(This post was cut from the thread ‘Christianity - the only way?’, mainly because the conversation had been squeezed to the point of unreadability by the threaded comment structure.)
It used to be said that Christianity was about believing five impossible things before breakfast. Now I see that the honour has passed to the postmoderns. It is possible to believe conflicting claims without rejecting any of them.
Maybe a way out of this impasse would be to consider the possibility of evaluating narratives against each other. Which narrative seems to offer the best account and most convincing world view - a way of understanding how the world came to be, its design, and people’s place in it?
Andrew says:
“Salvation in biblical terms is not the salvation of mankind in a universal sense but the salvation of this particular people - at least, that would be my argument.”
I don’t think Andrew intended the Calvinism latent in this statement - rather, as I understand it, that salvation was a historically determined event relating to the survival of a particular group of people through a particular historic crisis, and that it was never worldwide, universal or timeless in its immediate meaning and application.
This is another narrative, which is an interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures as fulfilled in the New Testament. Assuming that it does not claim to be the only valid interpretation, it would also need to be evaluated against other interpretations: with the same criteria as those used in the forming of world views - ways of understanding how the world came to be, its design, and people’s place in it.
I still find the traditional Christian view to be the most convincing - powerfully effective - and relevant to people who are willing seriously to consider it.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
“It is possible to believe conflicting claims without rejecting any of them.”
A claim without context means little. But to be clear, for me, anyway, it is not a matter of believing conflicting claims without rejecting them, but simply a matter of seeing/listening to the multiple, universal and unique claims that are circulating.
It seems to me that there is a rather large cadre of people that are unable/unwilling to even look at or just listen to the multiple claims. They even go so far as to deny that there are or even can be multiple, unique and universal claims. Many seem to think there is One and Only One possible claim to Universality.
I’m simply saying stop, look and listen. As an empirical matter and an auditory matter, there are multiple, unique and universal claims circulating. I am not personally asking anyone to believe in all of them or any of them—just to recognize that they are there whether you like it or not.
We can evaluate the various competing narratives all day long. Ultimately, though, faith in one claim over another is not a product of comparative analysis. Trust, not comparison, is the stuff of faith.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein’s ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
“Let’s take a look at the evidence,” said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden.”In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, ‘And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, ‘But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.’ If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling.”
Taken from the Onion, September 28, 2007.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
Jacob - maybe we should do the same with each others’ comments. Eg earlier from myself:
“Judaeo-Christianity is not simply one narrative amongst many others - but a universal narrative. It can certainly take its place alongside other narratives, and must listen respectfully to other narratives besides itself. But it cannot pretend to be just one more narrative, with no greater or less validity than any others.”
To quote from yourself:
“We can evaluate the various competing narratives all day long. Ultimately, though, faith in one claim over another is not a product of comparative analysis. Trust, not comparison, is the stuff of faith.”
On the contrary - there is very little such evaluation. And trust is based on reasonable evidence - in which evaluation must take its place.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
“On the contrary - there is very little such evaluation. And trust is based on reasonable evidence - in which evaluation must take its place.”
I know people that have a strong trusting, loving faith in Christ and they came to this relationship without comparing Jesus’ claims and with little “reasonable evidence” apart from the Bible and the traditions in which they were raised.
Comparison and evidence are most often, I’ve found, after-the fact rationalizations of what people believe. Most people, I would venture to say, came to their faith; then, they began comparing it to other faiths and building evidence to support/challenge their own beliefs.
I would say that trust is trust and evidence is evidence—nothing says the two most go hand in hand. I can have a great degree of trust with little evidence and conversely, one may have tons of evidence and little trust.
Moreover, the desire to show evidence for one’s faith is not Biblical per se, but a modern epistemological standard that we often feel we have to meet.
Evidence, apart from what the Biblical text says, is a means of devaluing the written scriptures. So, I say that the Holy Bible has all the ingredients for a whole and undivided life. The extra-Biblical evidence that you suggest should be up for evaluation is superfluous. The Bible and faith in Jesus do not require such extra-Biblical supports.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
It used to be said that Christianity was about believing five impossible things before breakfast. Now I see that the honour has passed to the postmoderns. It is possible to believe conflicting claims without rejecting any of them.
