|
belongs there.
I read Kung about twenty years ago, so I cannot come close to summarizing it. He goes over many philosopher's writings and argues back and forth on them, culminating with Nietzsche. He then rejects nihilism in favor of existentialism, and rejects atheism in favor of theism.
Looking over his book in search of a good summary, I find one of my "core beliefs" "the metaphysician does not like to be told that his mental activity rests on a prerational, primordial decision..." or this "Reality itself demands a reaction. Within reality I must take a stand, live, act and take up a position as a human being. Every human being decides for himself his fundamental attitude to reality: that basic approach which embraces, colors, characterizes his whole experience, behaviour, action."
Non orthodox? I was fairly comfortable with the Free Methodists and the Nazarenes, although not caught up in the "inerrant word of God" theology. I prefer to focus on the present and future rather than the past. Odd thing for me to say, since I am ordinarily so past-oriented. I forget the author, Barbara something, and the title, and do not have an exact quote, but she said something like - the church focuses on the manger, virgin birth, the wise men, walking on water, feeding the five thousand, and ignores the heart of the message which is God's love for humanity and God's desire for humanity to be decent to each other. So, I consider it somewhat orthodox to go back to the founder and honestly try to answer "what would Jesus do?"
|