Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Secondly, on a personal note, my boyfriend and I are discussing marriage. We don't have the money to pay for a wedding... ...
For the sake of details, we are not willing to budge on the following: (1) We refuse to be wed in a church, (2) we refuse to undergo any church-conducted pre-marital counseling, (3) we refuse to lie or deceive anyone in this process. .....
In short, it's going to be an interesting wedding to say the least. I would love for everyone to simply have a good time, and enjoy the eclectic nature of the gathering.
I have to say that I'm rather surprised at your willingness to hold illogical and/or irrational ideas so comfortably. A sign of the times perhaps.
So, let me get this right: If you were created for a purpose by God, you would not want to know what that purpose is?
The above statement is nonsensical. If no one is right, then you are included, which makes your statement self-refuting.
And what do you mean by "equally valid"? Is 2+2=5 as equally valid as 2+2=4?
You understand the contradiction? Do you mean you don't care that your thinking is irrational? For that is what holding to nonsensical thinking amounts to.
At 25 years of age (if the personal info. next to your screen name is correct) it is not very significant that you have spent "a great deal of your academic career dealing with the problematic nature of identifying and defining Truth." Perhaps if you'd been doing so for the past 30 years or so such a comment would be more weighty. And, really, why should anyone care how much time you've spent in this pursuit since, according to you, "no one is right" and "nothing is authoritative"?
It's abslutely a sign of the times. The study of postmodernism requires that one occupy a mindscape that allows for contradiction.
Wouldn't that rely entirely on what His will is? What if His will required that you rape and kill? Would those actions be morally sound if they were sanctioned by God?
I agree that it's self-refuting.
By equally valid, I mean all paths are equally valid unto the people who practice them.
Rationality has been thrown out the window since postmodern and deconstruction theory was introduced in the 1970s.
There's no way to reconcile some of the "self-refuting" truths presented by postmodern theorists.
I've also worked under some "weighty" figures in academic community, who have actually encouraged me to stop thinking in terms of definative truths.
Rather, I was simply trying to point out that these "self-refuting" statements are at the crux of postmodern study. Deconstruction is something being studied at great lengths by all sorts of people in the humanities - not just me.
"Allows for contradiction"? From what you've written thus far I assume you mean postmodernism is comfortable with reasoning that is contradictory and self-refuting. Correct?
Are you implying that your postmodernist worldview has some moral absolutes? If so, from where do these moral absolutes derive? If not, on what basis would you judge God's actions to be "morally sound"?
And do you all also agree that what you're saying, insofar as it is self-refuting, is nonsensical and/or irrational?
"All paths are equally valid unto the people who practice them" is an assertion, a statement of fact, an attempt to identify some truth about reality. Is this statement absolutely true? Or is it just your opinion? If it is merely your opinion, why should it be given any weight?
Speak for yourself!:o Not everyone has heaved rationality "out the window" - and thank goodness! If rationality had really come to an end, this world would be utter chaos. Imagine a banker, or house builder, or accountant deciding that there were no arithmetic absolutes. We'd have broke billionaires, collapsing houses and bankrupt businesses. Imagine if a lawyer, or judge, or police officer decided all paths are equally valid. We'd have empty prisons and death and utter mayhem in the streets!
Sooner or later the kind of thinking you are so eager at present to adopt will show you its true face. Postmodernism may be philosophically interesting, but it is not practically feasible. In fact, I believe the logical, final consequence of postmodernism is destruction, not freedom as some seem to think.
Hav eyou read N T Wrights three volume set? That is regarded as one of the leading publications on the NT documents by one of the acknowledged leading NT scholars.
John
NZ
You have done well. Wright's opus on the NT documents are in three volumes, with one yet to come. These books probably contain his most complete writings on the NT documents to date.
John
NZ
It's not the reasoning that is contradictory or self-refuting, necessarily. It's the acknowledgement that the human experience cannot be defined and ecapsulated by theories, narratives, language, history, etc.
I don't think that there are moral absolutes. That doesn't mean that I (or anyone else for that matter) don't have personal behavioral standards. Any action that causes harm to another living being, according to my personal values, is wrong.
So, if there were a God capable of presenting his Will to humanity, whether or not I obeyed that Will would depend on what that Will dictates.
That there is "no truth"? I don't necessarily think it's nonsensical or irrational. Perhaps I should defer to, "the only truth is, that no truth is exists."
It's a personally held belief, and I'm not suggested it should be given any weight. However, I doubt that we'd witness such diversity in religion if individuals didn't believe their path to be the "correct" one. As wholeheartedly as you believe in your God and your scriptures, others believe in theirs.
Postmodernism deals with the human condition, not the world as defined by physical science.