I see this very differently. I do not see two claims of universal narrative as conflicting. I see two human constructs which are inherently incomplete because humans are incomplete laying claim to something impossible to claim. Even if “Christianity” is the “one and only one way”, who is to say that your Christianity is the right Christianity? Or mine? Or anyone else’s? There is hardly what we could call consensus within this universal narrative of ours.
Maybe a way out of this impasse would be to consider the possibility of evaluating narratives against each other. Which narrative seems to offer the best account and most convincing world view - a way of understanding how the world came to be, its design, and people’s place in it?
How does this reconcile with the notion of “faith”? This sounds more like trying to apply the scientific method to concepts, ideas and realities which are inherently impossible to render replicated and falsifiable experiments against. A battle royale to see which religion is “the most right”. Who would be qualified to judge such a contest? There can be no objective arbiter in such a comparison.
I still find the traditional Christian view to be the most convincing - powerfully effective - and relevant to people who are willing seriously to consider it.
Powerful? Yes. Effective? Yes (when it isn’t being corrupted by human ambitions). Most convincing? Really? Why? This seems to get deep into a nature vs. nurture area of socialization. Christianity “seems most right” to me largely as an accident of birth. I was born into it. So, as I grow, and learn more and think more, I find that the Christianity I was taught is intellectually lousy, inherently hypocritical, and borderline morally bankrupt. Do I abandon Christianity? NO! I dive deeper and search for a better way, a better narrative. Will I ever find the “best” narrative? No. I will always be human (while on this earth, anyway).
Most relevant? Sure, to a Christian society. But why is it inherently most relevant to those for whom the idiom and allegory are foreign and unfamiliar?
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
jhimm - your comment is a mixture of syncretism (all roads lead to God) and postmodernism (there is no truth except my truth and your truth).
I am not saying that Christianity is the one and only way, or that my Christianity is the right Christianity.
I am saying that the biblical narrative provides a narrative of narratives - or metanarrative. It says that YHWH is the one true God, and all other gods are idols. It provides a Jesus who is Lord, not just of his own people, but of those who are unaware of him, and those who reject him. Hence “Every knee should bow, in heaven and earth on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” - Philippians 2:10-11.
Of course that is provocative. It sent Christians to their deaths in thousands in the Roman empire. But it does not allow for a position where there can be ‘your God and my God’ existing as complementary truths alongside each other.
I also sympathise to an extent with your final comment. The Christianity which was in itself a critique of contemporary Judaism (which had a tradition of such internal critique - as per the prophets), should also be self-critiquing today. It is always in danger of being culturally hi-jacked.
emergence or suppression?
"Your comment is a mixture of syncretism (all roads lead to God) and postmodernism (there is no truth except my truth and your truth)."
This isn’t really my conversation, but.. Peter, why does your statement remind me of George Bush warning the American people against critics of his Iraq policy who want to "cut and run"? Syncretism isn’t willy-nilly whatever-ism; it’s a serious attempt to reconcile two or more different systems of thought and belief. Some would argue that medieval Christianity syncretized Jewish and Greek thought, or that evangelicalism syncretized Reformed theology and Enlightenment positivism. These movements weren’t consciously planned out; rather, they "emerged" in ways that could not have been anticipated or predicted from the starting conditions.
I’m sure I don’t understand everything about postmodernism, but to caricaturize it as unmitigated subjectivism is to miss the point altogether. Questioning the criteria for asserting the truth or meaning of a text or the intentions of an author certainly presents a challenge, even a threat, to established systems of epistemology and hermeneutics. However, the so-called postmodern critiques of objectivity are valuable in uncovering hidden subjectivities — subjectivities that are often motivated by insularity, the will to power and the suppression of dissent.
"I am not saying that Christianity is the one and only way, or that my Christianity is the right Christianity."
You’re certainly asserting the first half of what you deny here, aren’t you, in the rest of your comment? A good part of the online discussion in emerging circles is what constitutes "right" Christianity. In your following paragraph aren’t you asserting the parameters of right Christianity? What you wish to disavow is that right Christianity is only your Christianity — that it’s more than just a matter of personal opinion. You want to assert that right Christianity can be identified objectively by analyzing the evidence. You might regard this is the proper way to proceed, but there are those who would regard this approach as paradigmatic of evangelical syncretism and its characteristic Modernistic biases.
