21 күн бұрын
Пікірлер
@PomazeBog1389 3 ай бұрын
Kosovo is Serbia. Bogomils are heretics.
@lausilein 4 ай бұрын
❤❤❤the best
@bunga_raya96 5 ай бұрын
What a wonderful lecture. Thank you Dr. Noor
@selmathornton5489 6 ай бұрын
My only problem with this is that the term Bošnjak does not constitute religion.
@selmathornton5489 6 ай бұрын
Where do I get your book Dr. Ašćerić??
@hatidjesabri7326 8 ай бұрын
Is this available in written form?
@BosnjakBosnjakovic 8 ай бұрын
I agree with Dr Aščerić that religion should not equate to ethnicity. She states in her conclusion that she doe not understand why there was no attempt at dismantling that idea. The concept of bosniak was that attempt. Bosniak is the ethnicity of every inhabitant of Bosnia , regardless of religion. Bosniaks are of three religions. The Dayton agreement and how the constitution was written up made it very difficult to implement it. For example, someone like Zeljko Komsic , if possible would have declared as a Bosniak. But because of the constitution and political strategy , he declared as a Croat. The concept of Bosniak as opposed in 1993 was to unite all people under one ethnicity regardless of religion. And historically , that is how it has always been. Only under 19th century colonization by the Croat catholic church and Serbian Orthodox church, has that been changed. Dr Aščerić also does not try to explain why there are so many muslims in Bosnia. I think it is a simple explanation. In the past , people followed their leaders. The Bosnian leaders converted to Islam, so the people followed.Sigismund Tomašević converted to Islam and changed his name to Ishak-beg Kraljević. He was a Bosnian prince. Another reason is that the Ottomans offered human rights through the ahdnama, a human rights document. They protected the Bosniaks from persecution by the Serb and Croat christian churches. Dr Aščerić downplays the dangers that Bosnia faced from the west and the east, but the pope declared a crusade towards Bosnia for its heresy. She also only tries to deconstruct the Bogomil concept and does not try to offer alternatives or even talk about alternatives already that have been offered. Mainstream Bosnian people that love Bosnia still adhere to the idea that Bosniak is an ethnicity regardless of religion.
@lbbbbbbbb1 Ай бұрын
Hello, I noticed there’s a lack of alternative as well. Do you know what is the correct thesis? Who or which groups make up the majority of the modern-day Bosnian Muslim population?
@lbbbbbbbb1 Ай бұрын
Unrelated, but did Bosnia have its own kingdom before Ottoman occupation? Are there any genetic differences between Serbs, Bosnians and Croats?
@BosnjakBosnjakovic Ай бұрын
@@lbbbbbbbb1 Hi, Although there is some great info in this video, I do think that Dr Aščerić has a bit of a biased agenda. She is attached to a foreign university and married to a foreigner, so she is trying to change some parts of Bosniak history to suit her choices. What I outlined in my message is the correct thesis and it is supported by data. I will give a brief history. The Slavs came from Poland and Ukraine to the Balkans around the 7th century. They mixed with the local Illyrian population. We are not certain who the Illyrians were. They were either a native Balkan people or it was another name for South Slavs. In genetics the part of your father is called y dna and the part of your mother is mtdna. y dna has haplogroups which are genetic markers connected to people. Bosnian muslims identify as Bosniaks. My thesis is that the Bosnian Catholics and Orthodox are also Bosniaks. But they were assimilated into serbs and croats through pressure of the serb orthodox church and croat catholic church. Y-DNA studies on Bosniaks (in Bosnia and Herzegovina) show close affinity to other neighboring South Slavs.[58] Y-DNA results show notable frequencies of I2 with 43.50% (especially its subclade I2-CTS10228+), R1a with 15.30% (mostly its two subclades R1a-CTS1211+ and R1a-M458+) R1a and I2a would be y dna haplogroups So, the current day Bosnian muslims are composed of south slavs, illyrian and in minor parts other european muslims from the former ottoman empire. For example, hungarian muslims that fled to Bosnia When Hungary was conquered by Hungarian christians etc.
