David Bentley Hart - Is God a "Person"?

[@Ver-oni-ca]

He is All That Is - He is pure love.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“All that is” is vague and opens up the possibility for the very composition that Hart wants to reject, eg human beings are among the category of “all that is,” but it’s false to say that God IS those human beings. God is firing on all metaphysical cylinders as Pat Flynn says, or pure actuality, on DDS, and even in models that deny DDS God is the foundation as Rasmussen says, But I’m just wondering if the “all that is” phrasing might be problematic

[@jacksonrelaxin3425]

David Bent is a balding freak with a nasty attitude.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@jacksonrelaxin3425 doesn’t make him wrong. Get a grip you

[@jacksonrelaxin3425]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns who cares. He’s overrated and a poor representative of universalism. All he does is bitch about how he thinks he’s better than everyone else.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@jacksonrelaxin3425 I agree to a degree. He’s a sassy b-word

[@paulpaulsen7245]

God is my father. Through Christ. I don´t know how, I don´t know why. All I know that God´s spirit lives in me & influences me. God is my father. Period. Kind regards from Germany. ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα· Rom 11:36 I´m in content knowing that...

[@lucienfournier5399]

It's maybe just your imagination

[@bible1st]

​@@lucienfournier5399I testify and confirm the same thing this man has said, also describes my experience. Im in the U.S.

[@pretty-white-lamb]

In the Zen Buddhist tradition there's a sense that the Timeless/Absolute and the Temporal/Relative are ultimately One, and that we can experience the Ultimate in the particular objects, events, and experiences of our daily lives. I wonder if this helps clarify the nature of God. Yes, God is absolutely transcendent, infinitely perfect, standing outside of time, without a shadow of change. But is He not also, paradoxically, fully immersed in time? Is He not so intimately related with each and every one of His creatures, that in some sense He identifies with each of them, and He suffers when they suffer and rejoices when they rejoice, and in general He enters the world in and through creatures (like Moses and the burning bush)? In this sense God is infinitely mutable/changeable, in that He adapts Himself constantly and dynamically to all creatures, times, situations, so as to be with each of them according to their various conditions. In entering into time and the process of change this way, He does not compromise His infinite perfections or His timelessness, but veils and partially reveals that divine Essence in all times and places.

[@Jemoh66]

That would be the essence of the Incarnation it seems to me.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Where is the evidence for this?

[@foodchewer]

@@TheGuiltsOfUs If you are looking for evidence in regards to matters of faith and the mystical, then you're using the wrong measurement. It's more of a left-brained, intuitive, qualitative thing that cannot be (rightly) expressed in words, numbers, or models; it simply has to be experienced.

[@johncart07]

2:40 Jung never reduced God to psychology. Jung was against reductionism in general. Freud was the psychologist who tried to do that. JP doesn't reduce God to psychology either, he just explains the psychological significance of God. This isn't the same as reductionism. This is a very profound distinction. This is not to say that some don't try to reduce God to the empirical ego psychology. DBH is actually performing this reduction needlessly. As Jung observed... This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow. As to what the further cause of such experience may be, the answer to this lies beyond the range of human knowledge. Knowledge of God is a transcendental problem.” This just means theist must have faith, And only God knows.

[@emmashalliker6862]

JP has literally said "who knows" and is thus agnostic at best and definitely reduces God to psychology. Jung called God a psychic fact and thus reducing God. He talking about God.

[@whoami8434]

Mineral water: it’s what consciousness craves.

[@AlexeiMotoRin]

electrolytes ? 🤪🤪😝😝

[@anthonypiseno6341]

Fascinating articulation of God. I have been struggling with the psychological God and the Transcendental God. Hart may have answered that for me.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Don't listen to Hart,he just lies for an unnecessary and improbable God

[@bobpolo2964]

@@rationalsceptic7634 Are you an atheist?

[@rationalsceptic7634]

bob polo NO!!

[@rationalsceptic7634]

bob polo I'm a searching Agnostic ...I can tell jokes in Hebrew and Greek ha

[@bobpolo2964]

@@rationalsceptic7634 What do you self-identify as?

[@aloser09]

atemporality and temporality of God....holding to the Christian tradition I believe in both. transcendentals of truth, goodness, and beauty being rooted in the "person" of God. this vid is great

[@TheWorldTeacher]

🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent PERSON is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God: 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) , German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

[@hakushokuhikari]

@@TheWorldTeacher idk why you waste a lot of time just to justify your nonsensical claims but ok xd

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@hakushokuhikari, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️

[@hakushokuhikari]

@@TheWorldTeacher why should I? You're using genetic fallacy on num. 4 which is so wrong.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@hakushokuhikari, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄 Incidentally, it’s called “Spell-Check”. ✅ Look into it, SILLY Sinful Slave. 👨🏻‍🎓

[@flyingmonk6599]

They need to interview Edward Feser!

