Hypostatic Union in Sacred Scripture

[Detales]

Yes, one, two and three valued logics are yet inadequate to deal with the foundational considerations, especially in the root system of words and meanings.

Carmelites and Jesuits! A heavy double whammy! And you lived to tell the tale!

As for systems analysis, I have been partial to epistemology, phenomenology, and a few esoteric principles in terms of looking at thought dynamics, especially as applied to religious thinking. It is why one of my favorite books is about the discpline of General Semantics applied to considerations surrounding faith. I am also an NLP practitioner and know that our perceptions have certain requirements in order to believe or not, and that our brains are full of blind spots, which is why I think that the current studies on faith and stage magic are of interest.

I guess all that is to say that I completely understand and respect your confidence in the nature of the Hypostatic Union. I have that same degree of confidence, but on, I belieive, a slightly different ground, or footing, which I don’t care to go into. I have explicated that to some and the result has been at least inflamatory, so I don’t go there but rarely and with few. And I always carry a fire extinguisher, lol!

BD (good catch!)

 

[EricWallter]

Reference Detales post of July 03:

“I have explicated that to some and the result has been at least inflamatory, so I don’t go there but rarely and with few.”

Actually, I’ve “BD” too with similar experience. The faith, trust and belief parts are ALL 100% genuine too, BUT … there’s the other story, the other side to the story which I prefer keeping to myself. I too tried “explaining” myself. Result? They seriously thought of “committing” me! Senility (pushing 60, I am!) and megalomania and a lot of other bombastic terms! So, that’s me in the corner, putting in my thumb and pulling out a plum and everybody saying what a good boy I am!

I strongly believe in nature as in “human nature” or “the nature of the beast”. Some people are tigers, some people are lambs (oversimplification really but it will suffice). If you’re a tiger you’ve got to roar and stalk your prey, that’s your nature. If you’re a lamb, then keep with the flock, there’s safety in numbers… and don’t roar, maintain the silence of the lambs!

Fortunately or unfortunately I have this “gotta know, gotta know” thing in my nature. So I try to find things out… that’s my nature! In that exploration I come across many, many things which weren’t (should be “aren’t” actually) told/taught/conveyed to us as a community. And these are really very important issues! I mean, how many of those church regulars have even heard of “hypostasis” or “consubstantiation” or “lapsarianism”? That’s just “heard about” forget “know about”!

Why? Why isn’t all this part of Christian education?

Why do we need to find this out from “others”? Why do we need to get our education from (a) unreliable sources; (b) unauthorised sources?

Let’s take my example…

I’m fairly OK in the “education and knowledge” department (though I do say so meself). I can hold my own in pretty much any argument or discussion. However, I don’t carry the argument to any great distance, preferring to drop it as early as possible. That old saying about arguing and two fools.

Now I get talking with a friend, said friend it turns out is XYZ (not RC and maybe not Christian even; sometimes, even worse, nominal RC or Christian). I’m not aware of that. The discussion begins easily and comfortably enough, and goes deeper and deeper (or higher and higher). Then I get hit with, let’s say, something like “hypostasis” of which I’m totally ignorant.

“Hypo - what?” I splutter. My friend grins like the Cheshire Cat. Naturally, I’m killed, slaughtered, quartered, everything.

Now he lays into me and lays it on me but good. At that point of time I’m really hurting. Hurting more at my ignorance, hurting about not “knowing” my church’s stand on such an important, critical matter. And in that weakened state I begin to “listen” to my friend who is now able to convince me pretty thoroughly about other “defects” in RC/Christianity. I am not in a position to refute any of his claims/charges/allegations.

And then, you know what? I begin to really go for my friend’s argument!!! You can say that I begin to seriously “doubt” my catechism. And this coming from a Carmelite + Jesuit (2xwhammy) product, whose actual vocation was the priesthood! I really mean that, it was a taken-for-granted issue by everyone. Quite paradoxically, it was the Jesuits who steered me away from that vocation.

I know that this must happen to a majority of RC and I am sure a number do get disenchanted (that may be the wrong term) with their catechism and leave the RC church.

I was always skating on very thin ice and then sumthin’ happened. That sumthin’ in some ways is even worse than falling away! Anyway, that sumthin’ led me deep and deeper into matters of “faith” and I got carried away… to the other extreme (something like what you’ve hinted about, about yourself). Then another sumthin’ happened, quite unexpected, and basically I got rapped on the knuckles…

So though I do have my own thoughts about these matters I’ve decided to let the ultimate judge be “belief”. Please note how the central part of “BELIEVE” is LIE! That’s what I tried saying, that the word “belief” implies doubt, not “certainty” or “conviction” as most think. I know that’s just a play on words and I, for one, don’t put much stock in words, oral or written, but what else do we have? I have (some years ago, not now!) shocked people by saying that I don’t “believe” in —! I meant to say that I was “totally convinced” as against the doubt implied in “belief”, but who do you think had the time (or inclination) to “understand” that?

Best regards,

Eric
July 06, 2009.