the middle eastern conflict
At Tangent tonight we attempted to work through what we knew about the conflict in the middle east. In some ways it was a sharing of ignorance and in other ways it was surprising how effective the media is at explaining what is going on. Of course it is another matter whether the presentation by the Australian media is balanced or not.
I was reminded again of a former mentor of mine Phillip Hunt who was told me that at the heart of the conflicts in the middle east is not territory, religion or any other factor but rather at the heart is scape goating. Phillip is a former Eastern Europe director of World Vision so knew the area politics fairly well and had spent a great deal of time reflecting on the issue.
Back when signposts was just starting in 2003, I wrote a post about some of Phillip’s thoughts on scapegoating in regard to the Iraq war. Re-reading the words today they also seem apt for this conflict.
As most of you didn’t read signposts back in 2003. In fact I think I knew the three people that did, you can read the post here.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
gez toddy i didn’t think that id have to explain this one…
God and Christianity is incredibly complex.. so much so that we will never understand a fraction in our lifetimes but it can be explained and understood very simply … yes even by a 6yr old..
just because something can be explained simply does’nt mean that it is simple…. i don’t understand the complexities of internal combustion engines but that doesnt mean i can’t drive my car and i have no idea how my tv remote works but i can use and teach my son to use it too.
a table is four legs of wood and one flat piece but if you look closer you see chemical chains of atoms - forces of compression and torsion which don’t need to be understood to use it but need to be understood by the manufacturer etc
“I believe that you have over simplified by suggesting that we can (effectively) remove ourselves from the culture in which we live.”
where did i suggest this?
“- faith is an internal thing… a relationship is something ‘felt’ on the inside”
are you suggesting that it is something like an emotion?
“The only thing AT, Bec, Lance, Phil etc need to have in common is that we are ON the mission, not just talking about which one is right and which one is wrong.”
what mission (not being facetious - just wanting clarification) and does it not matter that one may be right or wrong?
August 5th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Post #13, AT. Pretty much the entire post suggests that we can remove ourselves from the culture in which we live. To suggest that I am not postmodern, or you are not modern, is no different to suggesting that an American is not an American, or an indigenous Australian is not an indigenous Australian. Postmodernity is not just a theory, it’s an entire culture. The fact is, postmodern art exists, and I am influenced by it. Postmodern thinking exists, and I am influenced by it.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I don’t think i suggested that we could but we need to pay attention to our beliefs and areas where we do blend/compromise the philosophies of postmodernism or modernism or eastern philosophies with Christianity.
Your logic is not sound with respect bec. i have no choice of nationality but i can choose whether to accept postmodernism as a belief system. I know PM is not just a theory, it not just a culture either, its a world view that is opposed to Christianity just as modernism is.
This is not to say that there are no aspects of PM or modernity that are true or that the belief system is entirely false… all good lies have some truth to them.
I can enjoy or be moved or revolted by postmodern art, but i must interpret it through Christian worldview lenses because that is who i am…. imperfect as a Christian that i am…
i think some of the problem with long posts like my previous is that people just skim read and think they have you pegged…. guilty of this myself
August 6th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Actually Abtruth, nationality is ideological too - hence the shifting of boundaries and allegiances over time.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
So Abtruth, do you choose your worldview?
August 7th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
whether nationality is ideological or not doesnt impinge on the debate, i still had no choice to be Australian born but i could choose to become American (immigration allowing).
re choosing worldview? Good question - i have actually never been asked that before…
we accept most of our beliefs in our younger yrs from our parents but at some point we must choose these beliefs or jettison them, not just through choice of course but on conviction of the truth. I believe in the Christian worldview not just because i choose to believe it but because i am compelled to believe in that which has convinced me with the best arguements along with the experiential endorsement of the holy spirit. often though we will take on a Christian worldview and blend it with other non-christian worldviews which we shouldn’t do.
people often change their worldview, people that convert to Christianity change from an athiestic/humanist/buddhist/hindi/islamic or whatever worldview to a Christian worldview and some go the other way… some of course go the other way as they are disenchanted with Christianity for some reason and take on another worldview.
as an aside it would be my contention that those who change from Christianity to another probably had a corrupted idea of Christianity to begin with - an example could be the big back door of pentecostal churches when they have so many people disappointed that what is apparently on offer does not manifest itself after a time and therefore make the connection lack of results in the real world therefore this belief is false.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
AT, I believe we can choose a label, I question the degree to which we choose our values. Of course there are some which we are conscious of, and consciously choose to uphold or reject them. But there are so many more which are incredibly deeply rooted.
