tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.comments2023-09-09T00:48:12.875-07:00Perspective From The SummitMatt Guerinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433397955119179231noreply@blogger.comBlogger584125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-35882346871431284012022-11-13T09:49:42.810-08:002022-11-13T09:49:42.810-08:00Interesting rreadInteresting rreadMotorized Blinds Vistahttps://www.smart-electric-blinds.com/us/california-electric-blinds/motorized-blinds-vista.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-30272982020758960612022-06-17T02:30:22.496-07:002022-06-17T02:30:22.496-07:00Great post thaanksGreat post thaanksSheahttps://www.sheaavery.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-67063451794270565172020-02-06T06:19:53.580-08:002020-02-06T06:19:53.580-08:00I'm Абрам Александр a businessman who was able...I'm Абрам Александр a businessman who was able to revive his dying lumbering business through the help of a God sent lender known as Benjamin Lee the Loan Consultant of Le_Meridian Funding Service. Am resident at Yekaterinburg Екатеринбург. Well are you trying to start a business, settle your debt, expand your existing one, need money to purchase supplies. Have you been having problem trying to secure a Good Credit Facility, I want you to know that Le_Meridian Funding Service. Is the right place for you to resolve all your financial problem because am a living testimony and i can't just keep this to myself when others are looking for a way to be financially lifted.. I want you all to contact this God sent lender using the details as stated in other to be a partaker of this great opportunity Email: lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com OR WhatsApp/Text +1-989-394-3740.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-43221962365551275552015-02-25T11:25:35.553-08:002015-02-25T11:25:35.553-08:00To clarify...William P. Young the author of The Sh...To clarify...William P. Young the author of The Shack is known by his friends by his middle name which is Paul. That is why DeYoung refers to him as Paul.Judy Cahillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-18717691598772711872015-02-24T16:39:53.773-08:002015-02-24T16:39:53.773-08:00I read The Shack years ago upon the enthusiastic r...I read The Shack years ago upon the enthusiastic recommendation of several Christian friends. As I got into the book I was appalled at the errors and heresies I perceived. One of the previous posters said it should be read with discernment. That is a must. God has granted me the ability to discern what is true and biblical and that certainly came rushing to the forefront as I read The Shack.<br /><br /> In spite of my hesitation to finish it I did indeed read it to the end hoping to find some redeeming quality to the novel. I found none. <br /><br />I've heard some say it changed the way they view God and the trinity and I have to wonder what their original concepts were. They certainly would not gain a true concept of God and the Trinity from The Shack. I came to realize that the friends who enthusiastically embraced The Shack had a shallow understanding of scripture. <br /><br />I also, read Burning Down The Shack by James B. DeYoung. He was a close friend of Paul Young author of The Shack and together they co-founded a Christian think tank called M3 Forum which met monthly to discuss and probe Christian topics. They met for several years. DeYoung says that his friend has strayed into heresy since he knew him. Paul Young has reportedly embraced Christian Universalism. This idea promotes the view that all will come to Christ either before death or after death when the fires of hell will purge away unbelief. Thus there is no eternal hell. A dangerous belief.Judy Cahillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-29207937729193823382014-04-28T23:24:54.319-07:002014-04-28T23:24:54.319-07:00Hi Matt, I've not visited your blog in over a ...Hi Matt, I've not visited your blog in over a year, and I also just recently found out that Amy's blog no longer exists. While people have their reasons, still it saddens me to find out that a number of my blog friends have dropped out of blogland. I still keep my blog going, but am down to only one or two posts a month. This post was another good one, as always, thought-provoking. Glad I dropped by. Always happy to reconnect. Shalom, LidiaCrown of Beautyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08993686012020045284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-87669504888460566682013-11-28T11:51:22.295-08:002013-11-28T11:51:22.295-08:00Thanks Matt for a timely and thought-provoking blo...Thanks Matt for a timely and thought-provoking blog! I so appreciate you!<br /><br />Have a glorious Thanksgiving!<br /><br />Mark HubbellMark Hubbellhttp://markhubbell.wix.com/prison-fellowship-nw#!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-28274546167371175792012-06-27T22:44:27.568-07:002012-06-27T22:44:27.568-07:00Matt,