@BosnjakBosnjakovic Ай бұрын
@@lbbbbbbbb1 Hi, I saw your name is Leila. Do you have any relation to Bosnia, do you speak Bosnian?Not sure because we use the name Leila too, but we would write it Lejla. Although Bosniaks in foreign countries write it like Leila to fit in with the local population. Yes, Bosnia had its own kingdom. The last queen was Katarina Katarina Kosača-Kotromanić. Her son was Stjepan Tomašević. Yes, there are minimal differences between serbs, Bosnians and croats. Dependant on the region, but lets just use croatia,serbia and Bosnia, yes there are minimal genetic differences. They are expressed in paternal y dna and maternal mt dna.
@BosnjakBosnjakovic Ай бұрын
@@lbbbbbbbb1 According to all the data that I have seen, Bosnian muslims are Bosniaks. Bosniaks are south slavs who migrated from Poland and Ukraine around the 7th century from Poland and Ukraine. And then mixed with the local Illyrian population in the Balkans.There is minor admixture of other european muslims too. For example, when Hungary fell and the Ottomans lost it to the Hungarian christians, most of the Hungarian muslims either fled to present day Turkey but also to Bosnia.Bosnia was a stronghold for muslims. Genetics are made up from paternal y dna and maternal mtdna. Y-DNA studies on Bosniaks (in Bosnia and Herzegovina) show close affinity to other neighboring South Slavs.[58] Y-DNA results show notable frequencies of I2 with 43.50% (especially its subclade I2-CTS10228+), R1a with 15.30% (mostly its two subclades R1a-CTS1211+ and R1a-M458+), The haplogroups I2 and R1a are the majority y dna in Bosniaks. According to all data that I have seen, the catholics and orthodox in Bosnia are Bosniaks too. They got assimilated into Serbs and Croats due to pressure from the neighboring croat catholic church and serb orthodox church
@khanraven4936 8 ай бұрын
ماشاء اللہ Absolutely outstanding and Sublime.
@bonbon__candy__1 9 ай бұрын
I wonder what Edward Feser thinks about this.
@yeats7508 8 ай бұрын
who cares
@bonbon__candy__1 8 ай бұрын
@@yeats7508 I care. Cusan theology seems to lack the Aristotelian-Thomistic rigour, even though I reject the latter. Feser would probably be good at countering claims made regarding Cusan views.
@lidiabano4698 10 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for doing this topic,VOICE OF REASON. It would be interesting to delve deeper into reasons why- but it does seem bosnian church was not bogomil - it was not fully heretical just did its own thing- however without considering bosnian church more it would be tricky. at least we know conversions weren't immediate, and they were then serbs r croats. bosnian queen escaped to rome when turks invaded. there are quite a few movements of bogomils/cathars in europe at time- is this isolated? there's so much to consider? what happened w bogomils in bulgaria?