I recall a conference a few years ago where I and a friend were asked to share our understanding of the interaction between our faith and our politics. I spoke first, and I could sense him watching me with surprise. He then spoke, and his story was, in broad terms, very similar to mine. We were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and yet when describing how our politics came to be, both of us described defining moments in the broader political landscape, and came to the conclusion that we could not truly say that we chose our politics, but perhaps rather that our politics chose us. We both said we felt similarly about faith.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see a worldview as something “out there”, and to be identified and chosen. I think that we do, to a degree, choose things. I certainly make choices about who I vote for, and the church I go to, and I made a choice to go to church and to explore Christianity for myself. But I was attracted to Christianity and to certain political theories because I connected with them…and I connected with them because I had certain values that I found expressed elsewhere…and where did my values come from? I just don’t think that our cultural perspectives, worldviews etc are as easily identifiable, or as easily separated from ourselves, as you make out.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
BTW AT, this makes very little sense: “as an aside it would be my contention that those who change from Christianity to another probably had a corrupted idea of Christianity to begin with”
Given that people of all theological persuasians convert to other religions, this makes very little sense and is probably overly simplistic, and actually isn’t logical. You’re essentially saying that if someone converts from one belief system to another, the first wasn’t true - and if we applied that equally to all belief systems, then we go in circles.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
“But I was attracted to Christianity and to certain political theories because I connected with them…and I connected with them because I had certain values that I found expressed elsewhere…and where did my values come from?”
i think you will find values are very similar in all religions to a large degree and within most cultures, this is the basis of the moral arguement for Gods existence… (see ‘mere christianit’y or ‘the abolition of man’ by CS Lewis) Basing your choice of religion on values that you hold is a bit of a supermarket in ideas… eg i really identify with the notion of karma so i am attracted to buddhism and will adopt that as my religious truth..???
but the truth of Christianity (if it is Really True) is true whether it corresponds to your sense of right and wrong or not… and shouldn’t be chosen because it feels good but because it is truth. to the average human Christianity is offensive because it says that you are of no value in and of yourself whatsoever apart from the value that God has placed on your life.
“You’re essentially saying that if someone converts from one belief system to another, the first wasn’t true - and if we applied that equally to all belief systems, then we go in circles”
no, i am saying that if someone converts from Christianity to another belief because i believe Christianity to be objectively true, just as 1 and 1 equal 2. someone who leaves Christianity has not been truly convinced of Christianities total correspondance to reality or at the very least are in denial or rebellion against what they know to be the truth…
August 8th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
AT, it’s true that at a very broad, generalised level, there are common values in most religions and indeed political theories and other belief systems. But I’m not referring to whether it’s right to murder or not - I’m referring to a much higher level of detail than that.
C.S Lewis was deeply rooted in modernity, and while I appreciate the intellectual rigour of some of his arguments, they don’t hold sway with the pomo generation…try pulling out the Liar, Loony or Lord line on the average 20-something year old Arts student, and you’ll find you won’t get very far!
How does one measure what corresponds with reality?
You say that if someone converts from Christianity to another belief was not truly convinced of Christianities total correspondence to reality, or was at the very least in denial or rebellion against what they know to be the truth. While this makes sense at some broad, general intellectual level, this does not correspond with my experience of reality at all. I believe that humans are far, far more complex than that - and the mysteries of God even more so!
AT, I fear that this conversation will not get very far, but will rather go around in circles. I’ve had this conversation countless times before, generally with evangelical uni students who are far more modernist in their thinking than I am. This is not to say that they are wrong and I am right - I don’t believe that at all. I actually think we have quite different ways of knowing, quite different ways of making sense of reality. Our posts actually exhibit a cultural clash that I’ve experienced countless times before!!
August 8th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I’m referring to a much higher level of detail than that.??
What exactly is this detail?
