1. So what’s up with the Peter Kreeft page? Seems kinda random… Well, it is in a way. But this is really just another example of me not finishing what I set out to do. I intended to have several pages – an (unofficial) N. T. Wright page, a G. K. Chesterton Page, a Dietrich von Hildebrand page, and so on. But as usual, my eyes are too big for my stomach (or something like that) so I did the Peter Keeft page, because it was the easiest, and made it no further. Truth be told, and this is top secret information, there is a draft of the N. T. Wright page; but given my propensity for not finishing what I start, I have a feeling that a draft it shall remain until the end of time.
  2. I have never taken a university class in anything resembling philosophy, theology, literature, poetry, art, or any other liberal course of study. I learned a bunch of math and advanced physics in college, so while I can (or used to be able to) solve a mean integral function I could have barely spelled Aristotle coming out of school. That said, ignore everything I have to say on these matters. Well, maybe I won’t go that far. I am too humble at times. Read what I have to say, but understand that I am no expert. I will gladly take correction and instruction from those who know more than I do in these matters. In fact, I welcome it as an opportunity to learn.
  3. Why is this blog here? Good question. I ask myself that often enough. If this blog ever becomes about me trying to sound smart or simply winning an argument for the things in which I believe, I hope I have the wherewithal to stop blogging. So does that mean this blog exists for you? Nope. Not that either. The primary reason for this blog is selfish in nature. By quoting (and I quote a lot) the authors I read, and writing about the things they write, I find that I better remember what I have learned. So there you have it. This blog exists to help me learn and better understand what I read. I put this in the public forum because I know that 1) others may benefit as well, and 2) that others might have the opportunity to interact with me and correct what I say or engage me in a gainful conversation or debate (this further increases what I may learn).
  4. At what frequency do I intend to post? The answer is, I have no idea. I may put up 3 posts in a week or 3 posts in a month. I write as I feel compelled, never because I feel I have to.
  5. Any rules about commenting? I generally hate the “rules about commenting” section of blogs, but they are probably necessary because some nitwit said some pretty stupid, off-color, and juvenile things on said blog. That has not yet happened on this blog, thank God. Probably because I have about 4 readers and no one is really reading what I write. That and most of my posts are not written as  to entice comments. But if you do feel inclined to comment, my only rule is to keep it Christian. This is a Christian blog, so mind your manners and your language. If you wouldn’t say it around your 5 year old daughter, don’t say it here. Funny how children bring out good morality in us.
  6. The picture on the title bar of this blog is from a photo I took while in Rome. Those even summarily familiar with art will recognize the early 16th century work of Raphael, “The Disputation (over the Blessed Sacrament).” The 500 year old fresco covers one wall of the old papal apartments. Now that’s some decor! I felt this painting and its subject matter of theological confusion and debate was ideal for a blog entitled “Reason in the Light of Faith.” Just as specifically the doctrine of the Eucharist was a stumbling block for those who first heard it enunciated from the lips of Christ, so too are many areas of our faith a stumbling block for us all in the modern world. Virgin birth? Resurrection? One God, three Persons? Human nature and divine nature in one person? At face value, these doctrines are absurd. If we wish to hold onto our faith in a world dictated by existentialism and materialism, we must accept these things on faith; even if we do not fully understand their meaning or inner logic. In this way, it is faith that guides our reason, not the other way around; and this is the way I wish to approach things. The doctrines just mentioned are not absurd when approached in this way. Their full meaning and inner logic is made clear once we apply our gift of reason to these specific areas of our faith. We can approach our faith in the light of reason, or we can approach our gift of reason in the light of faith. I believe there is a significant difference between these two approaches, and I prefer the latter. Indeed, I believe it is only the latter that leads to happiness and final fulfillment.
Advertisements

0 Responses to “Blog Notes”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Blog Hit Counter

  • 103,793 hits
Liturgy of the Hours

%d bloggers like this: