Replies

Well, you're doing it right there! :-)
Asking about the limits of reason is a philosophical exercise.

I think we humans just make statements about what thought, knowledge, cause, and justice are, and then we explore those statements.

AND I think it's a good thing to do. For example, (WAY oversimplified!) do we have too know something to love it, or love it to know it? However you answer (I use the Gospel according to Certs: Wait! You're BOTH right!) how does it related to knowledge of God, which is a gift and grace?

If asking a question like that doesn't spur you to prayer, I don't know what would! But it would also help structure and inform a conversation with people who think, and I quote (while throwing up a little in my mouth), "Love is a special way of feeling."

So I think we DO philosophize (wait, I said that,) just as we eat and make love. And in all three exercises it's best to do them with attention, enjoyment, skill, gratitude, and love.

I think the metric is coherence.

I was speaking loosely but, yes, I think one cannot do it both well and poorly at the same time and in the same respect.

And finally, is there no point at where man's reason must inevitably fail? Is there something too big for man to define or even begin to comprehend?

Of COURSE there are things too great to comprehend, things before which reason will fail. I am not coming down against revelation or against the need for revelation. I LOVE it when my reason is overmastered!

We don't even have to look for great big things. I think sexuality in rational animals is too much for us. There are reasonable social arguments against homosexual marriage and polygamy, but I think in the relationship between husband and wife one has to appeal to revelation.

And while I'm a convinced Trinitarian (and my Christology is, or tries to be, Chalcedonian) I am aware that the Nicene Formulation confronts us with a mystery much bigger than the idea. In fact I think both Nicea and Chalcedon give us principles for theological investigation(and more) but they are in a certain sense like being hit in the face with a cold, wet towel.

In passing, I know the whole Catholic thing about the Sacred Heart is a problem in lots of ways for others. But at its heart (yuk, yuk) it is about the meaning of Chalcedonian Christology: In Christ God loves us as he always has but also with a human heart. In the Resurrected Christ, he loves us with a resurrected Human Heart! I think that's an awesome idea!

And that idea, which arises from theological speculation and inquiry leads to a sweet and grateful devotion and prayer. I think that's a good thing.

Okay, back to my cave.....

So I think we DO philosophize (wait, I said that,) just as we eat and make love. And in all three exercises it's best to do them with attention, enjoyment, skill, gratitude, and love.

'Just' as in 'only'...'exactly as'? All three at once? Your methods are too athletic for me... ; )

I would prefer a stump and a pipe when I am waxing philosofickle, a table and chair (and an easy chair for after) for eating, and as everyone knows, lovemaking requires a tire-swing... So combining them all together would necessitate some sort of hardware upgrade that escapes my feeble imagination.

I think the metric is coherence.

Ahh... Homo-sapiens. 'And calling themselves wise, they became fools'. At one time, the coherence of man claimed a flat earth that one should be careful not to fall from.

I was speaking loosely but, yes, I think one cannot do it both well and poorly at the same time and in the same respect.

Perhaps, as a described discipline, but I think the reality tends toward both, with an edge toward 'poorly', or the resulting conclusion would not look like the cacaphony we have today. Man is, in the main, dumb as a box of hammers (I would describe myself as a ball-peen).

Me too - And when I reach that point, I am happy to be boggled by wonderment... I need not go further, to define that which is beyond me. I think YHWH is that, without a doubt in my mind. I don't think He fits in the trinitarian box. It ascribes limits that are not necessary, and probably false (by reason of His greatness).

And while I'm a convinced Trinitarian[...]

I am too, in a basic sense. But YHWH is YHWH, after all - I think the construct is unneeded, and does nothing to resolve the issue. Nor can it, btw, as we cannot KNOW.

I am aware that the Nicene Formulation confronts us with a mystery much bigger than the idea. In fact I think both Nicea and Chalcedon give us principles for theological investigation(and more) but they are in a certain sense like being hit in the face with a cold, wet towel.

I don't think creeds give principles, I think they maintain limits. They become exclusionary (if not designed to be so in the first place). The problem is self-evident in the common expression that one is not a Christian if one does not accept Nicaea... When no such prerequisite is evident within the Scriptures.

And while that serves to preserve orthodoxy, it also calcifies... makes unyielding... That which cannot be confronted cannot be examined for error. I think there should be no such thing. ALL things should be thrown upon the altar continually - That which burns away is better left undone.