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

Flying Monk This for sure.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Robert L Kuhn told me that he plans on interviewing Feser eventually.

[@suntzu7727]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns We meet again, Meow. Hopefully it will happen soon! (I'm impatient too).

[@anahata3478]

You mean the "christian" Feser who defends the death penalty and tells ridiculous conspiracy theories because his daddy-figure lost the election? There are enough of those traditionalists who conflate conservatism with christianity. Someone like Milbank would be much more interesting

[@lysanderofsparta3708]

@@anahata3478 So, you don't think that Feser is a Christian? Why? Just because you don't like his politics, which follow from classical Natural Law? You'd prefer a weird "Christian socialist" like Milbank instead?

[@jonathanhollingsworth9258]

I really want to see him in debate/conversation with some process-relational and open & relational theologian and philosophers. Those sparks could shed real light about both positions.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Yes, Hart vs Mullins would be awesome. But DBH is way too stubborn

[@jacobkats3670]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns DBH would shred Mullins

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@jacobkats3670 I agree. But it’ll never happen. DBH has become such an antisocial j*erk

[@mikeschaller9233]

I love how some need to cram God into a box made by what man believes He must be, or cannot be, or else He is not God. It seems very arrogant of the intellectuals, they sure sound wise, but we know what the bible says about that. Way above my intellectual grasp.

[@Ekam-Sat]

I am not sure who didn't read the memo of Jesus as outlined in the NW. What it comes down to is that the purpose of Life is Love. It's why we are different.

[@Shirohige33]

Why DBH makes things SO difficult sometimes. Is God a person or not????? And when I'm saying person is He an unembodied MIND or consciousness or NOT??????? Sometimes he talks about God as God is something like an abstract law totally devoid of WILL,INTELLECT,GOODNESS,JUSTICE. DBH needs to be little more precise I think. I would really love to have a debate with Alvin Plantinga,William Lane Craig,Richard Swinburne,Keith Ward anyone of these philosophers cause honestly sometimes I really think that he is not Christian.

[@JP-sd7di]

Jotun Heim He is Christian. He believes God is personal too, he just isn't a theistic personalist like they are.

[@UnratedAwesomeness]

This goes into the existence of goodness as being. Classical Theism has no problem with all these things. For example, the intellect of a thing is classically defined as a the ability to hold patterns without embodying them (like how we can possess triangularity in our mind without being triangles). God would be able to hold all of the universe's patterns in himself -- we can know this because we have to hold to the notion of the Principal of Proportional Causality -- and thus he has an intellect. The book _Five Proofs for the Existence of God_ by Edward Feser addresses all these aspects of God, and even proves God's existence through the necessity of an intellect outside ourselves. Give it a read. After years of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, I'm really loving Classical Theism, I think it explains everything much better.

[@gregbrougham1423]

I'm curious about Hart's Christology, particularly the two natures.

[@gregbrougham1423]

I have just begun to engage in Hart's position. Your summation seems to correspond with my initial impression; that is, I am not sure if his theism can produce a coherent ontology of the incarnate Christ without reducing Jesus to just an epistemological agent. On the other hand, I depict vagely an element in his philosophy which could give way to a pneumatology which can resolve the problem. Just musing, need to read his books. I found his article on Christ and Nothing in First Things quite interesting. Thanks. Happy New Year

[@JP-sd7di]

Greg Brougham He is an Orthodox Christian, so he believes that Jesus of Nazareth is both 100% God and 100% Man.

[@Falcon988]