I sent this video link to myself weeks ago ...Matt,<br /><br />I sent this video link to myself weeks ago and just got around to watching it. Work travel and vacations tend to put me behind on the non-work stuff that I want to consume. :-)<br /><br />In watching the video tonight, I was struck by you saying, "When were you last blown away by the Gospel?" Sometimes the good questions are the hardest to answer.<br /><br />You followed that up with 'We don't grow past the Gospel, but we grow <b>in</b> the Gospel.' Immediately, I thought of Hebrews where the author talks about moving past milk to meat and how I've subconsciously interpreted the milk as the Gospel and the meat as 'other' even more important things. <br /><br />In reality, the meat is understanding how that very Gospel should shape our lives and completely mess up our priorities by putting God first. As you said, while we were in the very depths of our sin, he came to suffer and die to save us. He did so knowing that many of those he died for would reject him, and some would reject him with vitriolic hatred. <br /><br />That thought blew me and Kari-Ann away tonight. <br /><br />As for something missing in church, having grown up in charismatic churches and having attended a megachurch for many years, I think you're spot on. Do I miss the high levels of emotion and passion in the charismatic churches or the heavily polished professionalism and energy/buzz of the mega churches? I'd be lying if I didn't say yes. At the same time, it seems to come back to the I Corithians 13 passage that you preached on a few days ago. "...if I do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol" I realize the passage was talking about gifts, but there are all sorts of trappings in our lives that will be meaningless in eternity. That isn't true of the love given to us by Jesus because according to I Corinthians, it will never end (fail). Focusing on His love and His priorities makes the feeling of 'missing something' in church diminish or go away completely as we respond to the love shown to us and remember that church and this faith isn't really about us, but is about the God who loves us.Jerry Casperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473118173196079578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-80197685544474011722012-05-08T21:26:36.239-07:002012-05-08T21:26:36.239-07:00It’s like we’re coming at this from two different ...It’s like we’re coming at this from two different angles. I’m critically appraising the application of language that dodges present justification (I’m trying to anyway) and, from my reading, you’re attempting to prove, through historical analysis, that Christianity is worthy because it worked as a worldview for a time. Yet even if it hadn’t been the dominant Western view, I don’t think evangelical dogma would be much altered because it claims justification in the conceptual Absolute. I could make the same critique towards Mormonism, though it wasn’t around when the Enlightenment took place.<br /><br />We both agree that rationalism isn’t satisfying but, from this snapshot of a thread, we’ve got different methods of living out a solution. We’re both uncertain of what to do in the face of a world-experience that won’t be tamed by rational thought. Evangelical theology takes that uncertainty and assuages it with an abstraction into language, past events, and a claim of special revelation. I’m more into seeing what happens when we let that uncertainty sit in the present world, when we accept it, acknowledge that we don’t know for sure, and take concrete steps to improve our minds and bodies. I respect that the above argument against postmodernism attempts to use logic and rationality as immediate keys into how we know, though I don’t understand how it’s going to solve the missing piece that people say they feel at church.<br /><br />At this point to me the historical argument is more of a comment on how societal values can influence science, and not really proof that we should return to the values of previous times. I’ve been thinking a lot about choice lately, because when we allow for choice and free will, outside of reality being chosen for us as in pre-determination, there are many complications that arise. Why do people make different choices? What necessary information is required to make the choice in the first place? How do choices change over the span of development? I don’t see how proponents of evangelical theology can avoid dealing with their capacity for choice, and how they’re managing to make the superior choice. There’s some sort of belief that one’s mind is connected to the Absolute through concepts, and justified through assent to doctrine. (?) This will probably come up in my future comments. <br /><br /><br />As a sidenote, check out this sociologist’s view on “Liquid Modernity”. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman#Postmodernity_and_consumerism<br />He’s making connections between societies today and how we think. I think C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, criticized a Science that makes man completely beholden to his environment, and capacity for choice is within that debate. There may be lots of negative consequences of purely mechanical science, including the feeling that we’re engaged in a kind of empty pursuit.<br /><br />Thanks for providing the forum and giving actively to this conversation.Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-56880786601406247842012-05-08T21:25:38.543-07:002012-05-08T21:25:38.543-07:00Yes I was thinking of summarizing my impressions a...Yes I was thinking of summarizing my impressions as well; seems we’ve exhausted this thread. I’m discouraged that I haven’t been able to clearly articulate to you the connections I see, but the time we’ve both spent writing is, I think, commendable. <br /><br />I haven’t claimed postmodernism as the foundation of my thinking, but rather tried to point out that it has a reciprocal relationship with things in society that many deem as very useful and desirable. That’s one reason it irks/puzzles me when you readily call it completely hopeless and devoid of any redeeming qualities, or when you claim that my lines of thought are hopeless. PoMo may not compute as a totality logic system, for better or for worse, but I think a lot of people are tacitly utilizing it in modern societies, and I think they experience a lot of meaning and hope. First principles play a large role in rational thought, but they are not the only component of it. One could also look at cultural influences, emotional background, and how the brain physically functions. In other words, a human person never lived a life logically from a first principle; that’s the job of programs. And when programs get stuck they just stop, unless they can learn and change their code. <br /><br />Up top my initial concern was that the language of evangelical theology reinforces a separation between the knower and fulfillment, and I wondered how putting God at the center of everything addresses this gap. Then we moved to postmodernism as a cause of confusion because it doesn’t claim a clear first principle. Near as I can summarize it, the argument seems to be that thought requires a starting point and this starting point is best conceived of as God. To prove this, we can attempt to show that belief in God brought about all the goods of the Enlightenment. This may be a defensible anthropological case, though I don’t think that physical science, or the social sciences, will be the most effective in our present day if driven by the particulars of this past viewpoint, nor does this specifically address an evangelical view of God. It also asks me to compare an idea of a past society with an idea of society today, which is the sort of super-abstraction that has a lot of holes in it. I think a historian could probably make a case, within any society, regarding how theology affected the pursuit of science and political organization, but linking that to a divine plan in hindsight is dubious, and is mostly used in service towards prescribing a present and future. <br /><br />I refer back to my earlier question of how we could really push a scientific research program off of a literal reading of the Bible as a whole. I don’t see that happening anytime soon in any major research university or corporation. Soooooo… at least we are gaining a lot of knowledge about the physical world that is not really guided by direct readings of the Bible. And there’s a strange tension in the view that special revelation provides us with obvious and concrete facts of life. It they’re obvious and concrete, then why the special revelation? I guess that’s where I was headed with the questions about the knowledge you have, because the superior nature of it, and the requirement that this superiority be maintained at whatever cost, shapes the application of it into situations. Tim’s example above, that stories and systematic theology are different, privileges the Christian system above others. Short steps then to the eradication of indigenous theology. One set of stories (because how could you have a systematic theology without stories and metaphors) becomes the system which, a priori, ought to be believed by everyone in all times and places.Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-50199125735931245712012-04-30T11:32:24.951-07:002012-04-30T11:32:24.951-07:00Back to your April 26 comment...
Well Ryan, I'...Back to your April 26 comment...<br /><br />Well Ryan, I'm not really sure what to say at this point. The apparent dilemma you pose to me has very little to do with anything I've actually said. So let me respond briefly by repeating what I <b>have</b> said in the simplest possible terms, and then summarize what I think this long string of comments shows us.<br /><br />First, I never claimed knowledge totally apart from study and process. I don't know where that idea even came from (I’ve actually stated the opposite explicitly at least once). What I <b>have</b> said repeatedly and in a variety of ways (and to which you have still not offered a coherent response, incidentally) is that all thinkers (contemporary and past, scholars and lay people, Christians and Postmodernists) start their thinking on foundational First Principles, for thinking itself is impossible apart from doing so. <br /><br />Regarding my "everyone knows what we’re talking about already" comment – please read in context. That was a response to your assertion that definitions are so elusive that no one even knows the meaning of words like “meaning.” I argued that such a statement is somewhat silly, and it reads more like an attempt to avoid dealing with the issue rather than offering a coherent argument. <br /><br />Now, whether or not you agree with me on either of these points, it should be obvious that neither of them have anything to do with the “dilemma” you evidently think I’m stuck in. <br /><br />--------<br /><br />Which leads me to take this whole discussion in view and attempt a summary. I have attempted to argue at least two major things. First, that all worldviews start with First Principles including Postmodernism, but that unlike the others Postmodernism isn't honest about this. And I have shown logically, several times, that this is the case. You have tended to respond by either not addressing that argument at all, or dismissing it with a shrug by simply stating your view that Postmodernism has no central First Principle that can be stated. <br /><br />Second, I have also attempted to argue that the Christian worldview provides the best explanation for reality among the competing suitors, as evidenced by its logical cohesiveness and the evidence of its impact on the actual history of the actual world we live in (hence my reference to Rutherford's book, using human rights and political theory as one of many possible examples). You have mostly responded to this line of argument with a simple assertion that any such critical analysis is hopelessly fraught with self-referential circularity. This seems to render the whole discussion moot rather than helping us make progress in sorting out truth from fiction.