Comments on: Pomocon Reflections in Search of a Home

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:13:36 +0000

Not to be argumentative, which is not in my nature, Darwinism represents one of those ideologies that floated to the top during the past century and is best defined as “spiritually decadent,” if I might quote Voegelin who proceeds to identify it as a modern attempt to replace the legitimate philosophical inquiry of reality with “phenomenalism.”
Still it’s nice to see D.W. and Peter getting along so well.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:58:27 +0000

DW reminds me of the classic country tune that goes something like this: “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.” Every time I agree with myself I start drinking.

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:54:41 +0000

Not that I want to waste any time railing about Darwin whose soulful excursions into the beauty of the natural world have a spark of the divine in them but I think I have to start drinking again because I find myself agreeing with Lawler.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:59:27 +0000

The part and whole tension is, of course, fundamental, and we’re really confused by it. To give one low-level example, our sophisticates speak of being autonomous–or being self-determining wholes that refuse to be reduce to parts. But those same sophisticates also say Darwin explains it all: That means that we’re each part of the species and nothing more. This contradiction causes us to believe that to be a “whole” is to be free from nature–including from the self-deceptive instinct at the foundation of love And to be a part of nature is to be merely a part or the sucker. But the truth is surely much more subtle: We can only become a whole by being a part; we’re wholes as social, relational beings; as citizens, creatures, parents, children, friends and so forth. We, as wholes, are aware of our natural directedness and dependencies and can act “authentically”–or in view of what we really know–as parts without surrendering our “personality” or “individuality.” The Christian believes, for example, that his love for the personal, relational God doesn’t require the surrender of his personal identity or being a particular being with a name. It really is possible to believe that you’re unique and irreplaceable without thinking that you’re all alone in a hostile environment. That doesn’t mean you’re ever fully at home (Bob gives one reason why), but your experiences of homelessness both presuppose and are directed toward a home.

By: Victor

Victor — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:00:14 +0000

“IT” was once said in so many words, Be perfect like My Father in Heaven is perfect.

So simple to say…]

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:28:51 +0000

And, how does the quest for immortality effect the question of ‘home’ and ‘freedom?’