<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sensus Divinitatis Publishing &#187; Philosophy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/category/philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:05:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Man The Learner</title>
		<link>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/2009/08/10/man-the-learner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/2009/08/10/man-the-learner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Plain-Belly Sneetch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/?p=206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the diner, for perhaps the millionth time, Phil Connors (Bill Murray) in the movie Groundhog Day says, “Well maybe the real God uses tricks, or maybe he’s not omnipotent, he’s just been around so long he knows everything.” This assertion leads to an intriguing question. Are God’s thoughts not our thoughts only because God [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the diner, for perhaps the millionth time, Phil Connors (Bill Murray) in the movie Groundhog Day says, “Well maybe the real God uses tricks, or maybe he’s not omnipotent, he’s just been around so long he knows everything.” This assertion leads to an intriguing question. Are God’s thoughts not our thoughts only because God knows more than us? Imagine a simple blade of grass. We can know certain things about that blade of grass; God knows everything about that blade of grass. But does that sum up the difference between God’s thought and ours? </p>
<p>Let us consider the human activity of learning. Man learns. Man is a learner. Man habitually relies on what he knows while working to know more. For man, it is impossible to learn apart from thinking, considering, reflecting, concentrating, evaluating, comparing, categorizing, qualifying, analogizing, and summarizing. Man’s activity as learner is unique to man. Man can learn because man is made in God’s image, but man is limited by learning because man is not God. God cannot learn; He is unchangeable, eternal, infinite, and omniscient. God knows all and always has known all. From all and to all eternity God has known everything about everything, and he never had to learn any of it. This is incomprehensible to man. God’s thought is qualitatively and quantitatively different from man’s thought because God never learned a thing and yet he knows it all!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/2009/08/10/man-the-learner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Herman Bavinck and Philosophy of Religion</title>
		<link>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/2009/02/18/herman-bavinck-and-philosophy-of-religion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/2009/02/18/herman-bavinck-and-philosophy-of-religion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bavinck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/?p=45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been enjoying Herman Bavinck&#8217;s Essays on Religion, Science, and Society recently.  In the first essay, Philosophy Of Religion (Faith), Bavinck addresses the philosophies of Kant and Rousseau, and the effects of the mystical/rational dichotomy found therein:
However, all these orientations, the ethical and mystical as well as the speculative, suffer from a significant one-sidedness.  [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been enjoying Herman Bavinck&#8217;s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801032415/prudedigit-20">Essays on Religion, Science, and Society</a> recently.  In the first essay, <em>Philosophy Of Religion (Faith)</em>, Bavinck addresses the philosophies of Kant and Rousseau, and the effects of the mystical/rational dichotomy found therein:</p>
<blockquote><p>However, all these orientations, the ethical and mystical as well as the speculative, suffer from a significant one-sidedness.  By limiting religion to one human faculty, they diminish man&#8217;s universal character.  They divide man in two and separate what belongs together.  They create a gulf between religion and culture, and they run the danger of reducing religion to moral duty or aesthetic emotion or a philosophic view.  But according to the Christian, confession religion is other than and higher than all those views; religion must not just be <em>something</em> in one&#8217;s life, but <em>everything</em>.  Jesus demands that we love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength.  In our thinking and living, there can be no division between God and the world, between religion and culture; no one can serve two masters.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sensusdivinitatis.com/2009/02/18/herman-bavinck-and-philosophy-of-religion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
