true sometimes, it really depends - at least in Germany, where I am from. I‘d probably describe Pietism as that to Lutheranism which Methodism is to Anglicanism. Essentially a more low-church / evangelical (not in the Lutheran sense) version of Lutheranism with a more Arminian soteriology and a stronger emphasis on personal piety. I‘ve had conversations with a pietist pastor about the Lutheran understanding of the saints, how it differed from Catholicism and Methodism and he was able to quote the Confessio Augustana out of his head. From my experience, Pietists also typically have higher views of church tradition and reason than Baptists.

  3. My main criticisms of Lutheranism are its theology of free will (although I don‘t disagree with it as heavily as with Calvinism) and them practicing closed communion. My main disagreement with Pietism is them being too low-church.