@BosnjakBosnjakovic 8 ай бұрын
The Bosnian church was Bogomil. What Dr Aščerić is claiming that most Bosnian muslims were not bogomil. Heretical is subjective , according to the catholics and orthodox, bogomils are heretical. They always were Bosnianks, never Serbs or Croats. All inhabitants were ethnically Bosniak, regardless of religion. The turks did not invade, the Ottomans invaded and they were comprised of various ethnicities. The bogomils were most likely connected and not isolated. In most areas where the Bogomils were, they were either killed or exiled. So, that is what most likely happened with the bogomils in bulgaria
@Greensanctuary-c4w 7 ай бұрын
@@BosnjakBosnjakovicbogumils rejected the church so they did not have any ever
@BosnjakBosnjakovic 6 ай бұрын
@@Greensanctuary-c4w in this context the church means a building used for public Christian worship.. the way you are writing it , you are insinuating that the church means the catholic church, so we are talking about different things
@lidiabano4698 10 ай бұрын
HVALA
@regonzalezayala 11 ай бұрын
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 🤔 Nicholas *of Kusa played a pivotal role in Professor John Milbank's career, pointing him towards his current trajectory of studies in both philosophy and theology.* 📖 Kusa's *work blends tradition and innovation, combining Christian teachings with the growing emphasis on human capacity, arts and sciences, during the Renaissance era.* 🤲 Kusa *is believed to provide a more traditional way to be modern, making his studies and reflections important to understanding contemporary thoughts.* 🛠️ Kusa's *fusion of sacred theology with rational philosophy led him to establish an alternative Renaissance, favoring a metaphysics approach over the traditional Aristotelian approach.* 👀 Kusa's *work went unnoticed for a long time, overshadowed by successors Bruno and Spinoza, and later Descartes and Kent's subjective turn. Recent scholarship suggests Kusa's vision offers a different, less followed, but potentially more coherent path.* 🌍 Kusa's *perspective includes a strong sense of the unity between God and the world, and between philosophy and theology. It also integrated other faiths and cultures, seeing them as different and valuable perspectives on God.* ❓ The *relationship between God and the world, as described by Kusa, is marked with irreducible paradox. He emphasized the role of Paradox in understanding universal aspects and real relations.* 🔗 Central *to Kusa's philosophy are paradoxical themes - the unity of opposites, the coexistence of identity and difference, and the interplay between autonomy and heteronomy. This suggests all knowledge is essentially a construct, offering an arguably unique response to nominalism.* 📝 Nicholas *of Kusa argued that infinitesimal transitions should be seen as aparthetic discontinuities, as opposed to the 'rationalizing line' of Leibniz.* 💡 Nicholas *didn't anticipate the new mathematical science. He drew on a Pythagorean platonic understanding of mathematics, valuing mathematical discontinuities.* 🎭 He *posited that every thought or deed is essentially an artful construction or conjecture, contributing to the 'Divine game of creation'.* ⚖️ Nicholas *suggests that we balance finite and infinite, particularly in idealistic thought. He saw God as infinite art, infinite self-surprise, and infinite giving.* 🎨 Nicholas *held that the deed or performance doesn't precede the idea. Instead, thought is conjectural and imminently constructed. This thought led to the philosophical perspective that thinking and creating are interconnected, and creating is a mode of development and understanding.* 🦉 Humans, *as 'cultural animals', are participative thinkers, adding to the world's knowledge through their imaginative experiences and inspired creations.* 🔭 Nicholas *offered a perspective where rational and religious awareness are indistinguishable, both being conjectural and inspired by grace-given participation in the Divine act of Creation.* 🔄 This *forward-thinking, integral yet ecumenically open theological worldview, rooted in both philosophy and the tradition of Christianity, is the future direction Nicholas proposed. It encourages us to include art and culture in metaphysics of degrees of creativity.* Made with HARPA AI
@jonahwaisman3204 11 ай бұрын
This is so deep!! ❤
@ib368 Жыл бұрын
Potpuno se slažem sa Dr. Aščerić! Hvala vam mnogo za ovu predobru prezentaciju!
@kaidoloveboat1591 Жыл бұрын
Anyone know the name at 11:49?
@yerauldda4909 9 ай бұрын
Alain de Libera, presumably in reference to works such as his 'Raison et Foi. Archéologie d'une crise' (2003)
@mudhen9295 Жыл бұрын
The difficulty is that as Christian ontology gets more clear-headed (dumping the goofy atonement/ransom dualism) it starts sounding like Taoism, with Jesus as a tough-luck Lao-Tzu. Richard Rohr, for example, has absolutely beautiful sermons about the universal Christ, but I'm not clear why this couldn't just be called the Universal Bob. Cusa, incidentally, really didn't have any notion of the intimate infinite, that's really Bruno.