Re trillema… i quite agree. the truth of Christianity has to be communicated in different ways to different cultures… try using the trillema on the orca indians in equador, it’ll do just as good… CS Lewis was communicating to a post christian modernist audience the truths of Christianity but that is different from being a modernist… if he was a modernist (sourcing his worldview of humanism from the enlightenment) he would not have believed in special revelation and thought that reason was sufficient in an of its own. he does however have many arguements that transcend cultures (his arguement from morality in mere christianity) and also has narrow arguements that cut the legs out of PM (abolition of man)
How does one measure what corresponds with reality?????????
truth corresponds with reality? that it corresponds is the measure.
“You say that if someone converts from Christianity to another belief was not truly convinced of Christianities total correspondence to reality, or was at the very least in denial or rebellion against what they know to be the truth. While this makes sense at some broad, general intellectual level, this does not correspond with my experience of reality at all.”
i am not going to die on a hill defending this one but what is your experience that contradicts this?
re you last paragraph… i would have the same problems with uni students trying to blend modernism with christianity as i have with you trying to blend PM with christianity… there may be truth in both outlooks, but all truth is Gods truth that is encapsulated in a Christian worldview and have been adopted and blended into a non christian worldview
August 9th, 2006 at 9:40 am
AT - re “higher level of detail” - to be honest, I can’t think of anything right now. But I know that there are some texts, ideas etc that accord with my perception of reality, and some which do not.
I don’t think you’ve answered my question re: determining what corresponds with reality. You said that truth corresponds to reality. I asked how you determine what corresponds to reality. You answered, “truth”. That’s circular, and it doesn’t answer my question. Getting back to the point of this thread, if I sat down with a young man from the Israeli army, and a young guy from Hezbollah, and asked them to tell me their stories, both would have legitimate grievances and both would have done much wrong. I am sure of this because of the experiences of my self and other in conducting post-conflict studies.
Yet this is a very different perception of “reality” to what you are suggesting in your earlier posts. The point I am trying to make is that the “reality” you perceive might lead you to a different truth than the one I reach based on my perception of reality.
Re: my paragraph about my experience in reality - I can’t really go into it here, as I’m a Christian, so the relevant stories belong to others, and not to me. Suffice to say that I believe people’s perceptions of reality can radically shift. I have known people who were truly convinced of Christianity’s total correspondence with reality, and who for one reason or another, no longer came to that conclusion at some point in time.
AT, I believe that the Good News is for all times, all places, and all cultures. Please stop suggesting that I am trying to “blend” Christianity with a “non-christian worldview” - it’s insulting. I am merely saying that I think it’s naive to believe that we can somehow draw clear dividing lines between a “Christian” worldview and our culture. I have grown up watching certain TV shows, reading certain books, having certain conversations with my parents, going to particular schools, studying certain subjects at uni…it is a fact of life that these things will influence my understanding of the Bible, and since God is in all things, that doesn’t worry me at all.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:16 am
i don’t think its circular to say that truth is what corresponds to reality… corresponding to reality is the measure… i think your question is like asking how do we measure a metric ruler. it is the ruler that measures something else…
“both would have legitimate grievances and both would have done much wrong. I am sure of this because of the experiences of my self and other in conducting post-conflict studies. :)”
i am not denying there are wrong actions on both sides but my appeal to a moral high ground for one side was broader… eg there were many atrocities committed against the Germans in WW2 however the allies in my opinion maintained the moral high ground and in broad strokes did the right thing in their prosecution of the war ‘39 - ‘45. it is here that i think either you have missinterpreted or i have not been clear enough. and it is in this sense that i believe that Israel has the moral highground.
“I believe that the Good News is for all times, all places, and all cultures.” GREAT- you aren’t a postmodernist then and i am glad… I know that there are many variations in beleifs in PM… the one defining central tenent of PM the world over however is the total distrust of absolutes (with that there cannot be anything but millions of variations by definition). you have afirmed the one great absolute of Christianity, the truth of God and his redemption plan for all mankind. PM and Christianity don’t mix on the most fundamental level just like it doesnt with modernism - oil and water…
“I have known people who were truly convinced of Christianity’s total correspondence with reality, and who for one reason or another, no longer came to that conclusion at some point in time.”
as have i. most i know have fallen for the doublespeak of postmodernism… some have fallen for modernism and materialism.
