As I read- and make notes- and then reread what you are saying , I'm both encouraged and awed by the scholarship and clarity.
The comments are merited, there are real thinkers here who've long sought real meat to get our teeth into. Being sick of the pre chewed ,half digested pap that passes for " cultural Christian comment" since this Covidiocty began in 2020( and ,of course preassembled by the usual suspects we all know now).
The annotations are brilliant and are works of wonder in themselves in places. You've taken this duty very seriously, And we are very grateful.
I very much appreciate your work, Douglas. It’s is remarkable. Earlier, in a piece where you wrote about nominalism, we had a bit of back and forth. Here you mention it again. I would be grateful if you could write more about that especially given that the term has two meanings. From Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: “The word 'Nominalism', as used by contemporary philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition, is ambiguous. In one sense, its most traditional sense deriving from the Middle Ages, it implies the rejection of universals. In another, more modern but equally entrenched sense, it implies the rejection of abstract objects.Feb 11, 2008
I trace the crucial nominalist first step to be that of dum diversas (1452) which greenlit perpetual servitude for African pagans, which meant eugenics (slaves can't marry and have children) so no family. So they do not have a common "human nature", according to the church.
Is it possible Luther was scandalized by this bankster written document?
Packed with insight. I’ll be reading this more than once. Thank you.
This is an excellent article Douglas, as Lolene said, I'll be rereading it several times.
Profound and time-stopping essay , giving me a grasp of the entire view I seek.
As I read- and make notes- and then reread what you are saying , I'm both encouraged and awed by the scholarship and clarity.
The comments are merited, there are real thinkers here who've long sought real meat to get our teeth into. Being sick of the pre chewed ,half digested pap that passes for " cultural Christian comment" since this Covidiocty began in 2020( and ,of course preassembled by the usual suspects we all know now).
The annotations are brilliant and are works of wonder in themselves in places. You've taken this duty very seriously, And we are very grateful.
God save us.
If she had chaired, would we be here in the first place?
The earlier exchange may have been through your “A Biblical Frame” or one of you other publishing connections. Perhaps C2C?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not dictionary.
I very much appreciate your work, Douglas. It’s is remarkable. Earlier, in a piece where you wrote about nominalism, we had a bit of back and forth. Here you mention it again. I would be grateful if you could write more about that especially given that the term has two meanings. From Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy: “The word 'Nominalism', as used by contemporary philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition, is ambiguous. In one sense, its most traditional sense deriving from the Middle Ages, it implies the rejection of universals. In another, more modern but equally entrenched sense, it implies the rejection of abstract objects.Feb 11, 2008
Weil died in 1943. I think you mean Simone Veil.
I trace the crucial nominalist first step to be that of dum diversas (1452) which greenlit perpetual servitude for African pagans, which meant eugenics (slaves can't marry and have children) so no family. So they do not have a common "human nature", according to the church.
Is it possible Luther was scandalized by this bankster written document?