Introduction (And more...)

[Johnnz]

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

 

[ArteestX]

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.

First of all, you do have the money to pay for a wedding. You can be as economical or lavish as you want. The details are a little blurry, but I believe my wife and I got married for about $5000 total. We would have gotten married at our UU church, but it was booked, so we got married at a state park. We had a UU minister give the ceremony, and we wrote the ceremony ourselves. We did not have a wedding party, but instead had close friends give several readings. We had everyone in attendance do a "flower communion", where people chose flowers at the front of the place and made an arrangement at the front, and then to close the ceremony everyone took another flower away. It was our ceremony and we celebrated it as we saw fit, and I don't think anyone was offended, but if they were they wisely kept it to themselves. Afterwards, we served beer, wine, and champagne, no hard liquor (more expensive) and food. We had a cake cutting time, a time for some toasts from pre-selected folks, and then much dancing into the night.

You will spend the rest of your life navigating through family desires, pulls, and expectations. But a marriage ceremony is yours, it's between you and your mate, and you do not have to meet anyone else's expectations. Have a ceremony that you will be proud to relive five years, ten years, twenty years later. If people choose not to come help you celebrate your marriage, then it's painful and hurtful. But do not allow others to dictate what your ceremony can and cannot be. Celebrate it as you see fit. You CAN pay for it yourselves if need be. You don't need a lot of money to have a wonderful day.

I hope this helps. Good luck!!

 

[DharmaBum84]

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.

It's abslutely a sign of the times. The study of postmodernism requires that one occupy a mindscape that allows for contradiction.

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?

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?

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?

I agree that it's self-refuting.

By equally valid, I mean all paths are equally valid unto the people who practice them.

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.

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.

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"?

I've been in college since age 17, so I'm still in the beginning stages of my academic career. However, I've also worked under some "weighty" figures in academic community, who have actually encouraged me to stop thinking in terms of definative truths. I've actually shifted my speciality from modernism to postmodernism due to this. And my point was not to establish myself as an authority on postmodernism by referencing my academic pursuits. 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.

 

[aiki]

It's abslutely a sign of the times. The study of postmodernism requires that one occupy a mindscape that allows for contradiction.

"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?

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?

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"?

I agree that it's self-refuting.

By equally valid, I mean all paths are equally valid unto the people who practice them.

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?

And what about my example? Is 2+2=5 as valid as 2+2=4?

Rationality has been thrown out the window since postmodern and deconstruction theory was introduced in the 1970s.

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!

There's no way to reconcile some of the "self-refuting" truths presented by postmodern theorists.

There is no such thing as a self-refuting truth. By definition, a thing is true, at least in part, if it is not self-refuting.

I've also worked under some "weighty" figures in academic community, who have actually encouraged me to stop thinking in terms of definative truths.

Well, shame on them.

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.

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.

Yes, unfortunately, I am well aware of this. May I recommend a few Christian sites that are especially focused on philosophy and the matter of postmodernism? If nothing else, they may be amusing to you.

Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason: Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character.
Reasonable Faith:
Christian Apologetics | Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

Peace.

 

[DharmaBum84]

"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?

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.

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"?

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.

And do you all also agree that what you're saying, insofar as it is self-refuting, is nonsensical and/or irrational?

To which statement are you referring? 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."

"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?

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.

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!

I meant that it's been thrown out the window in the context of academic study - specifically in that of humanities. Mathmaticians, physicists, etc., still work within absolutes. 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.

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.

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.

 

[DharmaBum84]

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

Are you talking about Christian Origins and the Question of God series? Yes, I've read it. I've also read his book, Who Was Jesus?

I also have access to the 12-volume New Interpreter's Bible (which Wright worked on), although I've read only seven volumes in their entirety. I'd love to own the set, but each volume sells for around $70. I do have the Gospels and Revelations, though.

 

[Johnnz]

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

 

[DharmaBum84]

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

I need to read them again when I have some time to spare. I wasn't aware that a fourth volume was coming out.

 

[aiki]

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.

Which acknowledgement is itself a theory encapsulating the very things it asserts cannot be defined and encapsulated. It is this kind of self-contradiction with which postmodernism is rife and which makes it so useless as a means of understanding reality.

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.

Actually, what I think you mean is that causing harm to another living being is merely something you wouldn't do yourself. Calling it "wrong" asserts an objective quality about it; like saying a rock is hard, which it is no matter what anyone may think or feel about the rock. This kind of assertion has an implicit absoluteness: it is true for everyone. But, if there are no moral absolutes, then it is not true for everyone that harming another living being is wrong; it is merely your personal preference.

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.

So, then, who is God? If your will is the final authority on matter's of morality rather than God's will, then He is not God, you are. Mind you, people setting themselves up as God is a practice as old as human history - even though it always goes badly after a while...

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."

This self-excepting revision doesn't improve things, actually. If any truth exists, then "no truth exists" is false.

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.

Are you suggesting that simple strength of conviction, or depth of sincerity is sufficient to make a religious belief valid? Are you saying people can't be sincerely wrong about what they believe?