J P, He does believe that, he just can’t reconcile it with his metaphysics. But I can tell this is all a WORK IN PROGRESS for DBH.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Xavier Galindo 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person or Deity, for the notion of an omnipresent PERSON is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. The English word “person” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “person”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Simple logic dictates that the Ultimate Reality transcends all concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. There are at least FOUR reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Supreme Personal God: 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). 2. Because they have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. 3. Because they may have witnessed the deeds or read the words of an individual who seems to be a perfect person - in other words an incarnation of the Divine Principle (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit). To be sure, such persons do exist, but that does not necessarily prove that the Supreme Truth is PERSONAL. An Avatar is a man who was born fully enlightened, with all noble qualities, but not necessarily perfect in every possible way. For example, very few (if any) of the recognized Avatars in human history taught or practiced veganism. 4. Because they have been CONDITIONED by their family, society and/or religious organization over many years or decades. Unfortunately, we humans are very gullible. Due to low intelligence and lack of critical analysis, the typical person believes almost anything they read or hear from virtually any source. During a visit to one's local place of worship on any given weekend, one will notice a congregation of sheepish individuals nodding in agreement with practically every nonsensical, inane word spouted by their deluded so-called “priest”, imam, mullah, rabbi, guru, monk, or preacher. Even the current World Teacher, despite his genius intellect, was once a thoroughly-indoctrinated religious fundamentalist, before he awoke to a definitive understanding of life. Having stated the above, the worship of the Personal Deity (“bhakti yoga”, in Sanskrit), is a legitimate spiritual path for the masses. However, the most ACCURATE understanding is monistic or non-dual (“advaita”, in Sanskrit). If one wishes to be even more pedantic, the ultimate understanding is beyond even the concept of nonduality, as the great South Indian sage, Śri Ramana Maharishi, once so rightly proclaimed. As an aside, it seems that practically every religious organization, particularly those originating in Bhārata (India), claims to have been founded by an Avatar, but that’s simply wishful thinking on the part of their congregations. Only a great sage or World Teacher can POSSIBLY recognize an enlightened being, what to speak of an Incarnation of the Divine. The typical spiritual aspirant, even one who may seem to be a highly-exalted practitioner, has very little idea of what constitutes actual holiness. Frankly speaking, many famous (infamous?) religious leaders were some of the most vile and contemptible characters in human history, particularly in this Epoch of Darkness (“Kali Yuga”, in Sanskrit). “God is greater than God.” ************* “Where there is Isness, there God is. Creation is the giving of isness from God. That is why God becomes where any creature expresses God.” ************* “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ************* “There is something in the soul that is so akin to God that it is one with Him... It has nothing in common with anything created.” ************* “The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God as if he stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.” ************* “The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.” Eckhart von Hochheim O.P. (AKA Meister Eckhart) , German Roman Catholic Priest. “God is merely one of man's concepts, a symbol used for pointing the way, to the Ultimate Reality, which has been mistaken for the Reality itself. The map has been mistaken for the actual territory.” ************* “Worshipers may derive some sort of satisfaction or peace of mind, through worship of a concept such as God (created by themselves), but it is a futile process, from the viewpoint of experiencing one's true nature.” Ramesh Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher.

[@gregbrougham1423]

@@TheWorldTeacher If what you say is true, then you need to relax and stop thinking about it.

[@JB-kn2zh]

I just don't understand how classical theism fits with the incarnation. It seems like they're saying God is One, He isn't made of parts, He's incapable of suffering, and He's unchanging, impassable, and timeless. That seems to just take the meaning out of the passion and incarnation in a way.

[@JB-kn2zh]

I almost just prefer a mystical "it's a mystery that can't be explained; contradictions can be united in God" in the debate between classical theism and theistic personalism.

[@legron121]

On the contrary, see Thomas Weinandy's excellent books _Does God Change?,_ and _Does God Suffer?,_ both of which extensively deal with that question.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Nope. That’s Christ’s human nature.

[@roberttulba6990]

How can God be bound by time if He is the creator of time?

[@jcismyall]

Beautiful explanation Beautiful thought

[@drewanderson9372]

I want to see David Bentley Hart, William Lane Craig and Edward Feser teach Vacation Bible School some summer.

[@Falcon988]

An Orthodox whose Orthodoxy can’t be pinned down ... a Protestant who may well be an Apollinarian ... and a hardcore Thomist. I would pay to see that.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Xavier Galindo Why pay to hear three DELUDED religionists, when one can read “FISH” for free? 🤓

[@gfujigo]

OMG! That would be awesome! 😁😁😁😁

[@lysanderofsparta3708]

@@TheWorldTeacher What's your delusion, pal?

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@lysanderofsparta3708, I am your lord, your god, and your MASTER. Therefore, whenever you send me a message or respond to a comment of mine, it is IMPERATIVE that you address me accordingly. E.g. “How are you, Master?” Is that understood, SLAVE?

[@adrianthomas1473]

Not sure how all this relates to our daily walk. Jesus is a person, He called God His Father, and the Holy Ghost is a person. Sort of reminds me of John A T Robinson and his Honest to God who asked “Must our image of God go?” My answer is an emphatic no. God is a person and I am created in His image. Perhaps DBH can comment on Gregory of Palamas. The deepest image in Scripture of our relationship with God is one of Marriage.

[@GreekOrthodoxTV]

DBH does not hold St. Gregory Palamas in high regard. DBH does not believe/accept the Parlamite distinctions. DBH considers the 5th Ecumenical Council to have been false. DBH is not really an Orthodox Theologian.