“I am merely saying that I think it’s naive to believe that we can somehow draw clear dividing lines between a “Christian” worldview and our culture.”
this is where we differ… yes we live in a culture that is very pervasive and seductive (to the point that we all will be seduced to some extent at some time) but it is up to us to resist the culture when it is at varience with Christianity… this is what i mean when i talk about being IN but not OF the world
for instance our culture says living together before marriage is ok and sucks you into believing that material possessions will give you happiness and meaning… to be influenced by our culture would be to say that sex before marriage is ok or that money will satisfy, as Christians we deny both…
we have to resist its influence when it conflicts with our beliefs - in our culture to say that ‘Jesus is the only way’ (apart from the fact that it would have to be interpreted for a true PM to understand) is seen as an act of religious intolerence, although to stop me from declaring that would be intolerant of my beliefs of course…. so it is within PM that the vicious circle of illogical reasoning begins…
August 9th, 2006 at 11:35 am
AT, to suggest that we are influenced by our culture is not to suggest that we should not challenge it. I am a consumer because I live in a consumerist society - but that is not to say that I do not critique that, struggle with it, question it.
“I know that there are many variations in beleifs in PM… the one defining central tenent of PM the world over however is the total distrust of absolutes (with that there cannot be anything but millions of variations by definition).”
See, this is where I would disagree with you. I believe that is an immense oversimplification of PM. Further, even if your statement were true, it does not make PM incompatible with Christianity - unless you believe doubt and questioning is incompatible with Christianity, and I’m sure you don’t think that.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:44 am
“to suggest that we are influenced by our culture is not to suggest that we should not challenge it. I am a consumer because I live in a consumerist society - but that is not to say that I do not critique that, struggle with it, question it.”
agreed… late in our discussion i thought we might just have been on the same page but confused somewhat… we consume but should not be defined as consumerists ourselves even though that is what our society wants us to be…
No absolutes is not my simplification of PM but a statment of one of its fundamental beliefs, there is a difference.
on one hand to say that Christians are Christian because they believe in God is an oversimplification… but to say that one of the most fundamental Christian beliefs is that God exists is not oversimplifying things at all…
August 15th, 2006 at 10:09 am
come on Bec… come back and play
August 15th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
sorry…have been busy…and don’t you think it’s just gonna go round and round in circles anyway?!!
Re: the consumerism example - I *am* a consumerist because I live in a consumerist society. I’m not saying that as a normative statement, but a statement of fact. I don’t aspire to being a consumer, but I acknowledge that I am one. Similarly, when I say I’m a postmodernist, I’m making a statement of fact - I understand myself well enough to realise that I’m postmodernist. I endeavour to not be a consumer, I’m not to phased about being a postmodernist - though I try always to acknowledge that it shapes how I read the bible, and I trust that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit I can somehow discern the Truth despite any ideological impediments!!
I don’t actually agree with your take on PM and what you define as its fundamental beliefs, but that’s a long and complex argument, and probably not actually particularly relevant to this conversation.
August 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Hi Bec.. i didn’t think it was going round and round .. i thought we were making progress actually…
I think there is a problem with how you express yourself bordering (though i will grant, not intentionally) equivocation.
This is what i am on about… when you say ‘i am a postmodernist’ or ‘i am a consumerist’ this statement is in the same order of the claim ‘i am an athiest’ or ‘i am a communist’ or ‘i am a buddhist’ or ‘i am an islamist’
saying ‘i am a whateverist ‘ is a claim to belief in ‘whatever’ as a worldview (any ism in this area ie socialism, buddhism, theism, postmodernism, modernism are worldviews… some can be blended but Christianity cannot be blended and keep its internal consistancy or coherence.
this is not saying that there is no truth in all of these isms but to claim that you are one is to say that you are not Christian… now i am sure that you are and in fact i think that you have been less influenced by postmodernism than you think you have been…
Christianity is at fundamental odds with postmodernism. as PM is an attack on modernism (in some ways very true and needed) its basis for its attack is in the area of epistemology, and has certain foundational beliefs that contradict Christianity and Christian truth claims. The outworking of PM involves Religious pluralism, moral relativism and an unsustainable view of truth and therefore knowledge.
PM has also redefined words, notice how the definition of religious pluralism has changed: in the first case, live and let live, and in the second case, you can’t say somebody else is wrong because that is just not pluralistic. this is an example of PM political correctness which undercuts Christianity from the start because Christianity makes religious truth claims
i really don’t want to come over as boasting but really Bec i dont think you have managed over this whole conversation to lay a glove on me. im not expecting a ‘wow your right ab’ but has anything i have said clarified anything for you in the difference between worldviews, and how Christians are “In but not Of”the world and that these are philosophies that the world takes on to make sense of the world separate from God.?
