Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
August 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Wazza
I can prove conclusively that PM is evil. But unfortunately, I cant give you the information on this blog. In my culture it is sacred information that can only be transmitted verbally from Father to son.
I still expect you to respect my culture and my truth, however.
ROFLMAO
snide? maybe/not but you actually have a strong point there
Bec
JFYI FWIW logic may have been codified by western thinkers starting though with Aristotle but things like the law of non contradiction for example are principles accessable to all through all time and relied on to make sense of anything
August 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
wazza -
I read 112 again, I can’t see how it is elitist. You say “…but it is difficult to say”. I strive to avoid being elitist, and I take that accusation seriously. I would appreciate it if you would determine what you want to accuse me of and why before you throw such an insult out there.
And maybe I say “I don’t totally disagree with you but…” because I mean it. I can usually see both sides of things. I have been told by several spiritual mentors that I am a “bridge builder”, and that’s been used in a positive sense. In my work I am very inter-disciplinary/cross-disciplinary -and sometimes I piss people off because of that (ie I have a foot in both anthropology and law, which is both one of the strengths of my research AND one of the key sources of criticism). That’s who I am, and some people actually like that.
As for “back peddalling”…I make no apologies for changing my mind about things. I don’t have rigid views on everything that’s discussed here. I’m young with an enquiring mind, and I believe the best way to learn is through engagement. The absolute worst case scenario is that someone with a vendetta digs up something stupid I’ve said here in 10 years time. Big deal. I’m sure I’ve said far more stupid things on the pages of internationally published journals.
If I lived in fear of saying something stupid, or changing my mind about something, I’d never say anything at all.
Yes I have heard of the Sokal affair. Ever heard of the Ern Malley affair? I find it highly entertaining that “Ern Malley’s” poems are still part of the Year 12 syllabus, and not only because of the social context, but because of the debate about their literary value.
As for “provoking and digging into the limits of my world view”…does it not strike you that that’s a rather condescending and elitist approach to take? Did it not occur to you for a moment that “provoking” someone is arrogant and elitist?
August 6th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
abtruth,
I haven’t studied philosophy (other than some political philosophy), but I have a basic understanding of logic. I’m not saying it doesn’t have a place - I definitely think it does. Like I said earlier - I’m a lawyer, and not one to deny the extent to which our training/disciplines shape the way we engage!!
However logic can’t be used in every situation…have you ever been in another culture where you are aware of something that completely denies logic? There are things in life we cannot explain using logic, and this is often more so in non-Western contexts than in Western contexts…how does one engage then?
I guess this raises the question of where revelation fits in too - something I *really* don’t have any settled views on!!
August 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
You’re a lawyer, Bec? I’m going to be admitted as a solicitor soon! What area of law do you work in?
August 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Bec, the Ern Malley affair showed up the same problems as the Sokal affair.
Did it not occur to you for a moment that “provoking” someone is arrogant and elitist?
No it didn’t, as long as it is an intellectual provocation, or there is some point behind it. In doing so, I may expose my own incorrect assumptions which you may then draw attention to.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Oh, congrats!!
I only practiced for two years (articles + 1), then for a range of reasons decided I should do a PhD sooner rather than later. I’ve worked mainly in public law, and worked in unis and on consultancies on a range of issues to do with law in developing countries. So I get caught between the anthropologists (who are often TOO contextual for my liking) and the lawyers (who often don’t consider context enough).
How ’bout you? What area are you working in.
BTW, did I see you on facebook??
August 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
wazza - re: Ern Malley - the point I was getting at is that Ern Malley was a joke, and yet Ern Malley is remembered better than the poets behind “him” (erm…I can’t remember their names right now). There is truth in Ern Malley’s poetry even though it was a complete pi**take.
I have no problem with robust questioning, but that’s different to sarcastic, snide “provocation”, which I think is juvenile. I would certainly be extremely unimpressed if I saw it in my community of faith, or a conversation around my dinner table, or at an academic conference.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Yes, that’s probably me on facebook.
I’m currently working in finance, even though it’s not my background and it’s not really my thing. I’m hoping to find a placement doing criminal law somewhere since I’ve almost finished the coursework component of the College of Law.
Frustrations aside, the work you’re doing sounds rather interesting.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
oh…don’t get me wrong…I LOVE my work!! Plus there’s not many people doing what I’m doing, which is partly why I get criticised…nobody’s quite sure which box to put me (aside from the specialists in my field - my supervisor has had all these experiences too!)
Crim, eh? Good luck - it’s quite competitive to get into, isn’t it?
August 6th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
btw…wazza, refereeing isn’t anywhere near as rigorous as examination of a thesis. There’s also problems with any verification process - the fact that “one slips through” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a common occurrence, nor does it mean that one can write anything about anything.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
no Bec i havent.. have you? i would love to be made aware of an instantiated example of something that defies logic.
do you think that God can defy logic?
August 6th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Hey SILENCED BY THE LAMBS
come back and play
yours truly
The AntiChrist
August 6th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
have you ever been in another culture where you are aware of something that completely denies logic?
no Bec i havent.. have you? i would love to be made aware of an instantiated example of something that defies logic.
do you think that God can defy logic?
Didn’t know you were God, abtruth. Thanks for clarifying.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
well three is one, and one is three seems to stretch logic a bit.
