Made a BIG Mistake Visiting Revival Meeting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim
  • Start date Start date
ddgently said:
I would not necessarily agree. I don't find it "greatly flawed" philosophically or theologically.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile postmodernism/relativisms aversion to notions of absolute truth?

ddently said:
But here's an uncloaked longing for dialog. YEC, is an intellectually and theologically bankrupt philosophy. I'd like to dialog about how you should change your beliefs to come more in line with reality, and more importantly, Holy Scripture.
Click to expand...

Quit trolling.

;)

rsc2a said:
Odd...one could argue the same thing about Answers in Genesis.
Click to expand...

The "fundies" are assumed to revel in the attitude of obstinance, yet from reading the cited article it seems those that "want to dialogue" use the same technique ("conservative heretics").  What happened to tolerance?  Seems that not so unlike the gay agenda proponents, the POMOs really have a philosophic idealism that replaces the conservative metanarrative.
 
ALAYMAN said:
This thread smacks of....


"God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican."
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to say DOEG!


;D
 
So the question seems to be; who gets to decide how to interpret scripture and when (or if) to take it literally.
 
bump

ddgently said:
I would not necessarily agree. I don't find it "greatly flawed" philosophically or theologically.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile postmodernism/relativism's aversion to notions of absolute truth?
 
[quote author=ALAYMAN]...the conservative metanarrative.[/quote]

???
 
ALAYMAN said:
bump

ddgently said:
I would not necessarily agree. I don't find it "greatly flawed" philosophically or theologically.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile postmodernism/relativism's aversion to notions of absolute truth?
Click to expand...

Of course I can't speak for Donald Miller or any other of my fellow postmoderns or really anyone but myself... but I have absolutely no problem with absolute truth. But I don't think absolutely everything is absolute. Just a lot of things.  :-*
 
Izdaari said:
ALAYMAN said:
bump

ddgently said:
I would not necessarily agree. I don't find it "greatly flawed" philosophically or theologically.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile postmodernism/relativism's aversion to notions of absolute truth?
Click to expand...

Of course I can't speak for Donald Miller or any other of my fellow postmoderns or really anyone but myself... but I have absolutely no problem with absolute truth. But I don't think absolutely everything is absolute. Just a lot of things.  :-*
Click to expand...

And many things that are absolute cannot be proven to be. Hence, relativity.
 
ddgently said:
ALAYMAN said:
ddgently said:
Sounds like maybe there really is more than one kind of heretic!

http://storylineblog.com/2014/03/20/are-there-conservative-heretics-too/
Click to expand...


Postmoderns like Miller are never certain about anything, except that you can be certain that conservatives are wrong about what they know.
Click to expand...

IFB formula for intellectual success, when confronted with ideas that are contrary to your own:

[Convenient Label] like [person whose ideas differ from mine] is/are [predetermined flaw in Convenient Label's thinking].

You never have to engage in differing opinions OR be challenged!
Click to expand...

Actually, fundies like to use labels which create the us vs. them conflict.

(See what I did there? :D)
 
I don't even know what postmodern is  :o
 
Izdaari said:
Of course I can't speak for Donald Miller or any other of my fellow postmoderns or really anyone but myself... but I have absolutely no problem with absolute truth. But I don't think absolutely everything is absolute. Just a lot of things.  :-*
Click to expand...


Confusing things that are rightly relative, like our preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream, with the postmodern relativistic philosophy of folk like Miller does not do justice to the conversation regarding postmodernism's aversion to proper categories of absolute truth.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Izdaari said:
Of course I can't speak for Donald Miller or any other of my fellow postmoderns or really anyone but myself... but I have absolutely no problem with absolute truth. But I don't think absolutely everything is absolute. Just a lot of things.  :-*
Click to expand...


Confusing things that are rightly relative, like our preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream, with the postmodern relativistic philosophy of folk like Miller does not do justice to the conversation regarding postmodernism's aversion to proper categories of absolute truth.
Click to expand...

1 - Throw out a bunch of buzzwords.
2 - ??
3 - Profit!

For realz...have you even read a single book by Donald Miller?
 
I've never read an entire book by Bishop Spong, but I'm certain of what he is, and so is anybody with a pulse and a brain cell.  Now dismiss with the ad hominem and deal with the substance of what I've said.  Or just continue to be rsc2obtuse, as it suits you well.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I've never read an entire book by Bishop Spong, but I'm certain of what he is, and so is anybody with a pulse and a brain cell.  Now dismiss with the ad hominem and deal with the substance of what I've said.  Or just continue to be rsc2obtuse, as it suits you well.
Click to expand...

Actually, you aren't certain of what he is. If you haven't actually engaged in something he personally said and/or wrote, you are certain of what other people claim he is. If you are going to be critical of him (or Miller) then, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to actually look at his own writings. You know...primary sources.

So far, I haven't seen where you've actually criticized anything that Miller has written, only thrown out blanket statements and buzzwords without any type of engagement with his thoughts whatsoever. As was stated previously by another poster:

[Convenient Label] like [person whose ideas differ from mine] is/are [predetermined flaw in Convenient Label's thinking].

You never have to engage in differing opinions OR be challenged!
 
ALAYMAN said:
I've never read an entire book by Bishop Spong, but I'm certain of what he is, and so is anybody with a pulse and a brain cell.  Now dismiss with the ad hominem and deal with the substance of what I've said.  Or just continue to be rsc2obtuse, as it suits you well.
Click to expand...
do you really have to engage in this game of perpetual name calling?
 
Recovering IFB said:
ALAYMAN said:
I've never read an entire book by Bishop Spong, but I'm certain of what he is, and so is anybody with a pulse and a brain cell.  Now dismiss with the ad hominem and deal with the substance of what I've said.  Or just continue to be rsc2obtuse, as it suits you well.
Click to expand...
do you really have to engage in this game of perpetual name calling?
Click to expand...

But we are supposed to dismiss with the ad homs! ;)
 
subllibrm said:
I don't even know what postmodern is  :o
Click to expand...

That's OK, neither do most people. This book might be helpful, as it was written to give theology practitioners a crash course. (I certainly found it helpful in university, when in my last year I had to study all sorts of postmodern critical theories that took this worldview for granted.)

For something a little more up-to-date and theological, there's also this. However, Carson argues that postmodernism is already on the way to obsolescence and being replaced with something else.
 
rsc2a said:
ALAYMAN said:
I've never read an entire book by Bishop Spong, but I'm certain of what he is, and so is anybody with a pulse and a brain cell.  Now dismiss with the ad hominem and deal with the substance of what I've said.  Or just continue to be rsc2obtuse, as it suits you well.
Click to expand...

Actually, you aren't certain of what he is. If you haven't actually engaged in something he personally said and/or wrote, you are certain of what other people claim he is. If you are going to be critical of him (or Miller) then, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to actually look at his own writings. You know...primary sources.

So far, I haven't seen where you've actually criticized anything that Miller has written, only thrown out blanket statements and buzzwords without any type of engagement with his thoughts whatsoever. As was stated previously by another poster:

[Convenient Label] like [person whose ideas differ from mine] is/are [predetermined flaw in Convenient Label's thinking].

You never have to engage in differing opinions OR be challenged!
Click to expand...

Labels are helpful.  Paul used labels all the time, like "wolves", "foolish" and such.  You don't like dogma.  Miller doesn't like dogma.  Birds of a feather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top