August 15th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Abtruth,
Again, I disagree. I have repeatedly compared saying “I am a consumer” to saying “I am [insert nationality here]”. So I have consistently made it clear that I was making a factual, and not normative, statement.
And again, I disagree that stating that “I am a consumer”, “I am an Australian”, or “I am a woman” is equivalent to saying “I am not a Christian”. Yet this is what you consistently state I am saying. Again, while you read my statements as statements of ideology, they were in fact statements of fact (and yes, I realise that consumerism, nationality and religion are different to sex, but that’s not what I’m talking about here).
Abtruth, your choice of language - “lay a glove” - is interesting!! I’m really not interested in winning arguments, but only in engagement. You haven’t clarified anything for me at all, because you’re actually missing my point entirely.
August 15th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Bec
there is a world of difference between “- I *am* a consumerist” as you said in comment 47 and saying that you are “a consumer ” comment 49 … and nationality has nothing to do with it as ‘australian’ is not something that i have chosen but a label that has been placed on me and is an unnecessary obfuscation to the arguement..
of course i read your statements as ideology as consumerISM postmodernISM modernISM are all philosophical ideologies
” I’m really not interested in winning arguments, but only in engagement. ” so through our entire discussion you have had no interest in finding out the truth or convincing me that i am wrong…???
have you never had any interest in commenting as to the truth of the israeli conflict as you saw it …??? but wanted to just engage?
your first statement (comment 6) was
“I think there are absolutes, but that absolutes are limited to things like “violence is wrong” rather than “X is right and Y is wrong”
this is an arguement Bec designed to express a truth… (by the way couldnt x be love and y be say… racism or similar making x right and y wrong?)
August 15th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Abtruth,
There are plenty of people that reject labels society places on them. I disagree that nationality has nothing to do with it - nationality has plenty to do with it, as it’s a social construction and shifts depending on where allegience and identity lie, the interests at stake etc. Consider just a few of the conflicts presently occurring in the world… If I am to critique ideologies and reject labels, that applies to nationalism as well.
I believe I might have used the word “consumerist” unintentionally in post 47, since it’s immediately followed by the word “consumer”. Are you sure you’re not unnecessarily obfuscating the argument??
In any event, it should by now be more than clear that when I refer to ISMs I’m referring to cultures as much as anything else.
Re: “engagement” and “argument”…I see it like this, Abtruth - there are those that “engage” in argument, and really want to consider other views and fully engage with them. Then there are those that engage in verbal tennis, that are simply waiting for a hole in an argument to pounce on.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:40 am
Perhaps an agreed definition of Post Modernism is required so that we are all talking about the same horse. It seems from your comments Bec that you’re PM is different from what AB is talking about (and vice versa of course)
One of the most basic underlying principles of Post Modernism (PM) is that it claims that there are no truth absolutes – e.g. truth is relative – it is true for you if you want it to be; truth is relative; true for you but not for me.
In abbreviated terms PM(absolutes do not exist).
One of the most basic underlying principles of Christianity ( C) is that it claims that there are absolutes of truth – e.g. there is only one way to God through Jesus.
In abbreviated terms C(absolutes exist).
Can PM and C exist? Yes of course we can see that both PM and C exist in our own world everyday. But can C and PM be true? Most PM thinkers incorrectly use the logic of both/and when such reasoning is illogical and self-refuting.
Is PM and C the same thing? Obviously not as they are opposite by definition. So the logical reasoning to use is either/or. Either C is true or PM is true.
Can PM and C be compatible with each other? Opposite by definition.
The Law of Non-contradiction. Something which is A cannot also be non-A. It is a test for falsehood.
If you believe that PM exists – then that is a belief in the same way I believe atheism exists.
If you are aware that you are affected or impacted or influenced by PM then that shows you are cognitive of your surrounds and in touch with reality.
If you believe in the underlying and basic tenets of PM and hold those tenets to be a fact then you are not only making a truth statement you are thereby self-refuting your own beliefs.
C is diametrically opposed to PM.
