Humanitas On The Mend: Attempted Re-Assertion Of Eternity In Modernity
So, with Christian Humanism, we have the idea of the personhood of Christ with an admixture of legitimacy to the claims of the divinity and a belief in the Resurrection of Christ, as some believe in it, in a literal sense. Christ as a Risen Lord figure.
I would propose Christian Humanism as impossible if taking any of the super-natural claims as literal, as fundamental, where this would question the inerrancy assertions of some demographics of Christians.
Humanism as the vast majority of usage and understanding rejects the supernatural. Christian Humanism is possible if rejecting those.
Nonetheless, this wouldn't have much acceptance with individuals including Rick Warren, William Lane Craig, Mark Driscoll, potentially Alvin Plantinga, and a wide swathe of the intellectual and influential matrix of the Christian communities, mostly of men at the forefront, or a mass of the freethought communities, also mostly men at the forefront.
The latter seems possible, which would become the attempted conversion into Nietzschean Humanism of sorts, which would probably incorporate the short-form anti-institutional form of Christianity as seen in the only Christian - who died on the Cross, where the only thing more powerful than Christian love is Christian hate.
What Christian humanists seem to mean more is Christian Humanitas, as in "human nature," something like a non-institutional - or not limited to institutions - life-long deep education, paideia, on the personhood of Christ, as such.
Whether super-naturalistic or naturalistic, the life, example, and personhood, of Christ as something to be studied as life and for a life, where human nature comes to be studied through the aperture of the biblical narratives and examples of the Son of God.
Questions of fundamentalist or not, literalist or not, inerrantist or not, Protestant or Catholic, Trinitarian or Unitarian, et cetera, become utterly moot because the gravy on this train stands as firm and fixed as a Mormon temple on the basic questions, "What is Christ's nature in relation to human nature (Humanitas)? How is this studied and lived out in life?"
This is not Humanism. It is Humanitas as a self-limiting formulation of Humanism through a lens beyond the constructed divisions of Christians while grounded in the identity of existence itself, God Himself, as in Christ's person as this relates fundamentally to human nature; the identity of human nature in relation to the identity of reality itself, as a coupling of the mortal and the transcendent.
The first question dealing with theoretics; the latter working with pragmatics; both ubiquitous to the Christian life, as in the life of the mind, the heart, and the body (the actions in the world).
The more the first question is answered, then the more the latter is lived out, and, in this sense, one could consider the conversion experience as not a once-in-a-lifetime event in some superficial event involved at a local church or congregation, but, rather, a lifetime series of happenings, or unfoldings, as one grows into the personhood of Christ, the identity, of God, while in an asymptotic manner.
Thus, Christian Humanism becomes possible in a self-limiting formulation of Christian Humanism as Christian Humanitas taken as both a theoretical and practical enterprise carried through an entire life as a process of becoming as God Himself as represented symbolically and literarily in the narrative of Christ.
Opinions and Perspectives
The article's emphasis on personal spiritual journey over institutional authority really resonates with current trends in religious thought.
I'm particularly interested in how this framework might influence modern approaches to religious education.
The synthesis of Christian thought and humanist principles here is both challenging and inspiring.
The emphasis on ongoing spiritual growth rather than fixed doctrine speaks to our current cultural moment.
This perspective could revolutionize how we approach spiritual formation in contemporary contexts.
The article's treatment of human nature through Christ's example offers an interesting middle ground between secular and religious worldviews.
I appreciate how this approach emphasizes personal growth while maintaining connection to traditional Christian themes.
The idea of conversion as a lifelong process rather than a single event really challenges conventional thinking.
This framework could help bridge the gap between traditional faith and modern skepticism.
The concept of studying Christ's nature in relation to human nature offers a fresh perspective on religious education.
Not sure I agree with sidelining supernatural elements. They're integral to the Christian narrative.
The article's emphasis on personal spiritual development over institutional authority resonates with contemporary spiritual seekers.
I'm struck by how this approach might appeal to younger generations who often feel disconnected from traditional religious institutions.
The focus on Christ's personhood rather than doctrine offers an interesting path forward for meaningful interfaith dialogue.
This perspective could really change how we approach religious education and spiritual formation in modern contexts.