Postmodernism deals with the human condition, not the world as defined by physical science.

Um, it seems to me that the human condition is inextricably bound up with the physical world. How do you see the relationship between the two, exactly?

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.

This is distinctly inconsistent thinking - which is perfectly consistent with postmodernism. You cannot logically hold that all paths are equally valid while at the same holding that some paths are so much more valid that they ought to be imposed. If all paths are equally valid, then the path of the Muslim extremist who wants to blow himself and others up is as valid as the path of the Buddhist who seeks peace. But you don't really believe this. The view that the "Do no Harm" path should constrain the "Kill the Infidels" path defies the notion that all paths are equally valid.

Postmodernism isn't a way of life.

It is for some.

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.

Well, I think there are those who would argue this statement very strenuously.

I wonder how useful such a relativistic and philosophically inconsistent "theoretical lens" can be to the "interrogation" of the arts and humanities. From what I've observed, not at all.

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.

I wish postmodernism were as innocuous as this. It is a little naive of you to think that it is. The stain of postmodernism can be seen all over North American and European popular culture. It has not been confined to the universities and academic elite of these regions at all. The extreme relativism developed by postmodernism and promulgated through the media and popular entertainment and the corresponding loss of a moral anchor, especially among the current younger generations in the regions I've mentioned, is highly evident.

And postmodernism doesn't "merely ask questions." I would recommend the text "Truth Decay" by Douglas Groothuis, professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary, for a detailed account of what I'm talking about.

He writes,

"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."

Postmodernism does not merely ask questions. It is modernism gone to seed.

Peace.

 

[firefighter1234]

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.

I am Muslim but I will tell you that there are no perfect religions. All are "of God through the mind of man". What she 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 of the aforementioned hereditary impulse. It is also intellectually economic.

Remove from the world all knowledge of religion and here remains God and humanity. This is the setting for as pure an example of religion as it is possible to achieve but it would not take man very long to build the simplicity of it into something complicated and, after long enough, into a self-sustaining edifice to the hopes, yens and dreams of mankind.

In all areas of human intellectual activity the liberal ideal will, sooner or later, become the conservative statement of belief. The universe and all else is not the static and firm "truth" of the dogmatist but the dynamic, changing; the 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.

Interesting conversation...

By the way may I suggest your parents meet without you both to work out their marriage questions. They they can inform you when they reach agreement. This way your workload is greatly reduced.

May the God of Abraham always guide our footsteps...

JamesYaqub

 

[firefighter1234]

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.

Remove from the world all knowledge of religion and here remains God and humanity. This is the setting for as pure an example of religion as it is possible to achieve but it would not take man very long to build the simplicity of it into something complicated and, after long enough, into a self-sustaining edifice to the hopes, yens and dreams of mankind. In this is usually found a "father figure".

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.

Interesting conversation...

By the way may I suggest your parents meet without you both to work out their marriage questions. Then they can inform you when they reach agreement. Why not let them do the heavy lifting which is, after all, about them? After they all find resolution you may enter the fray to "cut and paste".

May the God of Abraham always guide our footsteps...

JamesYaqub

 

[aiki]

Interesting conversation where conservative meets liberal. Each is representative of differing requirements in logic.

There is logic and illogic. This isn't the truth according to a liberal or conservative; it is simply the truth. If one does not meet the objective standards of logic, one is not logical. This is no more a matter of conservativism or liberalism than the statement "1+1=2" asserts a liberal or conservative point of view.

The Baptist is well entrenched by tens of years of habit.

Requiring that reasonable thought adhere to principles of logic is not a habit so much as it is a necessity for arriving at correct conclusions.

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.

I'm afraid you've overstepped the bounds of your knowledge here, sir. You are assigning motive to me from a position of ignorance. On what basis, exactly, are you asserting that I'm "fearing...any disturbance of conformity"? And how do you know whether or not I "explore, learn, sift out, etc, etc"? I have been saying in this thread that without a firm, basic grip on what constitutes rational thinking one's exploring, learning, and sifting is useless. Rather than trying to "clip wings," I am attempting to expose the things that interfere with real discovery and learning and in so doing aid the path of one who is seeking knowledge. This seems to me to be a far more useful endeavour than slapping labels on people and drawing ignorant assumptions about people's motives...

Demonstrating this is their predilection for circular arguments which never advance beyond a statement of faith.

Oh? I should like you to point out where I am guilty of circular arguing in this thread.

I am Muslim but I will tell you that there are no perfect religions.

The fact that you are a Muslim and are admitting by implication that your religion is imperfect by no means certifies the truth of the above statement.

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.

Actually, this has been soundly refuted. Christianity does not draw on other religions for its message of the Gospel. The evidence suggests rather the reverse.

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.

Nonsense. There has been no faith that has been as closely scrutinized and criticized and so effectively defended as the Christian faith. The rational and philosophical moorings of Christianity are stronger than any other in the world. A look at the sites I offered to DB will give you a sampling of these moorings.

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.

Apparently, you don't know whereof you speak. There is ample evidence for asserting that the Bible is the Word of God. Perhaps a read of Evidence that Demands a Verdict might help to disabuse you of your misconceptions on this point.

