Now don't get me wrong here, I'm on board with the whole idea of Aristotle being a really 'with it' kind of guy. But I'll be honest here, I had to read a reference made by Sproul (What Is The Lords Supper; Chapter 4) to him several times before I could even scratch the surface. Basically what he said was that Aristotle had some concerns in regards to the nature of reality. He seemed to be okay that reality was real, and that's a good thing, because it seems to me that if reality was not real then it wouldn't be reality, it would be [something like] unreality. Anyway, where Aristotle was getting hung up was when the substance (what made the object, person, place, or thing what it was) and the 'accidents' (as in the external, perceivable qualities) were such that the distinction of reality became clouded by the objective and subjective natures of the same reality.
Everyone probably thinks I've gone round the bend for sure, but I really do have a good reason for spending some time on Aristotle and his concerns over the natures of reality, and we'll get right to that reason. In a lot of ways Aristotle created a lot pain for himself by 'over-expanding' the whole issue of substance and accidents as regards this particular subject. But as usually happens when someone over thinks something, somebody else will benefit from it.
Okay, now it's my turn to make a statement, and while the issue my statement will introduce also has subjective and objective positions, there the similarities end.
God is case-sensitive.
Guess what? That's it for tonight, so everybody get a good nights rest.
God Bless!
No comments:
Post a Comment