Furthermore, my belief that all paths are equally valid unto the people that practice them does not negate that the law has to create more objective boundaries. Again, I believe that anything that interferes with the well-being of another human being is wrong. I would go so far as to say that any action that could bring harm to another should be against the law.
Postmodernism isn't a way of life.
It's theoretical lens that deals with the problematic aspects of art, history, literature, philosophy, etc. It's not doctrine; it is a means to interrogate it.
The theory associated with postmodernism doesn't suggest that there is no morality, it merely asks the question, what is morality and how do we define it? Deconstruction doesn't provide a solution, it only asks the questions.
"None of the leading postmodernist thinkers - whether Rorty, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard or Baudrillard - affirm belief in a personal deity. This matches the late forms of modernism that abandoned even deism in favor of atheism or agnosticism. Modernists and postmodernists are united in their philosophical naturalism. They deny the objective existence of God and the supernatural, and take the material universe to be all there is....One point of difference between the older modernist project and postmodernism comes in the depth of relativity postmodernists embrace."
Interesting conversation where conservative meets liberal. Each is representative of differing requirements in logic.
The Baptist is well entrenched by tens of years of habit.
The student is free to explore, learn, sift out, accept and reject and to experiment. As always, the conservative would clip the wings of the liberal fearing, as it does, any disturbance of conformity which is of such great value.
Demonstrating this is their predilection for circular arguments which never advance beyond a statement of faith.
I am Muslim but I will tell you that there are no perfect religions.
All are "of God through the mind of man". What the student says regarding the "death and resurrection myths" is correct there are other tales of the son (or sun) of God dying for sin which are much older.
It is widely believed that in order for a new religion to be accepted by a populace it must contain some of the elements of that which came before in order to provide familiar comforts for those who would believe. Because all of humanity has innate knowledge of God there is little in any religious text which is truly new. Furthermore due to the same reasoning the mandates of religion (especially Christianity) need not be subjected to any rational or logical test in order to be accepted.
The statement that the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God, which we hear so often, clearly demonstrates this. This is sufficient for the adherent as reason to believe because the requirement of the aforementioned hereditary impulse is satisfied. It is also intellectually economic.
In all areas of human intellectual activity the liberal ideal will, sooner or later, become the conservative statement of belief.
The universe is not the static and firm "truth" of the dogmatist but a dynamic, changing; a fluid "truth" which grows and matures in pace with the minds which embrace it.
Enter the revered middle way of the Buddhist and compare this to religion by rote.
The reason I butted into your conversation with that student is that I felt sorry for her. You had her on the defensive for quite a while.
She is a sincere person who is trying only to advance the human condition through study. You might have been a little more Christ-like and charitable in your manner.
I will gladly debate you In a private forum but not here in this public one. PM me if you concur.
May Allah soften our hearts
What I did was expose the incoherent nature of her espoused worldview. Doing so was not meant to demean her but to reveal the logically bankrupt character of post modernism and the confusion and danger such a philosophy engenders. Given how enamored she was with postmodernism, it seemed prudent to be very straightforward with her about its serious flaws.
Sincerity is not, by itself, a reasonable basis upon which to approve someone's beliefs. One can be very sincerely but profoundly wrong. I think postmodernism is an extremely destructive philosophy. DB's sincerity about it doesn't lessen its destructiveness at all and may, in fact, add to its deceptive appeal. In light of these facts, I interacted with her as I thought was necessary. I didn't attack her personally but I did very pointedly expose the flaws in her adopted philosophy. This may not have been your style, but that doesn't make it bad.
Concerning what?
May the Holy Spirit continue to soften my heart and touch yours with the saving truth of the Gospel.
Peace.
It is the aggressiveness of your manner which offends.
Who says you are the authority in all these matters. Why may you "expose" as though the opinions of others must be OKAY'd by you before they can be entertained?
Postmodernism? Serious flaws? You and only you are the authority here? Dangerous? Who says so? You?
When we advance our opinions as though they were un-contestable we do a great dis-service to God by causing divisiveness among His children who He loves.
We never should speak to others as though we presume to negate their opinions in life.
No minister of God or teacher would consider this as it serves only to debase the student and to render impotent his/her abilities and/or desire to contribute.
Would that the poor girl could address Jesus. How differently he would respond. Kindness perhaps and with understanding wisdom, as a father figure might. No vindictiveness from Jesus. Compassion only.
I have known many Christians who were unapproachable because of their fervent beliefs that only they possessed any truth.
What kind of Christianity is it which produces those who are so quick to tell others that they are wrong? True Christianity never condones this.
I do hope that the girl is following all this. She should know that at least one here respects her right to think for herself without rubbing her nose in it.
PM any response please. A personal issue should not appear for all to see. this is my last post herein.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?