Comments for sword and cross

Comment on Agnostic Faith (Or, The Irrelevancy of the Question of God’s Ontology) by “People as things, that’s where it starts.” | Unequally Yoked

“People as things, that’s where it starts.” | Unequally Yoked — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:04:43 +0000

[...] in reciprocity and mutuality of action.” (This post is a follow up to another piece “Agnostic Faith” which is well worth a read). This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged kantianism, [...]

Comment on Agnostic Faith (Or, The Irrelevancy of the Question of God’s Ontology) by “People as things, that’s where it starts.” | Unequally Yoked

“People as things, that’s where it starts.” | Unequally Yoked — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:46:16 +0000

[...] in reciprocity and mutuality of action.” (This post is a follow up to another piece “Agnostic Faith” which is well worth a read).del.icio.usDiggFacebookStumbleUponTwitter This entry was posted [...]

Comment on The Single Ethical Principle? by “People as things, that’s where it starts.” | Unequally Yoked

“People as things, that’s where it starts.” | Unequally Yoked — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:45:21 +0000

[...] Speaking of universal moral truths, Matt Shafer from Sword and Cross has a great post up titled “The Single Ethical Principle?” which argues that “ethical action consists in reciprocity and mutuality of action.” [...]

Comment on Agnostic Faith (Or, The Irrelevancy of the Question of God’s Ontology) by Games in arts

Games in arts — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:14:50 +0000

The considerations on the achievable upshot of the introduction of contemporary skill are in the middle of our attention for the topic with art work conversation using the game since societal exercise. The need for far better options in area connected with video game representation demonstrates developing hobbies and interests to your severe conditions regarding individual actions which usually expose the deepest parts of each of our character.

Comment on The End of the World is Nigh by Brian Hager

Brian Hager — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:21:59 +0000

I read this post “The End of the World is Nigh” with a great deal of interest. It seems more and more Christians are finally coming around to recognize that the end of the world doesn’t necessarily mean its destruction. The term most often used by millenialists is “Apocalypse” and it is evident that they really don’t know what the word means.

A friend of mine, Felix Just, S.J., on his website gave the definition for the term APOCALYPSE. It is from a greek term which means to literally “pull aside the veil.” Ergo, the original name of the last book of the New Testament, the book of the Apocalypse was later changed to the “book of Revelation.” Now I would agree that for some God’s final revelation may be a very bad experience, but for many it will be a source of joy. Those who have been empty enough and poor in spirit enough to rely on God in this life will more likely find eternity with Him to be paradise. However, those too full of themselves and too proud of their own spiritual prowess in this life will no doubt discover eternity with God to be very “hellish.”

It is the reason why I have come to view Heaven and Hell as being states of relationship with God and not literal places. That either Heaven or Hell could be physical places in eternity is a bit absurd. This life; this world is finite and limited. Most Christians who profess belief in heaven or hell think of it in terms of what they know here and now. That transposition of what the now to the never ending is impossible.

I look forward to reading through your blog in the days and weeks ahead.

Comment on Aesthetics and Religious Experience by mike

mike — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:26:21 +0000

It seems to me that what you are describing here is an attempt to redefine the idea of beauty and aesthetics as a reflection of Gods prescence or at least nature or will and that in experiencing one we experience the other. This is not an act that should be engaged in in my opinion because of the inherent differences that exist between the two and the effect this has on freedom. If you try to define the aesthetic and the religious then you deny the experience of the aesthetic to the non-believer. This is fundamentally intolerant and is against the principles of many religious teachings.
You also seem to be engaging in an act that smacks of a futile attempt to grasp at aspects of human experience that we associate with positive connotations and declaring them religious.
I would also like to offer a different explanantion for the links between the two phenomena of aesthetic experience and religious experience which is essentially the topic that you are covering; the link between religion and aesthetics. It has occured to me that it is not the aesthetic that is religious but that the religious is the aesthetic. While some describe an entity behind the experience and put this down to a god others call it beauty. This seems to be exactly what the Danto article you have quoted is saying; not that beauty is religious or rather that it is only because beauty is, when seen through religious eyes, called religious.
I realise that this is somewhat of a cyclical argument as you may easily reply that “why not the other way round?” which seems, from these roots, equally possible. However, aesthetics is a topic discussed across the entire world with common features and is seen by both the secular and the religious, and can be appreciated without the need to refer to some deity. The non-theistic religions such as Buddhism are perfect examples: the same types of experience and appreciation and yet no gods. This, to my mind, makes a far greater case for religion being a subset of beauty rather than the other way round.
Finally, I dislike the attempt that you have made to simply assume the existence of a god and impose it/he/she upon something universal. To try and define beauty as religious is tanamount to monopolising an entire facet of human experience and more than that the best facet. It seems to be a type of blackmail: you want beauty then be religious.
And if it is not this then what is the point of viewing the aesthetic as the religious? Do you gain a greater understanding or faith from it? No, as god is, in all religions, unknowable and mysterious and to get faith from beauty is illogical as there is no reason to suppose a god from beauty as the many counter-arguments to the argument from design have shown.

Comment on Arizona and the Least of These by Republic Polytechnic

Republic Polytechnic — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:00:20 +0000

You've written a very well-written story. If it's fine with you, I would like to seek permission to use your article as it fits to my topic. I will be happy to negotiate to pay you or hire you for this. With Regards from Republic Polytechnic

Comment on In Praise of Paradox by Elliot Milco

Elliot Milco — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:18:05 +0000

Really, you could just skip everything but 4 and 6 and things might turn out okay.

Comment on In Praise of Paradox by Elliot Milco

Elliot Milco — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:13:21 +0000

In the following order:

1. G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, “The Madman”

2. Kierkegaard, Repetition and The Concept of Anxiety (and a bunch of other books, but these two would be good for you in particular, I think).

3. Heidegger, Being and Time

4. Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine

5. Ware, The Orthodox Church

6. Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism

7. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Comment on In Praise of Paradox by Chris Dorsey

Chris Dorsey — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:16:46 +0000

An appreciation for mystery and paradox are what led me to theology. Have you read anything by John D. Caputo yet?