Comments on: Couldn’t Pass it Up

By: nate

nate — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:33:22 +0000

I read the other article you suggest. I have long been aware of the faults of Luther; however, making grave errors in judgment does not render one’s truths ineffectual or false. Were this the case we should all be permanently silenced.

In regards to the statement (having not read the context in which Luther used it) I see the point. I do feel that reason is an enemy of faith.

Too often we equate reason with intelligence, academics, and learning, as it well can intend–particular in a Kantian sense of things. However, reason can also be referring to one’s mental perception of the physical realm. In that sense, reason can be contra faith.

Faith demands some degree of suspension of reason. As stated above, the mere belief in God is quite unreasonable. I have yet to meet a person who has seen God. I haven’t. Despite observing the elements of creation as a revelation of His existence, I still must suspend my reason. Belief in the Real Presence necessitates a faith that temporarily abandons reason. Yes, reason may have been involved in arriving to a belief in the real presence through study of scripture and church tradition, but when actually approaching the Eucharist, were one to rely on rational empirical thought, they could only come to the conclusion that they are eating bread, and bread alone.

All that to say, as Hebrews 11:1 suggests, faith is belief in things unseen…to some extent, belief in the unbelievable. I do see how mere reason can be an adversary.

By: Anthony David Jacques

Anthony David Jacques — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:40:47 +0000

By: nate

nate — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:34:01 +0000

I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt…perhaps they had the resurrection of Christ in mind when they devised the marque message, as that is quite an unreasonable event…

By: adhunt

adhunt — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:32:21 +0000

Latin has got nothing on Greek

By: aestivuslee

aestivuslee — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:56:07 +0000

i think this conversation about grammar is dividing you two, which is a sin, so we should just all go back to latin (the best of all languages) and forget everything else…including reason…

By: Anthony David Jacques

Anthony David Jacques — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:47:04 +0000

Before I think about any more parts of speech this morning, I think I’m gonna need some Wheaties.

By: reed

reed — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:28:28 +0000

I meant your sentence: “You can’t end a sentence with ‘has’.”

You have ‘to end’ as the verb. However, noow I’m wondering if ‘sentence’ is the direct object since it’s being ended by ‘You.’

I’ve been learning greek lately so I’m looking at it through that lens. If the sentence were translated into greek, ‘You’ would be in the nominative (the subject case), ‘sentence’ would be in the accusative (the direct object case) and ‘has’ would be in the dative since, as you pointed out, it’s being used as a noun and not as a verb.

But I’m not sure if those categories transfer into English.

(Nerds? Yes.)

Either way, anti-intellectualism is lame.