[@gfujigo]

The instant I heard of classical theism I found it very convincing.

[@leonardu6094]

What does classical theism mean to you?

[@gfujigo]

@@leonardu6094 God is the ultimate reality that sustains everything that exists. God both transcends reality and is immanent to reality. God is simple and has no parts. God is personal but not a person. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, loving, omniscient, etc - everything the Bible says about God. That’s just for starters and I am still learning.

[@leonardu6094]

@@gfujigo How can God be personal but not a person? That's incoherent. By personal, i take it to mean, amongst other things, to enter into a personal relationship with other People/persons?

[@gfujigo]

@@leonardu6094 God is the source of all being and all of reality. God is not “a” anything. God sustains all of reality. It is within God that we exist and have our being. So there is no reality apart from God. A person is a created type of being or thing. Therefore God is not a person. God is personal in that he relates to us, loves us, created us, is aware of us, etc. The Bible says that God is love and that he loves us. Ergo he is not a person but is personal. We are used to seeing love, intentionality, etc in human persons. However, God is the source of reality and thus the source of what we see in persons.

[@leonardu6094]

@@gfujigo You just talked past my point. Nothing you typed here contradicts God's Person-hood at all. You have to be a person in order to be personal. Maybe you're confusing person-hood with humanness. All those things you listed (love, intentionality etc) are properties only a personal agent can have. Classical theism somehow misses this fundamental point.

[@threestars2164]

Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance not its abandonment - that was his teaching!

[@kaleymahaffey]

I believe in god but also think that no one should question him but if he made the world and everything then how did he make humans if he is one I think god is everything not a person because he made people

[@sambyassee9132]

The term “person” used when thinking about God is not talking about human people, it’s talking about God’s being as a personal one. Think about what “person means,” Watch the video

[@dynamic9016]

Interesting information

[@enoch3874]

My neighbor here starts, in some sense, to sound more like a deist with every word spoken . On the other hand, with respect, I dont follow how making this distinction is relevant. From scripture it is evident THE ANCIENT OF DAYS has emotion that is expressed, but how does privation come into the picture ? The ultimate implication here of this conversation is to separate The God Head which ought not be done !! THE KING OF KINGS, THE SUFFERING SERVANT OF BETHLEHEM JUDEA said something about this matters (off the top of my head) in John chapters 5,6 and 15 matthew 12 etc. If we get to the entrails of the discussion it becomes, how do we, being finite put the infinite into our categories of logic ? And from where does this logic we have come? This thing ought not be done!

[@marymcreynolds8355]

I’ve bought two of his books this week. Reading the NT and waiting for the Delusions to get here tomorrow. Hey now. If universalism, which I love and want to be true, why did Jesus come and die and be raised and ascend and all that? Why the ensuing confusion of thousands of churches, etc? I am troubled by all this coming from a Church of Christ uber fundamentalist background that morphed by degrees into pentecostalism, charismaticism, Old Catholicism (Jansenists), Messianic Judaism a la Israel triumphsism, episcopalianism, agnosticism, atheism, and now just seekingism. Thank you for any response.

[@johnm.2803]

There are several differing theories of atonement, but even if we conceded the popular and Reformed penal substitution view (Jesus' death was really him taking on the punishment due to us), all we must do as universalists is expand the scope of the atonement. Those who believe in an eternal hell or annihilation will believe that Jesus' death was only effective in saving some, while those who believe in universal reconciliation will believe that Jesus' death was effective in saving *all*. Next, universalism is not at all contradicted by the great number of denominations that we have. Universalism doesn't mean that there won't be sects or denominations, it simply means everyone will be saved despite this fact. I would also like to point out that despite the large number of denominations, there are certain truths that the vast majority of Christians can agree upon, whether they be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant

[@franciskm4144]

In the universe everything is simultaneously universal and particular. Fruit is universal and grape is particular. Similarly in man universal and particular is fused. This fusion is made by Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is Universalparticular. Only through him by Spirit a man can be fused. I got this idea from Hegel. Spirit of Christianity and first 20 sections of Philosophy of Right.

[@travisburch4342]

COCer here, too. Inspiration to live better, closer to self, others and God, perhaps. That seems like good news. Away from any chains that bind us, deception, lies, sickness of spirit. Wherever that message is found, it is true.

[@mattr.1887]

Mary, I am a former believer. So I have no dog in the fight. But I think universal reconciliation still makes a LOT of sense. There is still a debt that needed to be paid; Christ's sacrifice could have done just that. Even if Christ's sacrifice was NOT necessary though, God could have still done it anyway as a mere demonstration of His love.

