btw,
As to what Jesus taught, (John 10:37-38): “Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, John, Gary, list: > > > > I take back what I said earlier. I think after this posting, this is a > good road to travel. Thank you for the references. > > > _____ > > > > What is the "higher point of view with St. John as the universal > evolutionary formula? > > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was > God. > > > > “Must we then say that, if two things are to be commensurable in respect > of any attribute, not only must the attribute in question be applicable to > both without equivocation, but there must also be no specific differences > either in the attribute itself or in that which contains the attribute — > that these, I mean, must not be divisible in the way in which colour is > divided into kinds? > > > > Thus in this respect one thing will not be commensurable with another, > i.e. we cannot say that one is more coloured than the other where only > colour in general and not any particular colour is meant; but they are > commensurable in respect of whiteness… > > > > When, then, is there a difference of species? Is an attribute specifically > different if the subject is different while the attribute is the same, or > must the attribute itself be different as well? And how are we to define > the limits of a species? What will enable us to decide that particular > instances of whiteness or sweetness are the same or different? Is it enough > that it appears different in one subject from what appears in another? Or > must there be no sameness at all?... > > > > We cannot here speak of an ‘equal’ alteration: what corresponds in the > category of quality to equality in the category of quantity is ‘likeness’.” > > ~ *Physics* > > > > One two three… C A B... Father Son Spirit… spiritedness desire reason… > thumos eros logos... name definition essence... > > > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> List: >> >> Per Gary R.'s suggestion, I have changed the thread topic for this >> discussion as it goes forward from here. >> >> I am inclined to agree with the comments that I retained below from both >> Gary R. and Clark--Peirce was a non-traditional Christian with non-standard >> beliefs relative to both intellectuals and the ordinary masses. CP >> 6.440-443 (1893) seems like about as comprehensive a summary of his >> religious views as we are likely to find. >> >> CSP: The Christian religion, if it has anything distinctive--and must >> not aspire to be the necessary ultimate outcome of every path of religious >> progress--is distinguished from other religions by its precept about the >> Way of Life. I appeal to the typical Christian to answer out of the >> abundance of his spirit, without dictation from priests, whether this be >> not so. In the recently discovered book, *The Teaching of the Twelve >> Apostles*, which dates from about A.D. 100, we see that, long before the >> Apostles' or any other creed was insisted upon, or at all used, the >> teaching of the Lord was considered to consist in the doctrine of the Two >> Ways--the Way of Life and the Way of Death. This it was that at that date >> was regarded as the saving faith--not a lot of metaphysical propositions. >> This is what Jesus Christ taught; and to believe in Christ is to believe >> what he taught. >> >> CSP: Now what is this way of life? Again I appeal to the universal >> Christian conscience to testify that it is simply love. As far as it is >> contracted to a rule of ethics, it is: Love God, and love your neighbour; >> "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." It may be >> regarded in a higher point of view with St. John as the universal >> evolutionary formula. But in whatever light it be regarded or in whatever >> direction developed, the belief in the law of love is the Christian faith. >> >> CSP: "Oh," but it may be said, "that is not distinctive of Christianity! >> That very idea was anticipated by the early Egyptians, by the Stoics, by >> the Buddhists, and by Confucius." So it was; nor can the not insignificant >> difference between the negative and the positive precept be properly >> estimated as sufficient for a discrimination between religions. Christians >> may, indeed, claim that Christianity possesses that earmark of divine >> truth--namely, that it was anticipated from primitive ages. The higher a >> religion the more catholic. >> >> CSP: Man's highest developments are social; and religion, though it >> begins in a seminal individual inspiration, only comes to full flower in a >> great church coextensive with a civilization. This is true of every >> religion, but supereminently so of the religion of love. Its ideal is that >> the whole world shall be united in the bond of a common love of God >> accomplished by each man's loving his neighbour. Without a church, the >> religion of love can have but a rudimentary existence; and a narrow, little >> exclusive church is almost worse than none. A great catholic church is >> wanted. >> >> >> I also share Clark's interest in learning more, if possible, about what >> Peirce thought regarding the divinity Jesus. The only published comment on >> it that I could find is CP 6.538 (c.1901). >> >> CSP: I do not assent to the contention of many theologians that the >> miracles of Jesus can properly convince a modern man of the divinity of >> Jesus. On the contrary, all the evidence which can now be presented for >> them is quite insufficient, unless the general divinity of the Christian >> religion be assumed. The evidence which may have been overwhelming for eye >> witnesses and persons near them is of a very different and inferior >> character to that which may weigh with a modern Christian. >> >> >> Peirce included a similar remark in an early draft of "A Neglected >> Argument," as found in manuscript R 842 (1908). >> >> CSP: As for the New Testament miracles, I admit that, unless one is >> first satisfied that Jesus was in some peculiar sense a Divine Person, in >> which case there can be nothing unlikely in his working miracles, the >> evidence is not sufficient that they were really such events as the writers >> of the Gospels evidently took them to be. >> >> >> Someone who already believes Jesus to be divine will also readily believe >> that he performed miracles, but the reports of the latter are not going to >> convince someone of the former. Unfortunately, Peirce does not tell us in >> either of these passages whether he himself believed Jesus to be divine. >> He did say, as quoted above, that "to believe in Christ is to believe what >> he taught"; and the Gospel writers--his favorite, John, in >> particular--claimed that Jesus taught that he was divine; but that is >> hardly conclusive for discerning Peirce's own view of the matter. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 29, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious >>> topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in >>> fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of >>> a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think >>> that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as >>> buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context). >>> >>> Relative to his main contemporaries whether of the intellectual class or >>> the ‘folk’ he seemed to have non-standard beliefs. I confess that it’s his >>> views on Christ’s embodiment that seem most interesting to me but also not >>> really discussed well in the papers I’ve read on his religion. >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
