Comments for The Christian Watershed

Comment on What if we required philosophy? by AKron

AKron — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:20:00 +0000

I think teaching philosophy and critical thinking skills in schools is a great idea. Maybe not al the books you mentioned, but that's an idealized list you said. I also really like the idea Philosopher Dan Dennett mentions in his video response to Rick Warren. In his video at about 4 minutes he makes a proposal to teach religion in schools as well. All religions, no bias, and no doctrine just the facts.

Comment on What if we required philosophy? by montroseblvd

montroseblvd — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:31:15 +0000

This looks eerily similar to a curriculum I’m quite familiar with. If it were up to me, I’d have a curriculum just like this only, the first reading in the first semester would be Chesterton’s Everlasting Man, and the last reading of the entire course will be Orthodoxy by the same author. Also, I’d have Pascal to balance Descartes.

Comment on Theanthropic Ethics and Secular Humanism: How ‘Theosis’ Can Deal With Modern Critiques of Christian Ethics by AKron

AKron — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:20:50 +0000

Forgot one quote mark, and I proof checked it three times! this is the feedback I thought of

Comment on Theanthropic Ethics and Secular Humanism: How ‘Theosis’ Can Deal With Modern Critiques of Christian Ethics by AKron

AKron — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:18:16 +0000

You sure put a lot of time and thought into this Joel. Since it's late I didn't make it past the second paragraph, and my brains is fuzzy, but this is the feedback I thought of when you mentioned you'd like some. That talk of accepting "His commands" is pretty scary stuff. Who's commands? I would be extremely suspicious of anyone telling you to do something because God told him it was His command. You keep mentioning that God is good. That kind of cracked me up because I recently saw this video. I'll try and finish tomorrow. Enjoy!

Comment on A Mystical Transformation or Why I Changed My Mind About the Lord’s Supper by Kelly Randolph

Kelly Randolph — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:41:13 +0000

Joel, I think that a comparison of 6:40 with 6:54 demonstrates that Jesus is using the terms eating and drinking as metaphors for believing. The language of these two verses is very similar. Feeding on Jesus and drinking his blood extends the comparison which Jesus introduced between Himself as the bread of life and the manna the fathers ate. Clearly, Jesus does not intend his readers to understand his words about being the bread of life in a literal sense. In the same way, I think he uses the language of eating and drinking to mean believing. I’m not arguing for this understanding because I have trouble with miracles. Of course, Jesus could make his body real bread and his blood real wine if he chose to. That’s not the point. The point is whether the text supports such a literal understanding of Jesus’ words. I would say no. If you take the position that Jesus’ body and blood are in some way present in the bread and wine, it would seem that ingestion of these elements imparts eternal life (6:54). This violates the repeated message of Jesus in John that eternal life is a result of believing in Him. Belief is a repeated theme even in the immediate context (6:29, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47). In addition, when Jesus and the disciples were discussing this hard saying in vv. 60-71, the issue of believing is paramount. Some did not believe (6:64). When Jesus asked the disciples about whether they too would abandon him, they confessed that he had the words of eternal life and they believed that he was the holy one of God (6:68-69). I think this reinforces the emphasis on belief in contrast to a sacramental understanding of the passage.

Comment on A Mystical Transformation or Why I Changed My Mind About the Lord’s Supper by Al Cashion

Al Cashion — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:31:13 +0000

Follow with a discussion of all the “I am’s” in John’s gospel please.

Comment on A Mystical Transformation or Why I Changed My Mind About the Lord’s Supper by Joel

Joel — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:05:18 +0000

“Substance” removes the mystery from the physicality of the act. To be of the same substance brings up a myriad of issues (substance referring to what something is made of). For instance, if the bread is turned into the substance of Christ’s flesh, why doesn’t it taste like flesh? So there’s a problem with the substance of it.

With the essence, however, something can be present without changing the substance. For instance, the essence of the Divine took on human flesh without ever becoming human. Just as it’s appropriate to call Jesus a man in the full sense of the term and God in the full sense of the term, so is it appropriate to say the bread is bread (in its full sense) and Jesus’ flesh (in its full sense).

That’s why I would argue it’s inappropriate to go with transubstantiation (substance) or say that the act is merely symbolic; both attempt to rationalize an event that is beyond mystery. It’s a union of our body and soul with Christ, which is something we can’t really explain.

Comment on A Mystical Transformation or Why I Changed My Mind About the Lord’s Supper by Jake Randolph (@J_Rhett)

Jake Randolph (@J_Rhett) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:07:47 +0000

Joel- could you expound on what differentiates “substance” from “essence”? I am intrigued, but I don’t know if I fully understand your argument.

Comment on The Nature of Evil and the Human Condition by J. Matthan Brown

J. Matthan Brown — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:20:37 +0000

thanks Josh, I appreciate your comments!

Comment on Theanthropic Ethics in the Zombie Apocalypse: Why the Disposition of Your Heart Could Save Your Brain (and Soul) by AKron

AKron — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:28:19 +0000

I feel like I’m living with the zombies today, no need for a show about them. They suck you in with smiles and cookies, then make you eat the flesh, and drink the blood of their long dead zombie leader. Then they threaten you with eternal torture if you don’t join their legion of The Walking Dead.
Great post Joel, although I admit I only read the first part about the zombies, and I thought Shane was stupid to shoot Otis in the leg.