[@surendrakverma555]

Good

[@nyworker]

The point isn't that God is a person but rather that we don't want to see God as a person because we don't want to own it The words of Jesus rile his enemies when he claims to be God. Imagine It ! A biological being claiming unity with something bigger than the universe?

[@thomascherney5630]

I thought these questions had to do with ; "Is God a person ". How is it that both parties skirted around Christ claims of himself, to Philip : " that if you've seen me than you've seen the " father", and other encounters . It wasn't that the Holy Spirit was not yet given ,or that He fulfilled all prophesy that Old Testament as the prophets predicted . Jesus, as the scripture examines in the book of Colossians, that Jesus was the image of God, containing all in the fullness of diety! Therefore every person who ever came in his circle He created & in Colossians 1:16; God created all things through Jesus Christ. That takes child like faith ,and not a opinions by this double PhD. / Just an observation.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

DBH attempting to use normal everyday language. Listening to his lectures takes a little more unnecessary work unfortunately. Verbosity really should be something that teachers try to avoid. It serves no one except maybe the teacher's ego. But I really like his honesty in his approach. While he is a definite theist, he acknowledges the problems of theism and the central role of faith. I like that. I can no longer be a Christian exactly for that reason, but I can respect a theist who acknowledges this.

[@bobpolo2964]

How do you define faith?

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

@@bobpolo2964 It is the hope and the certainty of an unsubstantiated and often unfalsifiable religious claim. A leap of trust, no matter how small, where a leap is not warranted. This is not the same as properly basic beliefs like belief in our own existence or our ability to reason.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Thanks for the definition. Now, how does the Bible define faith?

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

@@bobpolo2964 The substance of things hoped for. The certainty of things not seen.

[@bobpolo2964]

@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Do you know the context of that passage?

[@richardcaruso7727]

Let me 'laydown the law', Type: The Eye of God Whisperer, into the KZbin 'searchbox'. Click a couple more times to see my tutorial video. At the end, the resulting image, is later copyrighted by the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. I kid you not - this official Certificate, awarded in my name only, states: (Very first software result showing Eye of God)

[@tedgrant2]

And my next book is called "A god from nothing". Which is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question ⁉️

[@jonathanrocha2275]

Sounds like Robert California

[@asyetundetermined]

Why are you stealing Robert’s content?

[@yamabushiwarrior996]

This is weird, God expresses characteristics of a person. He is a "jealous God", He is "closer than a brother", He "Desires that all be saved and that none should perish." He visited Abraham in the flesh with the two angels he sent to Sodom and Gomorrah. And the real kicker, God was revealed in the Flesh in the "Person" of Christ. I think God is a personal person.

[@JP-sd7di]

God is personal because he loves, he cares, he knows, he wills, etc., but he is immutable (can't change) and impassible (can't suffer or be moved by passion/emotion). He never literally gets mad at us, or jealous of fake gods, etc., etc., we're just trying to describe his relationship with us in ways that are relatable and understandable. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." ~Isaiah 55:9

[@cedrickroy3667]

@@JP-sd7di Hahaha, such hogwash.

[@JP-sd7di]

@@cedrickroy3667 *tips fedora* I'm glad you had something to add to the conversation. Keep up the good work.

[@cedrickroy3667]

@@JP-sd7di It was my absolute pleasure, you deluded layman. Xo

[@JP-sd7di]

@@cedrickroy3667 Hahaha be careful not to cut yourself with that edge, buddy. Do you care to explain how/why I'm delusional? or is that expecting too much?

[@OmarDenison]

Wow - Hart is turning into a perfect Ash'ari !

[@scottcarter1689]

Finally, a point of agreement with DBH. Normally, he's just running down a list of why he doesn't believe in God.

[@darkknightsds]

What are you talking about? He's devout

[@jacksonrelaxin3425]

@@darkknightsds he’s an arrogant prick. Apparently his writing is good but I wouldn’t know but I can’t listen to him speak for more than a few seconds. The doods in love with himself, and rightly so, who t f else would when he looks like that.

[@sadko_guslyar]

Respect to David! And to porcupine tree)))

[@chillyfinger]

Hart comes close to being a Zen master by emphasizing experience and placing such a low emphasis on language and logic.

[@Glassr91]

There needs to be a discussion between David Bentley Hart and Jordan Peterson.

[@braedonpoteat7345]

I doubt DBH would be very keen on that seeing as he has IIRC called Peterson's work second rate scholarship, and Peterson is a Jungian, which isn't something Dr.Hart is fond of either.