<br /><br />And this is what I have called having one's intellectual feet firmly planted in mid-air, or what you referred to as jumping off a cliff (though I understand that you think I'm the one doing it, not you). And as long as the above is your approach I don't see much prospect of us getting anywhere, since anything else I offer would be much more info along the same lines as what I've already said. <br /><br />I certainly hope that my evaluation of this discussion doesn't feel harsh, but rather merely critical (there is a difference). Nevertheless, if you feel I've misrepresented anything I'll be happy to let your response be the final word.Matt Guerinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433397955119179231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-69462616271567201132012-04-27T23:03:17.763-07:002012-04-27T23:03:17.763-07:00Parables and allegories are great for providing wo...Parables and allegories are great for providing word pictures to illustrate something - which could be either truth or fiction. Unfortunately, a story does not provide a good foundation for a systematic theology.<br /><br />And, I'm terribly sorry, but any attempt by me to summarize CS Lewis would also include an excessive amount of cliff jumping.<br /><br />Maybe I could tap out to Matt on this one. No scratch that. I think you take this one from here.TimChalmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201672136144472428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-45246066958576404392012-04-26T22:27:35.664-07:002012-04-26T22:27:35.664-07:00I thought Lewis himself said something to the effe...I thought Lewis himself said something to the effect that fairy tales get at truth in a very important way, and that a compelling reason for the Jesus story was that so many other stories had similar elements. You'll have to help me on the dividing line between allegory and theology. Why are so many Christians reading Lewis if it doesn't affect their theology? Doesn't the Bible contain many allegories/parables?<br /><br />Sadly I have no time for more reading in my life right now, but if you want to summarize I can think about it and comment.Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-56743846760859515152012-04-26T22:15:57.162-07:002012-04-26T22:15:57.162-07:00Well... not exactly. Two thoughts on CS Lewis... O...Well... not exactly. Two thoughts on CS Lewis... One, don't take the allegorical stories as theology.<br /><br />Two, if it's been several years since you read Mere Christianity, I'm sure you would have a very different perspective now. I just re-read it last year for the first time in about 30 years and yes, my understanding had matured. And of course,there is no way to summarize CS Lewis in a blog post, but I think you would be interested to see how he starts at point zero, and logically builds his case point by point. And he explains logically why various opinions need to be set aside.<br /><br />In one way, I think the title of Mere Christianity is probably misunderstood by many people. I think I would call it Foundations or something like that. But then, I'm obviously not CS Lewis.<br /><br />Miracles is also fascinating. He starts by explaining the definitions of "Naturalist" and "Super-naturalist". Even that takes a few chapters; it is very seriously one point at a time. No hand waving, no smoke or mirrors. It's all straight logic.<br /><br />Honestly, I can only read it a page or so at a time. I mean, I have work to do.<br /><br />It's really good reading and thinking. Have fun!TimChalmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201672136144472428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-19750037764886715462012-04-26T18:49:49.918-07:002012-04-26T18:49:49.918-07:00I think I'm getting the first two paragraphs; ...I think I'm getting the first two paragraphs; we have choices right on top of us and so the only possible way to live without doubt would be to just end the process of life, but very few people do that. Matt, at your best you sound like a pragmatic psychologist. :)<br /><br />But people outside your view are misunderstanding truth, and misunderstanding their own feeling of knowledge? <br /><br />Once again, my imaginary Electionist doesn't really believe in the Bible as totally binding. He doesn't think God would really tell people to commit genocide, and he thinks women are just as capable of being leaders of the Elect. Your tradition may be full of great thinkers and human struggle, but nonetheless he thinks your view muddles who God is, and it's too confusing.<br /><br />I'm having trouble squaring your statement of getting beyond the surfacey with your claim that everyone pretty much knows what we're talking about already. It feels disingenuous to claim superior knowledge of human knowing apart from being informed by modern philosophers and psychologists, or at least apart from some sort of study and process. Do you know more than other people or not?