Philosophy

From Epistemics of Divine Reality Principles of Rational Fideism Four principles of rational fideism will be discussed here. The principles follow from the subjective-objective hypothesis of rational fideism and the discussion of the Indian criterion. The principles are as follows: Consistency is not the same as conceivability. The rationality of Revelation requires the consistency of its content. However, the inability to conceptualize the Divine as reported by Revelation cannot be qualification for its rejection as being inconsistent. Conceptions are basically empirical. Therefore, an attempt to conceptualize the Divine is tantamount to doing empirical epistemics and not rational fideistic epistemics. To cite as an example, it is evident that the doctrine of Trinity must not be approached empirically. For that will only lead to frustration. Consistency is not the same as correspondence; for in that case, the positivist law of verification would determine theological justifiability. B...

From Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007, 2011) pp. 213-214 The Trinitarian perspective of the Divine as Triune (Unity in Trinity) and the image of God in man as a social unity of plurality (‘male and female…multiply…have dominion’) has been seen as one way of resolving this existential dilemma of unity-plurality. The Divine Community created the human community in its own image of unity in plurality, a concept that cannot be explained fully in either rational or empirical terms. The existential element that harmonizes the paradoxical senses is the divinely rooted gift of Love. Love is neither rational nor irrational, it is trans-rational, it is spiritual (‘the fruit of the Spirit’). It flows from Divine Nature, the Trinity, and resolves the confoundedness of sin-stricken humanity. Sin brings confusion, [1] according to the Bible, because of its revolt against relationships for the sake of the ego, that wants to be autonomous. It begins with a revolt against the Divine Community, which...

[slideshare id=9461387&w=427&h=356&fb=0&mw=0&mh=0&style=border-width: 1px; border: 1px solid #CCC; margin-bottom: 5px; max-width: 100%;&sc=no] Epistemics of Divine Reality - Philosophical from Domenic Marbaniang

From Marbaniang, Domenic.  Epistemics of Divine Reality  © 2007. p.31 EPISTEMOLOGY is related to knowledge while Ontology is related to reality. Epistemology seeks to understand the nature, sources, and scope of knowledge; Ontology, to understand the nature of reality. Epistemology deals with the meaning of Truth; Ontology deals with the meaning of reality. True or false is predicated of statements only. Real or unreal is predicated of existence. Therefore, logic and semantics are important issues in the study of truth. Truth is mental; reality is essential. Truth is dependent on reality; reality is independent of truth. Truth is usually contextual. There are different kinds of truths that are truthful only within their contexts. For instance, there are poetical truths expressed in statements that would appear total falsehood in any other linguistic context or genre.  Truth is that which is known about reality. As such, therefore, truth, in common experience, is substantial. © Domenic ...

From Marbaniang, Domenic.  Epistemics of Divine Reality © 2007. To the attacks of the pluralists, Zeno of Elea, disciple of Parmenides offered several arguments in form of paradoxes that demonstrated the utter absurdity of commonsense realism. Since absurdity is a sign of falsity, it is false that reality is many. Hence, Zeno argues that reality must be one. It may be noted that the paradox may also mean, contrary to Zeno’s contention, that reason is false and experience is true. However, since it is difficult to label reason as false without the use of reason itself, the certainty of rational reality looms over that of experience. Few of Zeno’s most famous proofs are as follows: The Paradoxes of Plurality The Argument from Denseness If there are many, they must be as many as they are and neither more nor less than that. But if they are as many as they are, they would be limited. If there are many, things that are are unlimited. For there are always others between the things that are,...

From The Republic And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes. It follows therefore that the good is not the cause of all things, but of the good only? Assuredly. Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men.  For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him. That appears to me to be most true, he said.

From Lectures on Methodological Issues in Missions, MTh Class, New Life College, Bangalore, 2011 1. Philosophical or Ideological Clashes The clash is between ideologies, and aggression is usually vented through the media of literature, lectures, art forms and media. E.g. Propaganda Literature of Communism, Da Vinci Code, etc. 2. Political Motives Aggression and persecution with political motives. E.g. When Nero burnt Rome and blamed the Christians, executing many of their leaders. 3. Profit Motives Aggression to eliminate economic rivalries or blockades. E.g. Persecution of Paul by Demetrius at Ephesus (Acts 19), Persecution of Jews...