In all areas of human intellectual activity the liberal ideal will, sooner or later, become the conservative statement of belief.

Feel free to prove this. Be careful how you define "liberal" and "conservative," however.

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.

This sounds nice, but your simply saying so doesn't make it so.

Enter the revered middle way of the Buddhist and compare this to religion by rote.

Religion by rote? Make no mistake, Buddhism has its dogma, too.

Peace.

 

[firefighter1234]

I was in Winnipeg a couple of years ago. I rolled into the city from the east just after midnight. I was carrying a large coil of aircraft grade aluminum on my Kenworth to a plant located there. It was dry and cool, just below zero F I think but nice. No storm. I never saw such an expanse of flat countryside. Even at night it was impressive.

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

JamesYaqub

 

[aiki]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I will gladly debate you In a private forum but not here in this public one. PM me if you concur.

Concerning what?

May Allah soften our hearts

May the Holy Spirit continue to soften my heart and touch yours with the saving truth of the Gospel.

Peace.

 

[firefighter1234]

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.

Please change to PM to continue discussion.

May Allah surround us both with His Light through Jesus....

JamesYaqub

 

[aiki]

It is the aggressiveness of your manner which offends.

Aggressive? Not hardly! I may not have been as delicate as you would have been, but I was far from what I would call aggressive.

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?

Authority? Who said I was an authority? I understand the basic laws of logic, but that doesn't make me an authority on logic. Mind you, I speak (or, rather, write) about those matters of logic that I do understand with a tone of confidence because I know that what I am saying is true. But speaking confidently about the truth of a matter and being an authority on it are not the same thing.

Why should DB's postmodernist view not be challenged? My worldview gets challenged all the time. Its no big deal to me. I demonstrated serious logical problems with her perspective that must be addressed if she is to have a coherent, rational worldview. If, however, she wishes to retain her logically fallacious thinking, she is certainly free to do so. My "okay" doesn't enter into the matter at all.

Postmodernism? Serious flaws? You and only you are the authority here? Dangerous? Who says so? You?

No, the laws of logic governing rational thought are the authority here. I simply refer to them. If you don't like what I brought up about the irrationality of postmodernism, you are more than welcome to show me where what I stated was in error.

I don't think you realize it, but you are doing the very thing you're accusing me of doing. I could ask you: Are you an authority on how best to respond to posts? Are you and only you the authority here? Who says how I respond to people's posts must be okayed by you? --- Do these questions sound familiar? They ought to since they are very much like the ones you've asked me.

The fact is, I don't take your questions, all of which imply that I ought to have done one thing over another, as issuing from some kind of authority. You're just a guy who happens to think a little differently from me. If you happen to say something that's true, however, then I have reason to take seriously what you're saying; otherwise, you're just giving me your opinion. But if you do say something that is true, the fact that it is true gives that truth authority of its own. Unlike you, though, I can distinguish between the authority of a true fact, and the authority of the one who asserts it. As a result, I don't feel the need to question your right to make the statements that you are because, for the most part, they are merely opinion (however strongly stated they may be).

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.

Is this an uncontestable opinion you're giving here?

We never should speak to others as though we presume to negate their opinions in life.

Look, some opinions are better than others. Distinguishing better opinions from poorer ones is necessary to sound thinking. If some fellow in a restaurant lurches up from his table, clutches his throat, makes choking sounds while turning blue in the face, which is the better opinion of what his behaviour means?:

1.) He is done his meal and would like to pay.
2.) He is choking on his food.

Adopting the wrong opinion in this instance can have very serious consequences. Is it wrong to say, flat out, that option #1 is not a good one? Or should it be given careful consideration out of respect for the one who offered it? Obviously, doing so would be foolish and potentially lethal to the choking man! Not all opinions, then, are equal and they should not all be treated as though they are.

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.

THis is patently false. My university professors regularly criticized my thinking and I am the better for it. Their careful attention to, and critique of, the flaws in my thinking were a valuable aid to the sharpening of my ability to think clearly and rationally.

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.

Sir, you obviously don't know Jesus. Yes, he was compassionate, but he was also bluntly and severely critical of sin and falsehood. His sharp comments to the Pharisees, in particular, come to mind, as does his violent actions with money-changers he found in the temple. It is Jesus who said,

Matthew 10:34-39
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
35 For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';
36 and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'
37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

And you think I've made some hard comments? Mine are nothing compared to some of the things Jesus said!

I have known many Christians who were unapproachable because of their fervent beliefs that only they possessed any truth.

I could say the same about Muslims, or atheists, or postmodernists...

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.

Again, sir, you have no idea what you're talking about if this is what you really believe.

Consider the following:

John 8:42-47
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.
43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.
46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?
47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

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.

Challenging wrong thinking isn't disrespect; it is the essential ingredient in obtaining and preserving true knowledge. If I had no respect for DB's thinking, I would not have taken the pains I did in discussing her worldview with her.

PM any response please. A personal issue should not appear for all to see. this is my last post herein.

So be it.

Peace.