<br /><br />Tim, I read Mere Christianity a long time ago, but I don't think I've read Miracles. C.S. Lewis is really fascinating for me. My take is that he understood that people can be aiming towards a similar thing, while using different forms and metaphorical vehicles. For example, he writes about the worshiper of Tash being let into Aslan's realm because, turns out, Tash and Aslan are the same. And Lewis writes about Jesus being the Way, but admits not knowing how many different ways to Jesus there may be. In other words, people before Christ still have access to the metaphysical "work" of Jesus, though they never had any knowledge of him. Which actually brings me back to my questions regarding Matt's knowledge.Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-45865288390548094142012-04-25T22:17:40.788-07:002012-04-25T22:17:40.788-07:00There are two problems with your "closed-mind...There are two problems with your "closed-minded Electionist" hypothetical as I see it. First, you seem to be radicalizing doubt. But this is unrealistic and it tends to falsely dichotomize thinking, creating straw-man arguments in the process. "If even one small detail of what you believe might even remotely be considered wrong, then what about the next detail, and the next, and all the way down even to all the core principles?" This kind of thinking seems designed to force one into saying they either have no doubts about anything (which is absurd, hence the Straw Man) or to say they must doubt everything, which is a non-sequiter since it assumes all knowledge is equally unknowable. Now we're back to Postmodernism's un-admitted First Principle. <br /><br />And it doesn't get us anywhere. Is the point of questioning to arrive at a greater confidence about what is true? If not, then why question? Just believe whatever works for you and don't worry about it. If so, what happens when we do make some progress and come, through whatever process, to consider an idea as more true than its competitors? Are we now "closed-minded" again because of that, and unable to appreciate process, nuance, and other peoples' perspectives? <br /><br />So I think one can have all sorts of questions and doubts about something like Election, and consider all kinds of different viewpoints, but still be operating from a settled confidence in the existence of God, the veracity of the Bible, etc. You seem to be saying it doesn't work that way. Maybe you never thought you saw it modeled, I don't know. But it definitely does work that way.<br /><br />Secondly, the Bible's teaching about Election doesn't function the way your hypothetical guy thinks about it, which (broken record, sorry) I can demonstrate objectively. Election serves 2 purposes in the Bible, and they're both for Christians: a partial explanation of why some people who witnessed miracles still didn't repent and believe, and to remind Christians that they are not extra holy or more special than non-Christians, but that they are saved by God's sheer grace (to make them humble and worshipful). The Bible never suggests that Election is something one uses to evaluate the spiritual status of another person, and it explicitly says it isn't something that makes us proud; just the opposite. I only say all this to challenge your notion that Christianity's veracity is either unassailable (by granting it's presuppositions) or meaningless (by rejecting them). I've now shown or alluded to several specific examples of how one can rigorously evaluate the claims of Christianity for veracity, whether from inside the faith or outside of it. As can happen with all worldviews. <br /><br />And for the record, I don't teach at Fox to convince myself I'm right. I already believe the Gospel is True, and I've evaluated it and enough of its competitors thoroughly enough to have a high degree of confidence in that belief. I teach to get people (Christians and Postmodernists alike) to think beyond simple surfacey ideas in their worldviews.Matt Guerinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433397955119179231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-32456094839071088162012-04-25T22:17:23.792-07:002012-04-25T22:17:23.792-07:00Well Ryan, to answer your question: I keep jumping...Well Ryan, to answer your question: I keep jumping off the cliff and taking you with me because I think you've jumped off a cliff already on your own, and you just haven't realized it yet. I'm trying to get you to think it all the way through to the conclusion, to see where the fundamental Postmodern assumption inevitably leads. <br /><br />I believe we may have covered some of the historicity before. Strobel's book The Case for Christ is an excellent work for non-scholars, like all of us. And I may have referred before to Glenn Sunshine's book Why You Think The Way You Do (my book review in the sidebar of this blog), which I think you'd really enjoy and learn a lot from (I did ) about how all these different worldviews came to be historically, how they bled into one another, etc. So I don't know where your skepticism of history comes from, but there are many great, accessible ways to dig a little deeper.Matt Guerinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433397955119179231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-386354087645616382012-04-25T19:47:13.490-07:002012-04-25T19:47:13.490-07:00Have you read C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity, and Mi...Have you read C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity, and Miracles? He provides a logically rigorous discussion that goes farther back before the typical starting point.