tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post6312053261767543923..comments2024-03-28T16:35:26.665+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Where Wittgenstein went wrong about ChristianityBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-81410103501144109182014-10-11T05:54:09.052+01:002014-10-11T05:54:09.052+01:00No doctrine which W had not fully analyzed and fou...No doctrine which W had not fully analyzed and found sufficiently rigorous for his purposes -- possibly based on his scientific background? -- could be accepted. <br /><br />That might be viewed as a form of extreme intellectual purity, perhaps. Some might call it pride.Glengarrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-74039752339958322612014-10-04T18:42:19.564+01:002014-10-04T18:42:19.564+01:00@Ara - This is a valid point. I cannot imagine W. ...@Ara - This is a valid point. I cannot imagine W. making the promises and oaths which most denominations require - unless he could subscribe to every single one of them. <br /><br />(This matter of requiring people to make *numerous* solemn commitments is grossly underestimated by most people most of the time. In practice, this is just a recipe for perjury, and the majority of Men seem to be quite comfortable with this situation - but not with someone like Wittgenstein. He presumably found himself unable to swear to all the shopping list of 'beliefs' and promises' of any actual denomination - probably not because he was less devout or sincere a Christian, but simply because he was more honest than 99.99 percent of those who subscribed to checklists of things they didn't understand or, nor believe, nor have any genuine intention of doing.) <br /><br />But I am surprised that he did not simply declare himself a Christian anyway, an unaffiliated Christian (which he more or less seems to have been during the 1914-18 war) - reading scripture a lot, praying a lot. <br /><br />If he had done this, W could have taken some steps forward - instead of just oscillating on the threshold of Christianity for several decades.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-22592200354002595222014-10-04T15:20:46.413+01:002014-10-04T15:20:46.413+01:00@Kristor
"and this agreement may be undertak...@Kristor<br /><br />"and this agreement may be undertaken ... despite doubt in doctrine"<br /><br />Very well, but extending this to joining the Church does run against the basic moral issue -- is it <i>right</i> to join oneself to the Church -- through baptism and other sacraments no less! -- if one has a continuing and explicit disagreement with that Church's doctrine (which, from the point of view of that church, amounts to a conscious contempt of its teaching authority)?Arakawahttp://arakawa.github.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-49344109084081589072014-10-04T08:36:52.585+01:002014-10-04T08:36:52.585+01:00One can be a Christian, of course, and redeemed, a...One can be a Christian, of course, and redeemed, and sanctified, without understanding the first thing about doctrine. All it takes is an inward agreement with the Person of Jesus: not my will, but thine, O Lord. <br /><br />And this agreement may be undertaken despite confusion about doctrine, and despite doubt in doctrine (the latter generally being a sequela of the former). <br /><br />Wittgenstein - no dummy - must have known this. His resistance to Jesus on account of doctrinal quibbles then looks rather like a miserable dodge, a desperate attempt to avoid having to come to grips with the main thing, the Real thing. There must have been some resistance in him, some stiff-necked unwillingness to surrender and reck the rod of a Lord. Kristorhttp://orthosphere.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-36684412127245289192014-10-04T08:00:36.756+01:002014-10-04T08:00:36.756+01:00Interesting that W. specifically says "sound ...Interesting that W. specifically says "<i>sound</i> doctrine", not just "doctrine". Perhaps he was wasn't disputing doctrine's necessity for salvation, just its sufficiency? (<i>"The devils also believe and tremble"</i>.)Alexnoreply@blogger.com