Absolutes versus Non-absolutes.
Both cannot actually be true (Law of Non contradiction) One must be false.
If you believe in C then by this very belief you are opposing PM. So to say you believe both actually shows that you believe in non-absolutes and you are more post-modern than you thought and rely on illogical reasoning.
Jesus said ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ ( Jn 14:6) – all that He says is true and nothing He says is false - anything that contradicts what He says is by definition false.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Veritas, the definition of postmodernism i work with is that it is suspicious of meta-narratives, of claims of absolute truth… it doesn’t say there are none.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:07 am
yes cheryl PM is suspicious of absolute truth claims but this is where Christianity make many claims.
There is a God
All have sinned and fallen short of Gods absolute standards
Jesus is the way the truth and the life
There is a white car in my driveway
not only is PM suspicious of truth claims and metanarratives (the Christian worldview or metanarrative is claimed to be the absolute truth for all people in all cultures in all history) but it also has a different definition of truth and how we find the truth… Bec was sort of there when she asked me about ‘how it corresponds to reality?’ what she should have been asking is what is my definition of truth…
Christians believe in a correspondance view of truth and PMs believe generally in a constructionist view of truth.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Cheryl, that’s the definition I work with too.
Abtruth - when you say:
There is a God
All have sinned and fallen short of God’s absolute standards
Jesus is the way the truth and the life
The postmodern Christians in my community might ask:
What do you mean when you say “God”?
What do you mean by “sin”?
What do you mean when you say Jesus is the way, the truth and the life?
This questions do not deny that there is Truth, they are merely endeavour to go beyond these rather glib statements and try and find the meaning behind them. One of the things I treasure about being part of a community that is comfortable with postmodernism is that we have had people ask “was Jesus really Lord?” Those who are define postmodernism as you do would react strongly to such questions - in fact, on this thread I have felt that several negative comments have been made about my faith and my intellect. Those who regard postmodernism as being at odds with Christianity run the risk of driving postmoderns away from the church and leaving them to struggle along with their faith journey on their own. I speak as one who has not only experienced it herself, but has seen this play out time and time again. The fact that I call myself a Christian, and I go to church, means that I believe there are some absolutes - but that does not mean I am not interested in asking what they are, in questioning them. Not all forms of postmodernism lead to a destructive void - postmodern thought can also be life-giving, empowering, and emancapatory in that it encourages active enquiry. In short, I would regard PM as incompatible with Christianity if I believed Jesus had commanded us to turn our brains off.
Abtruth, you said you know what truth is because it corresponds with reality. Hence I did not perceive there to be any need for you to define what truth was - I thought that you were defining it right there. Do you want to define it further?
I still don’t know what you mean when you say truth “corresponds to reality”. This conversation emerged from a conversation about conflict, and I said that the one thing I have learnt from working in post-conflict situations is that different people have different perceptions of reality. So to say that “I know it is true because it corresponds with reality” is somewhat circular for me - different people have different truths and different perceptions of reality. Of course I am suspicious of those narratives - I would not be a good social researcher if I wasn’t!! This is not to say, however, that there is no truth, no discernible facts.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:03 am
“the one thing I have learnt from working in post-conflict situations is that different people have different perceptions of reality. So to say that “I know it is true because it corresponds with reality”
true bec and there are often two irreconcilable views with wrong on both side but it is the Christian view that the heart of man is decietful and will try and justify their position as being right when they could both be wrong…
The postmodern Christians in my community might ask:
What do you mean when you say “God”?
What do you mean by “sin”?
What do you mean when you say Jesus is the way, the truth and the life?
these are proper questions not limited to PM and are asked and answered even within Christianity
stuck for time more this arvo
August 16th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I didn’t know where else to put this…
Dogfight at Bankstown got a mention in today’s Crikey Mail’s ‘Blogwatch’.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
He He good work Saint
August 17th, 2006 at 12:48 am
So with a bit more time
“One of the things I treasure about being part of a community that is comfortable with postmodernism is that we have had people ask “was Jesus really Lord?”
why do they have to be comfortable with postmodernism to ask such a question.? anyone interested in truth would ask such a question and those who are of a mind to enquire ask such questions as “why does anything exist in the first place” and “why should we believe anything at all?” … these are questions of basic philosophy that are answered coherently and completley with correspondane to the real world within the Christian framework of belief … without any need for reference to PM … and in fact come up with completely different answers to PM because of the basic difference in epistemology between PM and Christianity…..