<br /><br />If you have read those two books, what are your thoughts?TimChalmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201672136144472428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-54606168221238685572012-04-25T18:20:51.077-07:002012-04-25T18:20:51.077-07:00Seems we can use theories to start from, but I'...Seems we can use theories to start from, but I'm pointing out that Evangelical Christian rhetoric is prone to use repetitions that mask a lack of depth. Seeing that doesn't lead me to hopelessness. Why do you keep jumping off a cliff and taking me with you?<br /><br />I'm skeptical towards your claim of proving Christianity objectively through historical analysis. If you have some work for me to read, I'll take a look.<br /><br />But I like your idea of "putting on" other worldviews. In a way you're showing a capacity for empathy and understanding. But still, you are engaging in the practice to prove yourself right by the end of the class. Imagine if you ended up with a different worldview! You'd have to stop teaching at George Fox!<br /><br />But as for my little thought experiment, I'm saying this pre-electionist doesn't take your interpretation of the Bible as Correct, so pointing out textual contradictions isn't going to work (Evangelical Christianity lives with textual contradictions). I'm not asking this just for kicks; how can we prove to this person that they are wrong? We can't use "because God said so". He already knows what God is saying. Why would he listen to someone who is obviously not Elect, who obviously is not seeing things Correctly? Who cares if Electionists have exhibited silly behavior; maybe they were a little off, but his view is still True in all its glory. What is the common ground where a discussion could take place?<br /><br />Also, your synopsis of "elect" renders it functionally meaningless outside of the placeholding language we've discussed, IMO. If only God knows about Election then we have to read God's mind, and how did you do that? Because your first principle is Correct? :sigh:Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-24402882969944234252012-04-25T17:51:26.986-07:002012-04-25T17:51:26.986-07:00May I interject? I think I see one small point.
T...May I interject? I think I see one small point.<br /><br />The "tolerance" of Postmodernism is intolerant of almost everything that Jesus said. For example, "I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except thru Me." Postmodernism can't tolerate the fact that someone puts up a standard as being the only standard. And the list of examples is long.<br /><br />Now if I might make one more point about the practicality of the Gospel. The Gospel, in its essence, is very understandable by even a child. Jesus loves me this I know. Yes, there is a step of faith there, but once you examine the historicity of Jesus and documents that we have as the Bible, there also needs to be an intellectual understanding that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and then you're faced with the predicament that you must either agree with the simple essence of the Gospel or reject it. Those who refuse to examine the historical facts with an open mind, are then forced to close their minds even further and complicate the Gospel by academically intellectualizing it, thereby hollowing out its truth, which then allows them to ignore its many calls to action. Faith without action, is dead. And so are many churches.TimChalmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10201672136144472428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-74619067222832534132012-04-25T17:05:26.888-07:002012-04-25T17:05:26.888-07:00"And FWIW, I don't usually need a thesaru...<i> "And FWIW, I don't usually need a thesarus, I'm just good with words.</i> lol, that made me chuckle. :)<br /><br />You seem to be saying that in order to argue against Christianity (or by extension any claim to Truth) you'd have to grant its premises, but then this dooms you to being unable to refute it since it's a somewhat circular (or perhaps better, self-justifying) system. Is that close to reading your right? <br /><br />Sounds pretty hopeless. But I don't think we're that bad off, for at least a couple reasons. First, we can "put on" the clothes of other worldviews and understand them from within, but this doesn't prevent us from critiquing them and contrasting them with one another. I do this semi-regularly in a class I teach that compares Christianity, Naturalism, New Age, and Postmodernism, and consists of many non-Christians students who do not share my personal assumptions. It works well (it's pretty fun, actually). And I think I do a fair job presenting the other worldviews from their vantage point - I've had students who hold them tell me so, which I take as a great compliment.<br /><br />Second, we can look at a worldview and see its effects on the real world. What we have is competing and mutually-exclusive claims about the way things really are. Well, like a map we can hold them up to history and see which one works best. Of course there is still lots of disagreement, but my point is that objective evaluation of truth claims and respectful, healthy debate is entirely possible even from the vantage point of holding a First Principle.<br /><br />A corollary to this is that I believe I can demonstrate objectively that aspects of the Inquisition were contrary to the Gospel. I think I can also demonstrate objectively that Paul is not misogynistic. Again, one might not agree with my conclusions when I was done, but (again) I don't think we need to reject First Principles in order to critically evaluate truth claims in a healthy, respectful way. It seems like you think we do.