@bman5257 Жыл бұрын
Not saying this is what you’re saying but we should all note that poor elucidations of the atonement shouldn’t negate the atonement and it’s importance in it’s more original/biblical/Pauline/patristic manner.
@natanaellizama6559 2 ай бұрын
But Taoism is entirely impersonal, making any relation of human existence devoid of transcendence under Taoism. The transcendence into the Dao is the negation of the subject. The difference between a Universal Bob and the Universal Christ, beyond the mere linguistic relation is the personal nature of the binding human concrete existence and transcendental existence itself. This means this relation cannot be a mere abstraction or a mere transcendental relation. It is a Divine Person as mediator within between the human person and the transcendence of GOD.
@mudhen9295 2 ай бұрын
@@bman5257 No doubt, that is correct for believers.
@xtuartb7851 Жыл бұрын
Wonderful talk. Please consider either using microphones for audience comments and questions, or ask your speakers to recap them before giving their responses.
@philipbuckley759 Жыл бұрын
I have no idea as to what this one is speaking of...
@gmk2222 Жыл бұрын
Seems like a nice fella though I suppose 😃
@jeffreykalb9752 11 ай бұрын
Neither does he...
@OldChessScrub 9 ай бұрын
Read Cusan, 20th century Continental philosophy, de Lubac, Blondel and the Radical Orthodoxy theologians. Then you'll get it. In other words, He's talking to very few people.
@citytrees1752 Жыл бұрын
Wow!
@gre8 Жыл бұрын
Don't you just love when the mere title of the lecture already gives you an "eureka" moment?
@AlbrechtBehmel Жыл бұрын
yes, same here.
@mpolesamuelmasemola8500 Жыл бұрын
Thought I was the only one you felt this way. Spot on!!!
@Terpsichore1 Жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@JCRezonna-dl5qz 4 ай бұрын
Yes, but in a more 'Pepiist Vs Cokeist' kind of way. I have no idea what the two opposites on the title actually mean, but shall listen with an open mind. I do know where Hoddesden is though - not bad for an urchin from the backstreets of a northern town eh?! ;)
@claudiozanella256 Жыл бұрын
THE SPIRIT OF GOD: 1. From the gospels you can learn that Jesus IS ONLY WITH THE FATHER, this is REITERATED many times by Him, for example "...You will leave me ALONE. Yet, I am NOT ALONE because THE FATHER is with me.". I.e. only the Father is with the Son. B. From Jn. 4:23,24 you can learn that the FATHER - the only One Person who is with Jesus - IS A SPIRIT ("God is a spirit"); C. From Mk. 3:29 you can further learn that the SPIRIT - who is the Father (B) - and who is with Jesus (A) - is called "HOLY SPIRIT" by Him: " 29 but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: " In other words the Father who is a spirit (B) - the only One Person with Jesus (A) - is either called "Holy Father" or "Holy Spirit" by Him. Blaspheming the Spirit - i.e. the Father - is considered very serious by Jesus. No further kind of blaspheming exists. Using a different terminology, the "Spirit of God" (aka Holy Spirit) simply is God almighty who is a spirit: "God is a spirit" (Jn. 4:24). The Spirit of God is sent by the Father who is NOT a spirit. God doesn't directly take actions here because He is away. Indeed everything is carried out by his Spirit, see the gospels. But his Spirit is the SAME almighty God, not a third person. God - not a spirit - is AWAY - this is why "nobody ever saw Him", this is why "the world has not known you". "Away" is not restricted to space, but also includes TIME. Since God is away Jesus has now "all things into his hand", i.e. He "inherited" the reign of God, Jesus is the ONLY King of the reign of God. Even when "AWAY" the almighty God is able to "virtually" be here with his words and actions and interact with people. Since He is virtually here but at the same time is actually absent (NOBODY is here) He is considered to be like a spirit here. He is the Spirit of God. He dealt with Mary's pregnancy, led Jesus into the desert, later helped Him when talking...
@garychartier8365 Жыл бұрын
John is always insightful! Thanks for hosting him.