“Those who are define postmodernism as you do”
I have not defined postmodernism rather i have given a few of its fundamental tenets… although it is possible to provide a fairly accurate characterization of postmodernism in general, since its friends and foes understand it well enough to debate its strengths and weaknesses.
as a philosophical standpoint, postmodernism is primarily a reinterpretation of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge…. it represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self and other notions. On a postmodernist view, there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason and so forth… All these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices and, as such, are relative not to individuals, but to social groups that share a narrative.
postmodernism denies the correspondence theory, claiming that truth is simply a contingent creation of language which expresses customs, emotions, and values embedded in a community’s linguistic practices…. for the postmodernist, if one claims to have the truth in the correspondence sense, this assertion is a power move that victimizes those judged not to have the truth.
What is the Correspondence Theory of Truth???
in its simplest form the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case… truth obtains when a truth bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth maker:
truth bearer ——-> correspondence relation ——–> truth maker
what is the truth bearer? The thing that is either true or false is not a sentence, statement or other piece of language, but a proposition. A proposition is, minimally, the content of a sentence… eg “It is raining” and “Es regnet” are two different sentences that express the same proposition. … (please don’t ask me to define a sentence…) sentences are true just in case they express a true proposition or content.
Richard Rorty (one of the most famous postmodern philosophers) said “Truth cannot be out there cannot exist independently of the human mind because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there….Only descriptions…can be true and false.”
you say
“postmodern thought can also be life-giving, empowering, and emancapatory in that it encourages active enquiry”
but this is enquiry from within a postmodern epistemilogical framework which in its foundational tenets is opposed to truth claims… any cursory reading of Micheal Focoult Richard Rorty or Stanley Fish will confirm this.
you say
“I would regard PM as incompatible with Christianity if I believed Jesus had commanded us to turn our brains off”
I appreciate the smiley face but you have just said that i have turned my brain off as i don’t see it as compatible… I would regard PM as compatible with Christianity if Jesus had said… “I am A way, one of Many truths that only exist as social constructions”
The epistemology of PM provides a way of viewing the world in opposition to Christianity because of its fundamental tenets which denegrate the truth claims of metanarratives in general and the Christian metanarrative in particular along with Christian truth claims… Christianity does not exclude questioning and enquiry however…
i really don’t think you have understood the point that any worldview that sets itself up separate from the Christian worldview takes away from the Christian worldview… it is possible that your understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Christianity are not as sophisticated as your understanding of PM and thus think that Christianity is in need of PM or that your understanding of PM is conflicting with a Christian straw man…
I think your readiness to identify yourself as PM or even ‘consumerist’ (when you may mean that you just happen to consume things as a matter course in a western culture) belies a misunderstanding on your behalf of the totalisation that PModernIST and consumerIST entails…
By adopting the monika of ‘consumerist’ you identify allegience to a view of how life works…
Consumerism is not merely a way of life, it is increasingly recognised as a framework through which people find their identity and sense of belonging in society. it is the dominant feature of the culture we live in and affects all areas of life at home and in work.
Christians are called by Gof to be ’salt and light’ in society… if we are to take this command seriously and be zealous for the reputatuion of God’s character in our day we must test the ’spirit of the age’ and analyse the forces and ideologies that shape our culture… if we don;t then there is a real danger that we become so accustomed to our consumerist cultre that it. rather than the covictions at the heart of what God has called us to be, shapes our lives….
modernism used to be the spirit of the age but now it is a blend of consumer/materialism with postmodern underpinnings that corrode the intellectual philosophical epistemological nature of our ability to know anything as truely true
August 17th, 2006 at 8:55 am
just an after thought - i am wondering how ’suspicion of metanarratives’ or suspicion of anything at all for that matter can be a tenet of postmodernism.. how does one believe in suspicion.. we should all be suspicious of every truth claim until it proves itself to be true in a correspondance way
this implies that suspicion or cynacism is only available in the realm of PM and that everyone else is gullible…
gullability and suspicion is endemic in all belief systems… PM is a belief system that attempts to explain the world and is itself a regime of truth that we should be suspicious of, and gullible people continually take the doublespeak of PM as truth