Post-Modernism and Liberal Christianity

[elman]

So, your basis is entirely opinion, not really what the Scripture says unless the Scripture happens to say you may agree with.

What is scripture is someone's opinion. So if I am going to base my theology on what someone says is scripture, I am relying on someone else's opinion. You seem to think this is a good way to go. I don't. In answer to your question, yes. I make the assumption that God exists and God is good. If scripture is in agreement with that I will consider it as possibly true, but if what someone says is scripture says something in opposition to that, I do not accept it as true.

 

[abacabb3]

So, you are not based in the Scripture at all, but have your own view of God which sometimes makes sense with what Scripture says and sometimes doesn't, correct?

 

[abacabb3]

I hope I am not being disrespectful, but I do think that you are making incorrect interpretations about what I am saying. Further, I think you are ignoring my point, that you appear to be using an inconsistent hermeneutic. I would appreciate if you address this:

...We already can admit that objectively that the most important parts of the Scripture (i.e. the Resurrection) are accepted without debate, entirely by faith, on what basis do we accept the Scripture in its entirety and not dismiss it as all made up? How do we discern which sections are false from the true ones?

Like postmodernism, they believe that objective standards simply can't work in this area...My position is the one that I thought evangelicals used to hold: that you can't "prove" Christianity, but you can at least start from rational grounds that might point in that direction.

Actually, I think you are misportraying your position, and mine.

Traditionally, religions in the west (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), would employ the rationalistic methods you speak of but they would base the truth of their religion on dogmas, one of which was inerrancy of their respective Scriptures. Then, they would develop doctrines and theological understandings from this basis and other dogmas, and move forward from there.

However, this is not a premise you start with, so you actually reject objective standards. This is because you assert that there is nothing objectively true about the Scripture in its entirety, which puts the whole of it into doubt. This means you are forced to arbitrarily decide which parts are totally true (resurrection) which parts are mostly true, which parts are sort of true, and which are not.

Honestly, I see nothing objective about this at all.

 

[elman]

So, you are not based in the Scripture at all, but have your own view of God which sometimes makes sense with what Scripture says and sometimes doesn't, correct?

So it is a bad thing according to you to have my own view of God. Whose view should I have instead?

 

[elman]

I hope I am not being disrespectful, but I do think that you are making incorrect interpretations about what I am saying. Further, I think you are ignoring my point, that you appear to be using an inconsistent hermeneutic. I would appreciate if you address this:

...We already can admit that objectively that the most important parts of the Scripture (i.e. the Resurrection) are accepted without debate, entirely by faith, on what basis do we accept the Scripture in its entirety and not dismiss it as all made up? How do we discern which sections are false from the true ones?



Actually, I think you are misportraying your position, and mine.

Traditionally, religions in the west (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), would employ the rationalistic methods you speak of but they would base the truth of their religion on dogmas, one of which was inerrancy of their respective Scriptures. Then, they would develop doctrines and theological understandings from this basis and other dogmas, and move forward from there.

However, this is not a premise you start with, so you actually reject objective standards. This is because you assert that there is nothing objectively true about the Scripture in its entirety, which puts the whole of it into doubt. This means you are forced to arbitrarily decide which parts are totally true (resurrection) which parts are mostly true, which parts are sort of true, and which are not.

Honestly, I see nothing objective about this at all.

Who claimed God could be proven by objective proof?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

So it is a bad thing according to you to have my own view of God. Whose view should I have instead?

How very Ayn Rand of you!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Who claimed God could be proven by objective proof?

Noone ITT except for that strawman over there.

 

[hedrick]

I hope I am not being disrespectful, but I do think that you are making incorrect interpretations about what I am saying. Further, I think you are ignoring my point, that you appear to be using an inconsistent hermeneutic. I would appreciate if you address this:

...We already can admit that objectively that the most important parts of the Scripture (i.e. the Resurrection) are accepted without debate, entirely by faith, on what basis do we accept the Scripture in its entirety and not dismiss it as all made up? How do we discern which sections are false from the true ones?



Actually, I think you are misportraying your position, and mine.