<br /><br />And for kicks, I'll go with your Election example as an illustration. The Bible teaches Election. It does not teach (I can demonstrate this objectively) some of the silly conclusions and bad attitudes Election adherents have sometimes displayed, such as 'everyone else is evil and I'm one of the good guys' or what have you. It actually teaches that everyone is equally sinful (elect or not), everyone is equally valuable and worthy of respect (elect or not), and the Gospel should be shared with everyone in love (not writing people off in a self-justified 'who-cares' way) because only God knows the elect. So without wasting your time citing all the requisite Bible verses, I'd offer this as an example of how belief that the Gospel is actually Truth (which I do) doesn't lead to totalitarian, denigrating, self-justifying judgmentalism. <br /><br />It actually leads to the opposite, which I think history bears out quite well. I would never duck or minimize the bad things Christians have done in the name of Jesus. But not only can it be shown <b> objectively</b> that they were in fact not representing Jesus despite their words, more importantly it can be shown that those who do take the Gospel seriously produce a very different kind of life. I could list lots of names and examples, but this is long enough already.Matt Guerinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433397955119179231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-12683244352145279252012-04-25T15:56:19.734-07:002012-04-25T15:56:19.734-07:00OK I'll rephrase. (communication is a process...OK I'll rephrase. (communication is a process...)<br /><br />I'm not advocating postmodernism as a totality worldview. There's some starting points that are open for critique, but I also don't see much merit in your claim that the tolerance of postmodernism ends up being intolerant. Maybe logically or abstractly, in a discussion about epistemology or axioms, but not really functionally. I would say there has been an increase in tolerance as postmodernism has taken its course. <br /><br />Second paragraph: Under Evangelical Christianity, the Gospel is the answer for every human problem that stems from everyone's human heart. This is functionally the same as saying put God at the center of everything, or put Jesus at the center of everything. How can I argue with that rhetorical construction? Any example or analogy I could give would have to, a priori, already be included in the framework of God Gospel Jesus Correct. If I say the Inquisition was terribly intolerant, then it was a poor interpretation of the Gospel. If I say Paul is terribly unfair to women, he's justified due to his status as speaker of the Gospel. This is really just restating one of my former points: a placeholder can be applied across multiple situations, thereby minimizing ambiguities and diversity. I don't see modern societies as functional under a placeholder dogma system.<br /> <br /><br />Look, Matt, I'm not taking excerpts from a book I wrote on Postmodernism. I'm posting on a blog. I really enjoy it and appreciate the venue, as it helps me grow, but my posts won't all be intricately crafted. You're writing about stuff you research and publicly speak about every week, in a tradition that's been around for quite awhile. If some of my analogies don't make sense, then I welcome your questions. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean my statements are doomed to incoherence by all parties, forever. <br /><br />Good and bad is not totally meaningless outside of a pre-set standards system. Think of art and music and dance; we don't know exactly what will happen until we encounter and discover them as embodied interpreters. Of course these blog statements are abstract; I'm pointing towards my experience of process being important. You say that the human heart is understandable in ordinary conversations, but isn't it a lifelong faith journey to understand how this heart can relate to God? If everyday conversation was the measure of knowledge, then we wouldn't write stories, books, songs, and sermons.<br /><br />In closing, and to restate paragraph 3, I'm wondering why you don't believe in pre-election. It could remove all ambiguities and could be justified in reference to a perfect ideal. An adherent to such a belief could claim inspired knowledge and apply the Correct across every area of life. He could preach as testament to his status and no one could ever disprove him. In fact, everyone else is evil and doomed, so why even care? Total freedom! <br /><br />I don't think you believe all that, but from a pre-electionist's viewpoint, you are evil and stubborn and doomed. So explain to me how an Absolutist formulation of the Gospel isn't pre-election with a little ambiguous adventure thrown in? And if you're going to grant free-will, then why not take it further, past dogmas? I think you're into ambiguity on some level, and maybe you even like it.<br /><br />And FWIW, I don't usually need a thesarus, I'm just good with words.<br /><br />:) <br /><br />-RyanRyan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-20291492847809943982012-04-25T14:42:16.079-07:002012-04-25T14:42:16.079-07:00Well, (in reference to your April 25 11:39 comment...Well, (in reference to your April 25 11:39 comment) I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your first couple paragraphs. I really apologize, but I've read it three times and I'm afraid I’m still lost.