The laws of logic and two of the broader theories of truth are fundamental components that are responsible for ensuring such an ontology and meaningfulness. In this respect they have persisted as conventional attitudes or modes of thought which most, if not all, of analytic philosophy uses to philosophize. However, despite the conceptual productivity of these components they are unable to account for matters that are beyond them. These matters would include certain theological beliefs, for instance, that transcend the purview of analytic ontology and the meaningfulness it ensues. Any attempt in making rational sense of such beliefs that are insusceptible to these methodological components would conventionally prohibit (restrict) us from rationally believing in them. This is because we would be unable to make sense of such beliefs with the aid of these methodological components. As a result of this, religious beliefs of this particular nature would be deemed irrational. I shall demonstrate this point by applying both of these components to an ab­solutely ineffable God of Islam. This would entail, attempting to make sense of an absolutely ineffable God of Islam in virtue of the laws of logic and two broad categories of truth theories, namely, substantive and insubstantive theories. I hope to establish that applying both of these methodological components in attempting to make sense of an absolutely ineffable God of Islam would not be conceptually viable. It would result in a contradictory notion which I shall allude to as the paradox of ineffability.

The fundamental insight that N. Berdyaev obtains in his historiosophical reflections is that history is antinomic and the historical process is catastrophic since it has to end, because “the world cannot exist eternally”. In its global, empirical (objective) dimension, history resembles an absurd comedy “in which nothing ever succeeds”. The idea of history as a long duration (long duree) and permanent progress misses its essence. According to Berdyaev, such history is meaningless, and it has to end. Its true meaning is revealed only in “its end” and “before the face of eternity”. Terrestrial history does not have its epilogue and the final solution in historical time but in celestial history when the boundaries between the immanent and the transcendent world disappear. History is the path to another and different, sublime and spiritual (noumenal) world that lies beyond the boundaries of everything historical. The destiny of man, which lies at the heart of history, assumes a meta-historical goal and a trans-historical solution to the destiny of history in a different, eternal time. To summarize, history has an eschatological meaning. Although there is an unsolvable tragic conflict between the individual human destiny and the destiny of humanity as a whole within the framework of history, Berdyaev, following the entire tradition of Russian religious philosophy, is convinced that the overcoming of that contradiction on the historical level is possible with love as the salvation and the main driving force of the soul and the source of all the spiritual creation of man.

This paper develops the meaning of a doctor in the wing of the Christian tradition, by starting the thesis from the best and first known physician in the New Testament: St. Luke. Then the premise he was even in a doctor is questioned. However, the whole paper continues to follow the symbolism St. Luke indubitably has not only as one of the Evangelists, but parallelly as a physician, so it then questions what such an expertise would mean when one of the establishing figures is attached to a particular profession. Medical effort is then connected to the notion of Christus medicus as a primary healer. From that point on, a question of the miraculous healing and its effect on human approach to God emerges. This problem occurs when freedom as a central to the acceptance of God’s deeds is installed. In this case, I discuss it on the grounds of a passage from The Grand Inquisitior. Finally, the problem of freedom in the multifaceted context of healing is to be circled in the discussion about the problematic positions both doctors and patients encounter, and ultimately medicine itself.

The paper deals with the Amb. 21 of St Maximus the Confessor in which he attempts to resolve the ambiguity posed by St Gregory the Theologian calling John the Evangelist ‘the forerunner of the Word’. Maximus’ solution is analysed in detail as it provides significant insights into not only his understanding of the iconic nature of the Gospel as it relates to the world to come, but also into the way he develops his theological reasoning, as well as his understanding of the authority of the patristic authors.

Cārvāka Darśana is prevalently considered to be the materialistic school of Indian philosophy that sans all ethics and morals and has out rightly been discarded and criticized by many. The allegations that have been put on Cārvāka Darśana are known to one and all. The current article gives a background of the Cārvāka philosophy as commonly understood and then presents an argument that may assist the contemporary scholars and philosophers to reinterpret this age old philosophy for the benefit of all lives. The current article has been written with an unbiased point of view and endeavors that the age old philosophy of Cārvāka will be seen in a new light that will be beneficial in attaining environmental harmony.

With the advent of classical logic we are continuing to observe an adherence to the laws of logic. Moreover, the system of classical logic exhibits a prominent role within analytic philosophy. Given that the laws of logic have persistently endured in actively defining classical logic and its preceding system of logic, it begs the question as to whether it actually proves to be consistent with Islam. To consider this inquiry in a broader manner; it would be an investigation into the consistency between Islam and the logic which has been the predominant driving force of analytic philosophy. Despite the well documented engagement and novel contributions made in the field of logic by Arab and Islamic theologians/logicians, I think this question deserves examination not just in terms of classical logic but also from perspectives which go beyond classical logic, namely, non-classical logic. Doing so, would I believe, retain this inquiry within the purview of analytic philosophy despite the reference to non-classical logic. To be more specific, this question would be directed toward the Islamic theologian who espouses the system of classical logic in attempting to make sense of an absolute ineffable God of Islam. The inquiry would seek to determine if classical logic is consistent (amenable) in making sense of an absolute ineffable God of Islam. This would principally involve an analysis which determines whether the metaphysical assumptions of the laws of logic (more specifically the law of non-contradiction) are consistent in making sense of an absolute ineffable God of Islam. I shall argue that it is inconsistent. I shall establish my position on this matter by demonstrating why classical logic is inconsistent (not amenable) with an absolute ineffable God of Islam. Although, I am principally concerned with classical logic, my argument is as applicable to all earlier systems of logic as much as it is to classical logic. This is on the basis that both systems of logic, namely, all preceding systems and classical logic, consider the laws of logic as defining features.