[@Falcon988]

I don’t like DBH (ironic I’m here I know) or JP - but I totally agree that would be a waste of DBH’s time :-P If JP moved beyond Carl Jung, maybe

[@johncart07]

@@Falcon988 I'm not really sure DBH can compete with Jung. Jung is on another level, Jung's brilliance is astonishing. DBH says all the same things that Jung was saying, I don't see anything dramatically new. I see many parallels. DBH just uses more theological and philosophical jargon. I understand why some theologians may not like Jung. But Jung's psychology isn't reductionistic, Freud was the reductionist. Jung is anti reductionistic.

[@emmashalliker6862]

@@johncart07 You must surely understand that psychology moved on from Jung a very long time ago.aybe you should take the advise your own tag fella.

[@johncart07]

@@emmashalliker6862 Jung created a whole field of study, you can get degrees in Jungian psychology. You can get a M.A./Ph.D. Jungian Psychology and Archetypal Studies. So the notion that psychology itself just moved on from Jung is completely false. Go to the Jungian institutes in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston and other various locations worldwide and tell them that. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[@Icecoldhard]

I cannot deal with these kinds of explanations. It either has to exist or it does not.

[@alifarley8766]

If you really are concerned with ultimate truth analyse your presuppositions, the best place to start.

[@tylerlynch2849]

David Bentley Hart is like a lightning bolt out of a cloudy sky. Him and the work of Keith Ward, Karen Armstrong, and others has been immensely illuminating in presenting classical theism as the most philosophically defensible and intelligible belief system

[@fujiapple9675]

Where did you get the idea that Keith Ward is a Classical Theist? In this clip, taken from an interview he participated in {kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJbRe5mGqriafc0}, he argues that it's metaphysics is based upon anti-Christian philosophy. He also tries to argue that the idea of God not changing is absurd, based upon scripture, the incarnation, and how the Universe itself changes. To clarify, I think he is mistaken on multiple fronts. What's most clear in my mind, is that the Universe changing doesn't so much as imply or suggest that God changes. Keith Ward probably thinks this is the case due to the *particular type* of Idealism he affirms, which is different from the Neo-Platonism Hart promotes and defends in "The Experience of God." Speaking of which, the idea Classical Theism is based upon anti-Christian philosophy is just false. Most of the early Church Fathers and Apostles were Neo-Platonists, and that is actually how they defended Christian Monotheism against the Paganism of that time. On his point about the incarnation, I completely sympathize with how one might think it entails that God changes, because Jesus undergoes several different types of changes, as he takes on human flesh, being hungry or thirsty, rejoicing and weeping, aging, etc. What some people might propose is that Christ's human nature changes, while Christ's divine nature does not change.

[@fujiapple9675]

I just realized the clip I gave does not show all of Ward's concerns. Here is the full interview with timestamps. 24:00 is where it gets interesting. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4O7go14q8usgqM

[@publiusovidius7386]

I want to see more theologians arguing about the real nature of Zeus. What is it really like when Zeus and Hera have sex on the golden cloud as described by Homer (who was directly inspired by the Muses)? Does Hera experience an orgasm? These are questions of exactly the same importance as the ones about the trinitarian nature of the Christian deity.

[@ObjectiveBob]

For you: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqO3aaSpba16iNE

[@georgedoyle7971]

I think your confusing Closer to Truth with a Christopher Hitchens post. This kind of fallacy of false analogy, intellectual dishonesty and rhetoric gets limited respect and acknowledgement here. Just trying to help you out and direct you towards your cult of choice. ❤️

[@publiusovidius7386]

So sad to see these people waste their time talking about a fantasy being as if it were real. There's no credible evidence for any supernatural deity. Merely the feeling that some people have that there ought to be one. What's worse is they try to use a bait and switch. Talking about a vague philosophical "ground of being" god which has nothing to do with the barbaric religious practices of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

[@ObjectiveBob]

Lol

[@georgedoyle7971]