Fullness of God is in Christ, yet God holds all the universe together, seems to stretch logic a bit.
Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father yet also resides in us, that also seems to defy logic.
Or perhaps you have an alternative view of logic?
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 3:06 am
While our God may stretch our minds I find nothing incoherent about our God as Trinity.
Could you for example, be assured that our heavenly Father hears your prayer without the incarnation and Christ’s redemptive work and the work of the Spirit?
Can you even say that God is love, that God is holy, God speaks….
August 7th, 2007 at 3:11 am
sure I say all of those things, and I am sure God hears everyones prayers, as God is God, and hears everything. But to act like our logic is capable of containing the fullness of God is ridiculous.
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 7:23 am
I’m not sure you understood my question Rev - and it goes to your analogy.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:13 am
No, I am not sure I understand your question either, because the question you asked I answered.
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 8:45 am
abtruth,
so you have never lived in a community where, say, people talk about the little men that run around at night and steal things (and genuinely believe it - it’s not something told soley to kids), or in a community where people genuinely believe that some people can fly? You can dismiss these things all you like, but the fact is that they are very real to entire communities, national populations…
Or what about my (Christian) friend who says she sees people that I can’t see? What am I to make of that? Or what about my other friend who says that she can “see” people’s sin (she certainly seems to be able to…she “knows” things that others don’t)? I’ve never experienced anything like this myself, and I have mixed feelings about it, but I can’t entirely dismiss it - and it certainly defies logic.
As for the God thing - I worship a God who is beyond human understanding.
Saint, I don’t understand what you’re on about either.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I have no problem with robust questioning, but that’s different to sarcastic, snide “provocation”, which I think is juvenile. I would certainly be extremely unimpressed if I saw it in my community of faith, or a conversation around my dinner table, or at an academic conference.
I apologise for the offense my comments have caused you Bec, and I assure you that my intention was not to cause offense. I will take your comments into account for the future.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:56 am
If sarcastic and snide mean to invite derision on someone and to make cutting remarks that are in some way derogatory, I assure you that was not my intention.
Would this comment fit that description?
Didn’t know you were God, abtruth. Thanks for clarifying
August 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am
David you are a dickhead
Rev - no offence but it is you who has the alternate view of logic
there is a difference between illogical and counter intuitive
the trinity is counter intuitive but not illogical
Jesus can sit at the right hand and be in our hearts if he is an omnipresent being quite easily and is not illogical at all
and as for containing God that is another misunderstanding of the whole topic.. God is constrained by his nature.. he cannot deny himself by going against his own justice or righteousness for instance..
neither can he do anything illogical
for instance God cannot make a square circle or make 3+3=7
August 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am
So perhaps you use different words, but I say God is often illogical to us.
God is love
Love is not jealous
God is a jealous God
Jesus limited his divine attributes, yet he was still fully God, but also fully man.
Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
The fact is that logic is a construct of man, it is the working out of our understandings of what is true. God exists beyond this, transcends our feeble understandings. When we define, and codify the transcendent creator of the universe, I believe we always make him in our own image.
Btw, don’t call me a dickhead I might cry, or I might break your arm, or I might forgive you, seems a bit risky.
rev
August 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
or in a community where people genuinely believe that some people can fly? You can dismiss these things all you like, but the fact is that they are very real to entire communities, national populations…
Yes, but when the rubber hits the road you have to have some rational way of acting. So if someone is heading out the window of a 20-storey building, you should stop him. He might say “Its alright, in our culture we can fly”, but you have a responsibility to say “Unless you can give me credible evidence that you have that power, I must restrain you under the assumption that you are deluded”.
The above is not meant to insult the views of people who believe they can fly, or their fellow-travellers.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
David you are a dickhead
Right back at you, tiger.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
David you are a dickhead
Salutations to you too, abtruth. How are you this fine day?
August 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
abtruth,
call me dumb, but to me it looks like you’re using “logic” in a different way at different times. Are you using the philosophical meaning, or the colloquial? If the former, then I don’t see how the trinity is logical.
wazza - re: “flying” - I’ve never heard anyone claim that they themselves can fly, I have only heard the view expressed that someone else can fly (I have heard this in relation to a warlord who is much feared). What about my other examples? What would you say if you were sitting in a room, and someone said to you that they could see someone sitting in a chair which to you looks completely empty? I’m serious - this has happened to me…it’s rather unsettling, especially when it comes from someone who’s usually entirely rational and logical (and I use those terms here in the colloquial sense).
August 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
btw wazza - re: your question at 171 - I’m sure you’re big and tough enough to sort out your issues with David yourself.
I also think that God is God and he/she can do whatever the hell he/she likes. I’m sure that includes changing the way in which human beings talk about and define shapes and maths.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
logic like maths physics geometry etc etc was not constructed by man but codified by man
it was there whether we were there to know it or not
how many corners can God add to a circle before it ceases to be a circle
the way Rev and Bec talk is that logic is more akin to grammer…
August 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Do you need to be antagonistic? Because I am not interested in fighting with you.
Man has tried to codify everything, somethings it works, sometimes it does not. The fact is God is beyond any logic our brains can understand. Again, it seems very apparent to me, that you in fact are arguing for a modern approach to epistemology, rather than a Trinity centred one, which believes that God is above, and beyond all that we can imagine.
rev