This essay explores the humanistic dimensions of the unparalleled world-wide pandemic caused by Covid-19. Using both western and eastern sources, it seeks to draw wisdom from this tragedy – but also apply wisdom to it. Reflecting on the historical moment ensconcing this pandemic, and the fundamental metaphysical implications of Covid-19, this essay has three parts: (1) Precipice of History-Nature: This Historical Moment surrounding Covid-19; (2) Implications of a Pandemic for the nature of Nature and God; (3) Implications of a Pandemic for Death, Predestination, Higher Faith – and likely Results. Viewing this moment as portentous in its anticipation of a new age, this essay uses the notion of a temporized precipice, to situate this pandemic historically. Drawing from western (Heidegger, Russell, Augustine, Catherine of Sienna, Epictetus, Plato, and Plotinus), and Indian (Gandhi, Vivekananda, and the Bhagavadgītā) sources, this essay offers both idealistic and realistic views of the likely results of Covid-19.

This text analyses the document „Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” in terms of possible new perspectives of the ecumenical dialogue? The analysis of the document and its reception so far, show that alongside a general willingness of the Orthodox Church to participate in the ecumenical dialogue, the document also contains certain methodological and practical suggestions for the continuation of the dialogue. Nevertheless, the document is obviously influenced by the fact it is adopted in the time of so called „the ecumenical winter”.

I shall present an analysis of analytic theology as primarily characterised by Michael Rea (2011). I shall establish that if analytic theology is essentially characterised with the ambitions outlined by Rea, then it corresponds to a theological realist view. Such a theological realist view would subsequently result in an onto-theology. To demonstrate this, I shall examine how an onto-theological approach to a God of the Abrahamic Faiths (namely, a transcendent God) would prove to be (theologically) incompatible and even hostile. In essence, my argument shall demonstrate that providing analytic theology is essentially characterised with the ambitions Rea alludes to, it is discordant with a transcendent God of the Abrahamic Faiths.

Paulus spricht das Thema der Beschneidung zum ersten Mal im Galaterbrief 5, 2–6 ausdrücklich an. Die genaue Bedeutung der Beschneidung, sowohl historisch als auch exegetisch, wurde jedoch in der paulinischen Forschung viel diskutiert. Wenn es um die Beschneidung und die Argumentation des Gal geht, geht es um mehr als das, was die Neutestamentler normalerweise betont haben. Historisch gesehen war die Beschneidung auch mit der Unterwerfung von Gedanken und Leidenschaften unter den Willen Gottes sowie mit Idealen der Vollkommenheit und Heiligkeit verbunden. Exegetisch ist Paulus in Gal 5, 2–6 gegen die Beschneidung, weil dies die Aufrechterhaltung der fortwährenden Glaubenserfahrung der Gläubigen, d. h. der Heiligung, gefährden würde. Paulus antwortet auf die Sorge, seine Erfahrung in Christus aufrechtzuerhalten, indem er schreibt, dass der Christus durch seine völlige Hingabe an Gott durch Glaube erkannt werden sollte, eine Hingabe an das heiligende Werk des Geistes, das im Leben des Gläubigen Früchte trägt. Daher analysiert diese Studie, die sich der zeitgenössischen Diskussion der paulinischen Theologie anschliesst, Paulus’ Beziehung zur Beschneidung in Gal 5, 2-6 im Kontext der galatianischen Welt des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters.

The story of David and Goliath is one of the most famous biblical stories. It had an impact on many branches of contemporary art. It is also an inevitable part of religious education and general education in all schools. Knowing the fact that the Church Fathers have an essential part in the lives of many Christians today (in the Orthodox Church, they were role models from the very beginning), it is interesting to see how did they, these original theologians, read and interpret the story of David and Goliath. Was it for them, in the time when the Bible was the most sacred book for all, important as it is for us today? Did people during the sports events of that time talk on the markets about the underdog who struck the giant? Additionally, if one looks at the ancient Greek and Hebrew text, one will find out that the Hebrew version, which was used as the source for most modern translations, is 40% longer than the Greek one. Could the works of the Fathers help us to determine which version of the story is the Holy Scripture for Christians today?

Philo’s work On the Life of Moses contains the story of the origin of the Septuagint (section 2.8–65). The scholars have examined this passage from two different perspectives: explaining the connection between Mosaic Law and the law of nature (2.12–14 and 2:45–53) or examining the very process of translation (2.25–44). Even though dealing with the different aspects of the story, both groups of scholars have come to the same conclusion: Philo claims that the Torah has universal significance. The starting point of this paper is that the two approaches, when taken separately, are insufficient. They both raise two essential questions. First, considering that Philo was using the LXX and not the Hebrew Bible, could it be possible that his claim that the Torah is “an excellent copy” of the law of nature also refers to LXX? Second, even though the Torah is finally translated into Greek – the lingua franca of its day – why would its laws be relevant for the people outside the Jewish communities? In this paper, the analysis of Philo’s story on the LXX origin is compared with the LXX origin account in the Letter of Aristeas. The comparison will demonstrate that the changes Philo introduces into the story are indicative of his two major concerns: the universality of Mosaic law and divine intervention in the process of translation. The contribution of this paper is the acknowledgment that the two mentioned aspects – the universality of the Mosaic law and the divine intervention in the translation process are dependent on each other. The latter made the LXX not merely a translation but the same Torah that was once already given to Moses. Consequently, if the Hebrew Torah and the LXX are equal in every regard, that would mean that the LXX also perfectly reflects the natural law, which makes it relevant for all people.