<br /><br />As to the last couple paragraphs, which seem clearer to me, all I can say is it really isn't nearly so complicated as that. And I think most people know it. For example, "the human heart" is really not a difficult concept for the average person to grasp. People aren't confused when someone uses that phrase in conversation. <br /><br />When I've talked with advocates of Postmodernism about the concreteness of First Principles (even if we don't agree on what they are - just about their necessary existence), Postmodernism's allergic reaction to dogma usually rises to the surface, typically in the form of lots of words that don't say anything clearly. That’s kind of how your first couple paragraphs read. The idea seems to be that saying a lot without saying anything definite somehow demonstrates that things can't be said with clarity, but I think all it demonstrates is that the speaker has read a Thesaurus. Please understand I’m not intending to barb or criticize, but rather to simply state what I see to be true. I point this out as one more attempt to demonstrate to you how Postmodernism leads us AWAY from understanding, not further into it. <br /><br />Example from your second-to-last paragraph: I would respond that of course free will is a messy entity (hugely so!) and is indeed responsible for both choices of good and choices of evil. No problems at all from the vantage point of the Christian worldview. But it is a problem from the vantage point of Postmodernism, because you refer to people making "good" choices (which presumes that some standard exists by which a choice can be measured as relatively good or bad) yet you imply that no such absolute standard can be known, rendering any discussion of anyone's choice as being either good or bad totally meaningless. And you've further suggested that meaning itself doesn't mean anything definite... in which case no one knows anything and why are we even talking? Do you feel the clarity and understanding increasing? I sure don't.<br /><br />And I must say that once again you have demonstrated, unwittingly I’m sure, the central problem of Postmodern thought – the contradiction at its heart. In your last paragraph you state clearly that understanding will only come when abstracts are not privileged above process. <b>But this very statement is itself an abstract. </b> It is another way of stating Postmodernism's central premise, which you said earlier doesn't exist, but you keep coming back to it and restating it as the basis of your own thought. This is exactly my point: thinking can't happen without a First Premise upon which to begin thinking. You’ve illustrated that quite well. <br /><br />Incidentally, I think your very last comment (11:41am) is true: of course experience factors in to our perception of knowledge. Postmodernists are hardly the first ones to recognize this. And that observation is completely consistent with all common worldviews including Christianity (that's why we have different denominations!), Naturalism, etc. One doesn't have to go so far as to claim that 'meaning has no meaning' in order to recognize that culture and experience help shape perception. So do First Principles.Matt Guerinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433397955119179231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-51838019249518783152012-04-25T11:41:25.724-07:002012-04-25T11:41:25.724-07:00There's some sort of reciprocation going on be...There's some sort of reciprocation going on between knowledge and experience...Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931783049655504855.post-53145274587782950602012-04-25T11:39:51.998-07:002012-04-25T11:39:51.998-07:00I can vibe with an intellectual system having a st...I can vibe with an intellectual system having a starting point, but I'm not claiming intellectual systems are ultimately satisfying in the apprehension and creation of meaning. I mean, what's the meaning of meaning, you know what I mean? ad infinitum. So you can keep a hook in Postmodernism as unfulfilling if you want, but I still don't understand how Tolerance gets morphed into Intolerance. <br /><br />Isn't the Gospel a check and balance for every evil in the world? Even if it is applied in a terrible unworkable way, we can always say that imperfect people were applying a perfect Absolute Gospel, so how could we ever disprove it? And if the source is always in the human heart, which is equally undefinable, then the two absolutes can coexist without input/output from life right now.<br /><br />I'm wondering why not just go with the idea that the Elect are chosen before time to serve God's purposes on Earth? What evidence disproves that for you? Are human hearts like yours and mine too evil to accept this most fundamental truth?<br /><br />Put another way, what capacity is allowing people to choose the good, or to choose your theology? And if you're going to recite Genesis Adam and Eve Garden of Eden, that's part of your theology. Free will gets messy because now the human heart is both an agent in choosing good, and a participant in choosing bad. So how about all the good choices people make? Not valid unless brought under your theology? <br /><br />No doubt people can do terrible things with harmful intentions, but to understand causes and effects in organic and shifting reality, it takes definition and conversation in a multitude of realms. I don't think that will take place when abstracts are privileged before process.Ryan Hoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533519746208909478noreply@blogger.com