Traditionally, religions in the west (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), would employ the rationalistic methods you speak of but they would base the truth of their religion on dogmas, one of which was inerrancy of their respective Scriptures. Then, they would develop doctrines and theological understandings from this basis and other dogmas, and move forward from there.

However, this is not a premise you start with, so you actually reject objective standards. This is because you assert that there is nothing objectively true about the Scripture in its entirety, which puts the whole of it into doubt. This means you are forced to arbitrarily decide which parts are totally true (resurrection) which parts are mostly true, which parts are sort of true, and which are not.

Honestly, I see nothing objective about this at all.

You've got a perfect closed system. You redefine objectivity to mean agreeing with Scripture as your tradition understands it. You assume your key dogmas as your starting point. You leave no way to talk with anyone else, including me.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I hope I am not being disrespectful, but I do think that you are making incorrect interpretations about what I am saying. Further, I think you are ignoring my point, that you appear to be using an inconsistent hermeneutic. I would appreciate if you address this:

...We already can admit that objectively that the most important parts of the Scripture (i.e. the Resurrection) are accepted without debate, entirely by faith, on what basis do we accept the Scripture in its entirety and not dismiss it as all made up? How do we discern which sections are false from the true ones?



Actually, I think you are misportraying your position, and mine.

Traditionally, religions in the west (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), would employ the rationalistic methods you speak of but they would base the truth of their religion on dogmas, one of which was inerrancy of their respective Scriptures. Then, they would develop doctrines and theological understandings from this basis and other dogmas, and move forward from there.

However, this is not a premise you start with, so you actually reject objective standards. This is because you assert that there is nothing objectively true about the Scripture in its entirety, which puts the whole of it into doubt. This means you are forced to arbitrarily decide which parts are totally true (resurrection) which parts are mostly true, which parts are sort of true, and which are not.

Honestly, I see nothing objective about this at all.

And you think starting with inerrancy, something that cannot be verified, is objective? That's the opposite of objectivity. Objectivity requires all subjective viewers equal access to the same object in question.

 

[abacabb3]

You've got a perfect closed system. You redefine objectivity to mean agreeing with Scripture as your tradition understands it. You assume your key dogmas as your starting point. You leave no way to talk with anyone else, including me.

Nice attempt at being evasive, but this simply does not stand to scrutiny.

Yes, but historically, this has been what the church has done, even scholastic theologians. Faith cannot be objective, so we are not talking about objectivity in its absolute sense. We are talking about how theology has been practiced for all time--presuming certain tenets and then working from there. Thereby, everything proceeding from the faith-based dogmas is objective.

However, what you seem to have a hard time understanding, is that you have a subjective faith in parts of an authority that you pick and choose out of at a whim, which means you cannot even have a theology that proceeds from it that is objective, because it has no consistent basis. With your method, I can pretty much invent anything I want. Again, this is fine as faith is not objectively true anyway, but this is not traditional and it begs the question in the OP. Why even continue with Christianity if its basis (Scripture and church tradition) are so flawed it is impossible to discern what out of it is true and what is untrue?

You might as well jettison the faith-based documents and derive your faith from soemthing else.

 

[abacabb3]

So it is a bad thing according to you to have my own view of God. Whose view should I have instead?

Well, if God is real, His reality is not determined by your opinion of him.

 

[elman]

Well, if God is real, His reality is not determined by your opinion of him.

Of course not, but if I am not going to believe my imperfect and flawed view, knowing it is flawed, whose view do you suggest I use?

 

[abacabb3]

Good point. I would suppose you can do that or you can unquestionably accept faith as given from a religious tradition or set of Scriptures. I believe there is a real danger in a man's heart to create idols so he can have gods of his choosing that play by his own rules.

 

[elman]

Good point. I would suppose you can do that or you can unquestionably accept faith as given from a religious tradition or set of Scriptures. I believe there is a real danger in a man's heart to create idols so he can have gods of his choosing that play by his own rules.

I believe there is more danger in letting some other human being or group of human beings determine what you believe about God than personally owning your own theology. I really do not like the idea of unquestioningly accepting what others tell me is true. Everything should be subject to examination as to its validity.