“The ground of all being” “Has nothing to do with the barbaric religious practices of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc” Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral and can only describe what “is” not what “ought” to be. Equally, we could just as easily ask what does “science and rationalism” have to with the barbaric practices of Stalin’s atheism and Hitlers eugenics and hatred of the Abrahamic faiths. No offence intended but isn’t this exactly the whole point of trying to define the logical necessity of (a ground of all being, love, goodness, morals and ethics). The argument that religious thought is nothing more than “barbaric” is founded on misleading information and often intellectually dishonest straw man arguments. It’s no different to the belief that all atheists are dangerous to society because Stalin’s atheistic anti religious policies in Russia led to the deaths of 50 million men, women and children and Hitlers persecution of the church and the Jews also led to millions of deaths. The belief in the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, family, self sacrifice, bravery, meaning and purpose, morals, ethics and values, that is mind and consciousness is clearly more than just a “religious barbaric practice”. Similarly, science and rationalism is not supposed to be cold arrogant and uncaring but an effective tool for measuring and improving the qualitative subjective experience of reality by improving the human condition through breakthroughs in medicine etc, Yung the father of analytical psychology highlights the fact that what we all share is an hierarchy of values wether we are atheists, theists, deists or agnostics. The fact is that what ever is at the top of that hierarchy of values serves the function of God for you. The fathers of science and rationalism Rene Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton were theists. The father of quantum mechanics Richard Feynman was an atheist but Einstein and Anthony Flew rejected atheism for a deistic God/the God of Spinoza. It may be a God that you don’t believe in or a God that you can’t name but it is irrelevant. Because the fact is that what ever you think about this concept. existent, ground of all being/God at the the top of your hierarchy of values has very little impact on how your “God” is acting in you. We are all driven by meaning, bio logus, explanation, or what ever term you prefer, that is something to sustain us through loss, bereavement, disappointment, that is someone or something to sustain us through something that we will all face at some point in our lives, tragedy. So why not build bridges and show respect, understanding, compassion and empathy instead of ignorance and intolerance especially during a pandemic. Life is sacred to everyone. ❤️

[@jesusdeity2010]

Jep, and He is in full display in Christ. Through Christ, God gave us back the divine life mankind lost in its fall. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons, we experience up to this day. To not see God in Christ.... is impossible. "The Father and I are one!" "If you see Me, you see the Father!" "Don't you believe that the Father is IN Me?" "ALL (!) AUTHORITY in heaven and earth has been given to Me!". (Only God has all authority). At healing the paralytic: "Your sins have been forgiven you!" (Only God can forgive sins). "I am THE (not a) light of the world"......: God. "I have come to give you Zoë (=divine life) in abundance".... Only God can give Zoë life. "I am from above, you are from beneath. You are from this world, I am not from this world"..... Etc, etc, etc, When He explained these things, healed the sick, casted out demons, raised the dead, controlled nature for 3 years, they all worshipped Him as God/Messiah.... except for the critical scholars and farisees! He NEVER said: "Don't worship Me, I am just a prophet!". The Jews wanted to stone Him because: "You claim to be God". So Jesus is God manifesting in Human form. Period. Glad He did. So now we finally know the sayings and actions of God. Next step. To not see Jesus bringing the divine life of the ages back to you-manity.... is impossible. "I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, etc, etc" "Follow Me, the miracles I do, you will do too" "God is IN you" "The Kingdom of God is IN you" "He who meets you, meets Me". "You and I are one" "You will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am in you" "See, I have given you power over all the forces of the enemy" "I have come to give you Zoë (=divine life) in abundance!" Etc, etc, etc. Hence the divine healing miracles and casting out of demons with His first 12+72 friends. As i understood these things, i experienced healing miracles and the casting out of demons already thousands of times and many other true believers do too. Yay! Conclusion of Paul after having revelation and healing all on Malta: "Jesus, the exact image of the invisible God. The fullness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily" and you have been made complete IN Him (the last Adam), who is the head of every principality and power". John (who had seen, touched, heard Jesus and walked in the same power and love): "the invisible God manifested in human form, in Christ and now in us". Thomas having revelation saying to Jesus: "My Lord and My God!". Jesus being God did NOT correct Him. Etc, etc, etc. His life totally proves He is God in human form. Begotten by the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God, healing all, raising the dead, casting out demons, controlling nature, raised from the dead, pouring out His Spirit for us to be indwelled by to be empowered to heal the sick and cast out demons, etc, etc, etc. Way to much to degrade Him to "just a prophet". So... Jesus is the manifestation of God in a human body.... "the Son" of God. He came to take the alienation away mankind got trapped in after the fall. He came to give us back the divine life Adam/mankind lost in its fall. Because of this fall, a perfect Holy sacrifice had to be made. That is what God did in Christ! It shows His deep, pure, affectionate passion from Him to you/His creation, to restore you back to origin: Christlikeness. Walking in divine power and unselfish divine love. Jesus walked flawless. Muhammed on the other hand.... Muhammed came after Jesus. He unfortunately never understood God's resolve for mankind's fall, wrote another story, called it the only truth, cutting of the real truth, leading millions astray from their godly identity in Christ. Heartbreaking. But for those who take Jesus for who He is and ask to be filled by His godly Holy Spirit.....: divine life. Tangible presence of God, healings, demons running for cover, etc. Just as with His first 12+72 friends. God will make you experience the full (godly) Life made possible through Holy Spirit. So don't be afraid to leave islam. God can only be found in/through Jesus Christ. Ask Him to fill you with His/God's Holy Spirit so He can guide you into truth and transform your life. You and God/Jesus are finally one again. He will open your eyes and give you Zoë (divine life). You will be growing into Him in all things. The life you see in Him and His first 12+72 friends. I experience it since 25 years and so will you.