Why must the conservatives always end their diatribes by invoking the blood of the martyrs? Isn’t there an implicit comparison of the PoMo syncretists with the murderous Romans? Isn’t there also an implicit threat: you’re either with us or against us?
"self-critiquing… is always in danger of being culturally hi-jacked."
Again with the violent imagery, Peter. Sometimes a warning can be interpreted as a threat, like the Mafia boss who offers to protect you from criminals.
Re: emergence or suppression?
Well - I know I’ve descended into the OST hall of infamy when I’m being compared to George Bush.
What a lot of comments - from Jacob, jhimm and John. I’ll try to package the replies all into one comment.
First - syncretism. John - you employ the term much more broadly than I had intended, or than I believe is its normal meaning. It normally refers to attempts to harmonise different religious beliefs and religious systems - on the assumption that they will all be found to have one common ground and meaning, if it could be found. It does not mean the same as ‘synthesize’ - which is the word that comes to mind in the illustrations you have used.
As far as I know, syncretism has nothing to do with George Bush’s Iraq policy. I’m simply pointing out something that some find distasteful - that Judaeo-Christianity denies the possibility of religious syncretism, and asserts its uniqueness as a metanarrative. I notice that nobody disagreed with the examples I picked out of Old and New Testament.
No, I’m not caricaturing postmodernism, and I agree with your description of the strengths of some postmodern discourse: “postmodern critiques of objectivity are valuable in uncovering hidden subjectivities — subjectivities that are often motivated by insularity, the will to power and the suppression of dissent”. That’s very well put.
I have never entered into a discussion about what is ‘right’ or ‘not right’ Christianity. That’s just a rather lazy way of dismissing critical discussion. I am simply pointing out that there is something self-contradictory about taking such clearly particularist belief-sytems as Judaism or Christianity, and trying to make them into something else. Half of the Old Testament is about Israel being rebuked for adopting the practices and beliefs of other religions! Half of the New Testament is about exhortations to Christians not to compromise with Judaism on the one hand, and Emperor worship on the other.
“Why must the conservatives always end their diatribes by invoking the blood of the martyrs?”
I’ve no idea - was this meant to be a comment on me or anything I said?
Christians went to their deaths in the Roman Empire because they abjured syncretism - they felt it was incompatible to make religious offerings to Caesar as Lord and at the same time be loyal to Jesus as Lord. Conservatives, diatribes and invocations don’t come into it.
In the gloomy and confusing forest of postmodernism, a comment such as ‘there is no truth except my truth and your truth’ is a profoundly illuminating proposition. Evidently it touched on a raw nerve.
‘in danger of being culturally hi-jacked’ a threat ‘like the Mafia boss who offers to protect you from criminals’? Which subtext of the text are you reading?
Finally, I agree with Jacob, in general, that people making faith-choices have generally not waded through extensive comparative research into different religions. But I do assert that people making such decisions do so on the basis of evidence - of one sort or another. It is possible to evaluate evidence - to compare one set of findings with another. I maintain that there is not a great deal of such comparative activity going on. Even postmoderns sitting round the campfire and telling each other their stories are in a position to adopt somebody else’s story - or its conclusions - and make it their own, if they want to. But that presupposes a willingness to sit down and listen. Given that as an attitude - we can change our narratives, and we are indeed not automatons. But that does not deny the power and hold of narratives over our lives.
I don’t really know why I got onto this thread - Oh yes, it was because I was struck with the need to respect and listen to each others’ narratives in a presentation I attended on the middle east. I think the best way to do this with ‘universalising’ narratives such as Islam and Judaism, for instance (though the latter is not the primary narrative which is being invoked by Israel) is to accept them for what they are: exclusivist and universalising metanarratives - rather than make them into something they are not. Oddly, I don’t think anyone on the thread disagrees with this. Actually, I doubt whether contemporary Judaism is universalist and exclusivist - but that’s another issue.
Re: emergence or suppression?
