Posted by Philoman on January 24, 19101 at 15:17:23:
In Reply to: Re: Christ OS posted by Napthali C. on January 24, 19101 at 13:34:27:
: maybe everyone already knows what ontological means, but i'm not
sure what you mean what you take exception to the Incarnation
bringing about an ontological change. i could look it up, but I'm not
sure what definition from a dictionary would apply.
Woody had some good things to say about ontology, especially as it relates to an understanding of salvation.
My understanding of it is that it pertains to the nature of something--its manner of being, if you will. In philosophy, it would be contrasted with the term accident. I could paint an orange to look like an apple, but the ontological nature of the fruit would still be apple, while its accidental nature or appearance would be orange.
Now, in relation to an OS and (perhaps) to theology, it was pretty clear that Mac OS 7.6.1 was no longer the OS running my software. OS 9.1 had much of the 7.6.1 code still intact, but had integrated it into a new OS. Not being a philosopher, I don't know if it would be correct to say that it was ontologically distinct from 7.6.1. As 9.1 can run software that 7.6.1 cannot, however, I think the case could be made.
All of which is to say that I DO believe the Incarnation has changed the order of being in which we live. In Christ, the human race has become incorporated into a higher level of being. I don't think, Fides, that there are any more human beings who are not connected to Christ OS.
Perhaps the role of faith is to incorporate us individual humans into Christ. Woody mentioned something about implicit faith, and I suppose that could be one way of understanding how non-Christians of all ages can be "upgraded."
Amen to Jenn's note that some of this impersonal language suffers. But, then, I was never really inspired by the classical concepts of substance, being, etc.
Peace to all,
Philoman