The distinction between theoretical understanding and practical application is crucial. We need both for meaningful spiritual growth.
Would love to see how this framework might apply to other religious traditions beyond Christianity.
The article's treatment of conversion as a lifelong process really challenges traditional evangelical approaches.
This approach might help address the growing divide between traditional Christianity and modern secular thought.
I'm particularly drawn to the idea of studying Christ's life as a way to understand human nature better. It adds depth to both religious and philosophical inquiry.
The emphasis on personal spiritual journey over institutional religion speaks to our contemporary cultural moment.
The article seems to downplay the importance of community in spiritual growth. Isn't that a crucial aspect of Christian formation?
I wonder how this framework would handle questions of religious pluralism and interfaith dialogue.
The concept of asymptotic spiritual growth is beautiful. We're always moving toward understanding but maintain humility in never fully arriving.
This makes me think about how we might apply these ideas in modern education and character development.
Just when I think I understand the distinction between Humanism and Humanitas, it gets complicated again. Could use some clarification here.
The article's approach to Christian Humanitas seems to offer a more inclusive framework than traditional Christian Humanism.
I'm not convinced you can separate Christ's teachings from their supernatural context without losing something essential.
This perspective could really transform how we approach religious dialogue in our increasingly secular society.
The idea of Christ as a lens for studying human nature offers an interesting middle ground between secular and religious approaches to understanding humanity.
I find it problematic that the article seems to sidestep important doctrinal questions. These matter for establishing a coherent theological framework.
What interests me most is how this framework might change our approach to religious education and spiritual formation.
The article's treatment of conversion as an ongoing process rather than a single event is revolutionary for traditional Christian thinking.
Can someone explain the train and gravy metaphor? I feel like I'm missing something important there.
The mention of mostly men at the forefront of both Christian and freethought communities is telling. We need more diverse voices in these discussions.
I appreciate how this approach might help bridge some denominational divides. When we focus on Christ's personhood, many differences become secondary.
The concept of studying Christ's life as a lens for understanding human nature is intriguing, but I wonder if it limits our broader philosophical exploration.
Your point about Bonhoeffer is spot on. I see similar themes about moving beyond traditional religious structures while maintaining spiritual depth.
This reminds me of Bonhoeffer's writings on religionless Christianity. Anyone else see the connection?
The emphasis on Christ's relationship to human nature rather than doctrinal debates is refreshing. We often get lost in theological minutiae.
Reading this makes me wonder about practical applications. How does this theoretical framework translate to daily life and practice?
The article misses the mark on institutional Christianity. We can't simply dismiss centuries of theological development and church tradition.
I'm struck by how this interpretation might appeal to both religious and secular humanists. It's not often you find common ground there.
Anyone else curious about how this framework would apply to interfaith dialogue? Seems like it could open up some interesting conversations.
The asymptotic approach to understanding God's nature through Christ's personhood is brilliant. We're always approaching but never quite reaching complete understanding.
Not sure I follow the argument about Christian hate being more powerful than Christian love. Seems to contradict the core message of Christ's teachings.
The article's perspective on paideia and lifelong education reminds me of ancient Greek philosophical traditions. Interesting how it connects to Christian thought.
I respectfully disagree with the premise that Christian Humanism is impossible if taking supernatural claims literally. We can embrace both rational thinking and faith.
What stands out to me is how the article bridges the gap between traditional Christian thought and modern humanism. It's not often you see that kind of synthesis.
The mention of Mormon temples as a metaphor for firmness feels a bit out of place in this context. Anyone else notice that?
Actually, I think examining Christ's personhood without getting caught up in supernatural debates allows for deeper philosophical exploration.
I struggle with the rejection of supernatural claims. Isn't that dismissing a fundamental aspect of Christianity? Would love to hear others' thoughts on this.
The part about conversion being a lifelong series of events rather than a single moment really resonates with me. It's more about growing into understanding than a sudden change.
This article really challenges my understanding of Christian Humanism. I've always thought it was inherently contradictory, but the concept of Humanitas as a lifelong educational journey makes more sense.
I find the distinction between Christian Humanism and Christian Humanitas fascinating. The idea of studying Christ's nature in relation to human nature offers a fresh perspective I hadn't considered before.