I have said nothing of the kind, which is why I found your accusation (?) of such a position rather bizarre. All I am suggesting is that all truth is truth no matter on what path you find it. I would not identify myself as a Christian if I did not believe that the Christian faith had something unique to offer - I would be a Unitarian in that case. I am not in any way suggesting that Christianity may not in fact offer significantly more truth than any other narrative. All I am saying is that any ownership of truth that Christianity has cannot exclude other faiths from also laying claim to some aspect of the truth. Whether they do or do not, and how much of it they have, is a completely separate, and largely uninteresting discussion - especially from a post modern context.
I am absolutely not trying to make either Judaism or Christianity into “something else”. (Talk about vague?) I am simply pointing out that there is something self-contradictory in the belief that one narrative is not only better than all the others, but trumps all the others entirely simply because people choose to interpret certain passages in such a manner.
Half of the OT is about Israel being rebuked for adopting the practices and beliefs of other very specific religions - religions with some very specific, very disturbing practices. Judaism and Empire worship are also quite specific. To extrapolate this to de facto explicitly rebuke and exhort complete isolation from any and all other religions strikes me as problematic at best. To compare Ba’al worship or the Roman religions to Buddhism or Taoism is a drastic over-simplification.
Is this supposed to be ironic?
If I radically mis-represented your point of view in an over-terse summation of my interpretation and critique of your perspective, wouldn’t that ‘touch a nerve’? I never said anything remotely like “there is no truth except my truth and your truth”. What I said was, the way in which I may express truth as I understand it does not negate or conflict with your understanding of truth simply because you choose to express it in different terms. There is no denial of truth there. Only a denial of an ability to know truth entirely (which Paul freely admitted to), and a refusal to by into the notion that the narrative is more important than the truth is describes.
How can you on the one hand agree that very little comparative research goes on at the individual level and on the other hand insist that in spite of this lack of research, individuals remain in a position to make choices based on apparent evidence? How can evidence be apparent without comparative research?
You are correct, I believe, in concluding very few people on this thread would disagree with this notion. Where we disagree is on the notion that somehow one is being disrespectful, not listening and somehow striving to change what someone else’s narrative is by refusing to buy into the decidedly non-post-modern notion that truth exists, and is purely objective, and therefore conflicting claims to an exclusive, universal meta-narrative demands that at most one can be “right” and the rest must be “wrong”.
There is a long road between such an idea and some kind of universalist, pluralist, syncretizing of all these narratives into one unber-narrative built on some lowest common denominator truth. I see no one advocating anything of the kind here.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: emergence or suppression?
jhimm - you seem to have become very upset with some very innocuous comments. Why do you think I am trying to accuse you of anything? In an attempt to disentangle some of this, here are some things you have said, and my responses to your comments.
You said:
“I do not see two claims of universal narrative as conflicting. I see two human constructs which are inherently incomplete because humans are incomplete laying claim to something impossible to claim.”
- I think syncretism may be overstating things, but the implied direction of the comment seems to me to be syncretism. No need to get upset about it. If that wasn’t the implication - tell me what you did mean (if it wasn’t syncretism).
You said:
“I am absolutely not trying to make either Judaism or Christianity into “something else”. (Talk about vague?)”
- “something else” (my comment) is anything other than “particular” (of Judaism/Christianity). It’s not a case here of better or worse, just that on their own terms, Judaism and Christianity don’t allow for incorporation into a harmonising synthesis with other religions. I agree, you could make the point that religons exist now that didn’t then, with which Christianity, for instance, might harmonise. I doubt it, however; the claims of Jesus for himself, and the traditional view of the church about Jesus, bring him into direct conflict with other religions, when you look closely into what they are saying. Bhuddism and Taoism are somewhat different in not being, in essence, religious systems - though it’s arguable that Bhuddism has become that.
You said:
“I never said anything remotely like “there is no truth except my truth and your truth”.”
- It sounded like it to me. Thank you for your correction, and apologies if it misrepresented you. But what you go on to say sounds like saying we would all agree on a deeper level if only we could find the right words to express it. Isn’t another alternative that people do substantively disagree, and that one view may present a better or more accurate picture of things than another?
You said:
“How can evidence be apparent without comparative research?”
- Evidence can of course be apparent without comparative research - but oddly, you seem upset about something with which we are in agreement, that comparative research would be a good thing! However we probably disagree about the possible outcome of such research: that not all explanations of the way things are equally compelling.