[@tedgrant2]

Jesus probably never used the bathroom. So where did he poo ?

[@theguyver4934]

Jesus wasn't God he was a human prophet can you imagine God going to the bathroom

[@alannolan3514]

Consciousness is god; we are all god

[@asyetundetermined]

God is gibberish. What you’ve written is evidentiary gobbledygook.

[@markballantyne393]

Is God something or nothing.

[@au8363]

1

[@mypublicchannel3884]

What's amazing is how little you let on that you make everything up. It's all tethered by hand to your infinite stock of rhetorical pabulum which passes for intelligence and actual knowledge. These questions have no answers yet you have an answer for every question. If you had any degree of honesty, integrity, or intelligence you would state nearly universally, "How the hell should I know?"

[@nyworker]

Time is the central issue. Starting with Einstein and General Relativity, first this planet evolved with the gravitational field wrapped around it that yields the ecosphere and biosphere with the evolved life and highest creatures with the highest consciousness that sense time and space, and the gravity beneath their feet.

[@groovekingdom6552]

Even God Himself wouldnt understand what this people are talking about. Science mindset always have to give everything a complex spin.

[@danbreeden68]

Transpersonal transcending the duality of personal and impersonal

[@arturoperez2241]

This makes more sense, but changing the fact that the soul is the transpersonal while the essence of God is suprapersonal, transcending the duality of the personal and the impersonal, thus encompassing all dimensions of existence.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

How can an acausal and infinite God create or affect a causal and finite Universe without a contradiction!? Hart appears to conflate Being with Causality,Authenticity with Credibility! This is just semantic Apologetics not Facts!

[@ingenuity168]

If we're in the image of God, then God is not perfect because we're not perfect.

[@spaarvarkenghetto]

Why would the image of something perfect have to be perfect? Do you know what 'created in the image of' entails?

[@sambyassee9132]

That sentence suggests you think God is made in the image of us...

[@ingenuity168]

@@sambyassee9132 It goes both ways doesn't it. "We're made in the image of God" so it follows that God would be like us".

[@sambyassee9132]

@@ingenuity168 keep in mind the understanding that God is the entirety of goodness, love, perfection , wisdom etc, and that we were made to share in and reflect that reality of God. So everything that is good about us is a small reflection of who God is. Everything bad and imperfect about us, then, is a result of our turning away from God.. pretty intuitively logical

[@ingenuity168]

@@sambyassee9132 Whatever God is, it's not perfect. We're a perfect reflection of that.

[@michaelmacias8]

God has consciousness but God is not consciousness.

[@djacidkingcidguerreiro9780]

There is no "god". Humans have invented all "gods".

[@fraserwilliamson9507]

Usually the statement of someone who's conceptual framework of what 'God' could mean is as banal as fundamentalists.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Two Minds superior to Hart: Prof Ed Witten FRS..is the world's most cited and celebrated Theoretical Physicist,alive...he is also an Atheist who supports the words of another Genius,Paul Dirac's words: "If we are honest - and scientists have to be - we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination.

[@dtarby2095]

God is a delusion

[@1DangerMouse1]

This guy moves his mouth a lot, but he says nothing of substance.

[@RootinrPootine]

👶 🧠

[@rationalsceptic7634]

We now have a mathematical Proof of Atheism..so Hart is just another self deluded Apologist

[@amoswollen3860]

Mathematical proof?

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Amos Wollen infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/5216/

[@erichgroat838]

@@rationalsceptic7634 That's a bizarre reply. Neither of your links expound or even refer to mathematical proofs at all. The first is shallow refutation of a thought experiment; the second a theist's affirmation of the limits of philosophical argument.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Erich Groat We have no evidence God exists,moreover,the Majority of Ancient Historians,Scientists and Philosophers,have evidence the Bible is not a reliable source of History! We have plenty of evidence of forgery and historisation,lying and redaction to fit a narrative! The Gospels have a mythic form and content only found in Fiction..so this Apologist needs to check his sources before citing God,for how can an immaterial,infinite and acausal Deity create an material, finite and causal one?? The Multiverse might be eternal as our Universe might be...so why God..? kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6jClIGFg82bgas When an Apologist finds,God,I will the first to applaud their Nobel Prize

[@erichgroat838]

@@rationalsceptic7634 "We" have plenty of evidence that God exists, but it's not much worth discussing if you consider the links you provided to be "mathematical proofs" that he doesn't.