You said:
“Where we disagree is on the notion that somehow one is being disrespectful, not listening and somehow striving to change what someone else’s narrative is by refusing to buy into the decidedly non-post-modern notion that truth exists, and is purely objective, and therefore conflicting claims to an exclusive, universal meta-narrative demands that at most one can be “right” and the rest must be “wrong”.”
- You seem to be saying what you originally denied having said or believed: ‘there is no truth except my truth and your truth’. However, I’m not entirely sure what you are saying - and would appreciate some help here.
BTW In the light of your concluding ‘strapline’ - interesting that Jesus’s last words on the cross were “It is finished” - John 19:30 (literally - “It is perfectly perfect”) . Or maybe it wasn’t? I wouldn’t want to appear inflammatory!
Re: emergence or suppression?
I think maybe Jhimm got caught in the backwash of my inflammatory comment triggering Peter’s response, which was quite even-handed considering that I compared him not only to George Bush but also to a Mafioso.
Syncretism is surely a relative construct, viz. the Roman Catholic Church’s reluctance to open the Communion table to non-Catholics and the tendency in American Christianity to form new schisms over seemingly trivial doctrinal differences. Frequently those in favor of schismatic purity regard the outsiders as syncretists.
Peter asserts certain core components of the biblical narrative: there is only one god; Jesus is Lord even of those who don’t recognize him. Even those who acknowledge the Bible as inerrant don’t all agree on both of these points. Then there’s the question of how the Biblical text itself should be regarded: is it wholly the word of God, or is it alloyed with the word of man in some unspecified proportion? Yahweh’s petulance and jealousy regarding the neighboring gods, for example: is it His real call to remain resolutely separate from all other religious traditions, or is it an all-too-human competitivenes projected onto God? Peter says, "on their own terms, Judaism and Christianity don’t allow for incorporation into a harmonising synthesis with other religions." Is it possible to envision a harmonizing synthesis of contemporary Judaism and Christianity? If so, must anything short of the Jews’ acknowledgment of Christ as Lord be deemed syncretistic?
"It is finished” - John 19:30 (literally - “It is perfectly perfect”) . Or maybe it wasn’t? I wouldn’t want to appear inflammatory!"
Well I’d say the parenthetical translation is a theologically charged interpretation of a much more ordinary Greek word. I’d say "It is finished" is a better literal translation — or am I being syncretistic?
Re: emergence or suppression?
‘tetalestai’ is an emphatic form of the tense which doubly reinforces the sense of conclusion, or perfection/fulfilment/completion. But it’s so tight in here, I can scarcely breathe.
tetelestai
I don’t know — I thought it was the perfect tense, referring to an action that has been accomplished and continues in that condition. So, rather than it was finished, the perfect becomes it is finished. So: the debt is paid, the job is finished, the mission is accomplished, the life is over. But then Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and the Greek is a translation.
Tetelestai
Now there’s a bit more breathing space, could you explain why tetelestai is an ‘emphatic form of the tense which doubly reinforces the sense of conclusion’? Isn’t it simply, as John says, the perfect of teleō - ‘it has been finished’? The force of the perfect in this context is simply that an action begun in the past has been completed in the present. 2 Tim. 4:7 is another example: ‘I have finished (teteleka) the race’.
Re: Tetelestai
This comment has been moved here.
Re: emergence or suppression?
I’m glad that on top of everything else you now seem to think I am both emotional, and unable to read clearly. That’s heartening. For what it is worth I am not upset, just frustrated at the endless repetition and clarification, since it does not seem to be helping.
This sounds an awful lot like an accusation, to me. Maybe I am using that word in an unusual way. But (mis)labeling my perspective with a pair of words which are clearly pejorative (to you) seems to be accusing me of… something. Heresy? Intellectual laziness? I don’t know. Since you’ve mis-paraphrased me, mis-represented post-modernism and assigned motives to my comments that don’t exist I could only speculate, which I am trying to avoid.
Maybe I’m reading tone into certain things which aren’t intended, but comments such as the above come off as taunting or gloating.
The problem here is this bit: the implied direction of the comment seems to me to be. There is no implied “direction” to the comment. I am not making statements which are moving in a direction toward some hoped for conclusion (or even an unhoped for conclusion). I am simply making statements.
As a reminder, you define syncretism this way (since there is apparently some debate on how the term should be defined):
I am not trying to harmonize anything. I am trying to suggest there there are more than two sides to this coin. That the truth before is us not as simple as “we are in” and “everyone else is out”. But you still insist that
And so there is essentially no room for conversation here, which is why we are at cross purposes.
A great many Buddhists and Taoists would be shocked to discover that they are, in spite of their own beliefs and practices, not religious people!
I am sorry that either I am not expressing myself clearly, or that I am expressing myself in a way that is difficult for you to follow.
It is impossible to know which view is “better” or “more accurate” because such an observation would require an objective point of view, which is impossible for any human being to obtain, as well as an objective reality against which to compare it, which we have no means of determining exists or not. There are no words we could use to express ourselves that would suddenly bring all mankind into a complete and total understanding of the complete truth. There may very well be one and only one truth. The likelihood that any given human written narrative expresses that truth completely and without flaw is exactly zero. That does not deny truth, nor does it assign truth a personal meaning for me and you separately.
I remain baffled as to how a person can see evidence which suggests narrative A is “better” than narrative B without engaging in some kind of comparative research to generate such comparative evidence. That aside, I have never said that all explanations are equally compelling. I have only said that I reject the notion that all explanations are mutually exclusive.
That is because you continue to assign motivations and interpretations which do not apply. You repeatedly assume that I am attempting to construct an argument towards universalism/pluralism/syncretism when I am doing nothing of the sort.
If narrative A contains ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 narrative B contains ideas 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 narrative C contains ideas 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and they all claim to be the universal meta-narrative, how do we ignore/discount the overlap?
That is all I am saying. I am saying it because you seem to be asserting that the Bible presents this notion
Christianity contains ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and all other narratives must therefore not contain any of them because Christianity is the one and only universal meta-narrative. Maybe what you are really thinking is this?
Christianity contains idea 1. Therefore no other narrative can overlap with it, or lay claim to any aspect of it.
Luke 23:46 46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.
Mark 15:37 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last.
Mathew 27:50 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
I don’t know. There appears to be some debate on what his final words were.
I’m done, this has ceased to serve a purpose.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: emergence or suppression?
I can now reveal to an astonished world and an attentive audience on OST, agog at the unfolding drama of rapier-like cut and thrust of theological debate, that jhimm and I do actually agree with each other. You can’t see it on the surface, but at a profound level, hidden from the gaze of the theological non-adepts and uninitiated, a perfect harmony is masked by only the outward appearance of disagreement.
I also agree with everything that Andrew, John Doyle, Jacob, and Paul Hartigan have said, and everyone else that I’ve occasionally crossed swords with on this site.
I hope that covers everything and leaves everyone in a state of peacefulness and goodwill to all men, that we can all sleep peacefully in our beds tonight. (Or tomorrow night - depending on when and where the sun rises for you).
Have a happy post-modern day!
Re: emergence or suppression?
Is it just my browser, or is this thread literally turning into a thread, each column of text being only one or two words wide? It makes all of us look like bad poets. Talk about linear reasoning!
Re: emergence or suppression?
Yup. We are all bad poets. I can see the criticism coming already… “The emerging church moves into poetry – and it isn’t very good.”
Re: emergence or suppression?
This would be more of that smug, taunting thing I was talking about earlier.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: emergence or suppression?
I’m now curious. Can this string get any thinner? What happens to theology when it is extremely horizontally compressed? Now perhaps we will get to really find out how many threads can fit on a point (literally of ‘no dimension’ as in mathematics).
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: emergence or suppression?
Maybe the OST platform is equipped with AI technology designed to keep the syncretists on the straight and narrow.
Re: Christianity - the only way?
“There is no truth except my truth and your truth” is a wildly inaccurate summation of both my position and the philosophy of post-modernism.
Since you clearly have a fixed position on the topic, discussion is unproductive and uninteresting.
For what it is worth, I was not asserting a position, but offering new ways of looking at a very problematic aspect of theology. I do not have the answers, I simply believe that the long established orthodox position has ignored its own problems for far too long and anyone wishing to be intellectually rigorous about their faith cannot continue to blindly accept it. If the internal inconsistencies can be resolved, I would love to eventually be able to re-embrace the very comforting and simple idea that there is one and only one path to truth. It is a much easier way to live life.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.