Protestantism

» Brother_Jones - The Diligent Post-Modernist

In response to The Diligent Post-Modernist posted by pink101:

But, if we're truly out to understand Christianity, we must--as diligent post-modernists--deconstruct it.

Who be a diligent post-modernist? In so corrupt and ignorant an age as this, the good opinion of the crowd is injurious. (Montaigne). The criteria of one who supposes himself/herself as postmodern is what?

Before I would allow my friend to take it upon himself to lecture me about Christianity I think I would need some kind of a definition of Christianity that most Christians and even non-believers should agree. But he starts with a wrong notion about the bible and about shame and guilt, I think. Few have ever actually read the entire bible who claim to follow Christ. So what are most Christians actually saying about the bible. The claim concerns the words that came to them from the bible about Jesus Christ and the change in their lives. Pinky would disagree with almost anyone who feels somewhat repentant in comparison to the example of Jesus. He sides with all those who choose to believe that faith should make you feel very good about yourself and only a coward or a religionist would attempt to stand on the idea of repentance for personal sin. So I would suggest a number #1 being that Christians believe the word of God is revealed to them through Christ. (Even if they haven't read the entire library of books called the bible.) And #2 that all human beings fall short of the glory of God and as a result need a Savior.

i am the Lord's oldtimer.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - The Diligent Post-Modernist

In response to The Diligent Post-Modernist posted by Brother_Jones:
.
Thanks. I'm glad you jumped in with your comments.
.
I was hoping that something like your post would have been the first response to my openers here.
.
Before we can take anything apart, we have to have it in front of us as it truly exists in reality.
.
Here's what I posted:
"#1, the Bible as the Revealed Word of God, and
.
"#2. ... all human beings are guilty of sin and deserve to be swept into Hell?"
..
And, Here is what Brother Jones Posted:
.
"#1 being that Christians believe the word of God is revealed to them through Christ. ...
..
"#2 that all human beings fall short of the glory of God and as a result need a Savior."
.
I don't want to nit pick you, Brother Jones; but, it is important to get a good grasp on what you're saying. So, if I follow you correctly, you are intimating that falling short of the Glory of God must have some consequence that requires a savior. So, would you rework your statements with mine in order to get a more comprehensive statement? It looks like we're both making incomplete statements. And, maybe they could be combined a little more accurately.
.
And, wouldn't you say that the part of your second requirement that includes the need for a savior actually constitutes a third requirement in and of itself?
.
Maybe we can work this out so we can get some sort of consensus by all parties concerned before we wander off into tangents?
.
In respect to your opener here, The criteria of one who supposes himself/herself as postmodern is what?. I'll take a stab at that. Post-modernism is a complicated subject and there are different answers to your question. You and I are both of us post-moderns in one sense of the word. For the intent of this thread, I think it can safely be said that the main criteria is that one has this unrequited desire to know what makes something tick. We seem to want to take everything apart to see what it is. So, A post-modernist, in this sense, would be a person who deconstructs. They do not start out on any subject with the preclusion that it is of no value. But, it can be said that they want to know all they can know about it before they accept it one way or the other.
.
In this sense, why would anyone be unhappy to see their sound beliefs taken apart? The proof is in the pudding.
.
Right?
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - The Diligent Post-Modernist

In response to The Diligent Post-Modernist posted by pink101:
to get a more comprehensive statement?
and...
and deserve to be swept into Hell?"
How can you ask for a more comprehensive statement, when the premise of your statement is false.... ? (rhetoric)..
Can you show us in the Bible where it is stated the people "deserve to be swept into hell"....
no.. I doubt you will, because it does not exist.. but then, give it a post-modern whirl....
something to consider - do you deserve to eat? I mean, after all, God gave you life....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Reread The Exchange

In response to The Diligent Post-Modernist posted by _Boanerges_:
.
I think you need to reread the exchange between Brother Jones and myself here.
.
Do you have something to add or would you like to amend anything that either of us has posted so far?
.
We're open to any suggestions.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - The Diligent Post-Modernist

In response to The Diligent Post-Modernist posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Two sentence parts copied from one of my posts up above are quoted in Wendell's above post which is shown here in full::
#1. "to get a more comprehensive statement?"
.
and...
.
#2. "and deserve to be swept into Hell?"
.
Here is your response in italics with mine in regular type style, Wendell:
.
How can you ask for a more comprehensive statement, when the premise of your statement is false.... ? (rhetoric)..
.
I guess I don't know how to respond to that statement. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
.
Then you continue with
.
Can you show us in the Bible where it is stated the people "deserve to be swept into hell"....
.
Probably not; but, we're not talking about what's in the Bible--we're talking about the structure of Christianity. The Bible appears to only be part of that.
.
and, you continute again,
no.. I doubt you will, because it does not exist.. but then, give it a post-modern whirl....
.
This is a thread that is attempting to give a post-modern perspective. So, I guess that's what it is, "a post-moder whirl...".
.
something to consider - do you deserve to eat? I mean, after all, God gave you life....
.
This last line asks me to consider if eating is a human right. And, then, you emphasize it with what you mean. After everything else has been considered, the fact remains that God gave us our life.
.
So, do you mean that we are, therefor, indebted to God in some definable way? And, then, can you tell us what that debt is and how we should dispense with it?
.
I'm trying to be careful in how I state my response here. I hope I don't leave anyone with any misunderstandings.
.
Is what you're saying actually one of the foundations of Christianity? How should we word it to have in our comprehensive picture of Christianity?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Crucifix - preChristian symbols

In response to Crucifix - preChristian symbols posted by Migisi:

All this shows is that different people and faiths have used the cross as a symbol. It does not speak to the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion. It does nothing to counter that which is overwhelmingly accepted by historians (Christian and non-Christian alike), namely that Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate in Judea in the first century.

» Brian Tubbs - Non-Christian religions

In response to More good stuff posted by pink101:

Migisi started it. She loves to argue that Christianity is all myths and fables based on the fact that OTHER ancient religions are myths and fables. She's doing the same here w/ regards to the crucifixion. Post #7 is a prime example.

Her "logic" is basically...

*There are numerous fables and/or religious myths of "deathless mortals" who die in some way connected directly or indirectly with a crucifixion.

*Jesus is associated with a crucifixion.

*Therefore, Jesus is also a fable or myth.

This is clearly fallacious. It's a hasty generalization for one thing. For another, it comes close to Dicto Simpliciter, in that it seeks to apply a general observation to a specific case even though there is no evidence to support this association.

Bottom line: this is a non sequitir. The fact that there are religious myths and fables from antiquity that speak of crucifixions, resurrections, or whatever does NOT necessarily translate into Christianity being a fable.

The early church did not pick the cross, Migisi, because it depicts "shame." The early church seized the cross as an important symbol, because that's what Jesus was crucified on.

Period.

» _Boanerges_ - The Diligent Post-Modernist

In response to The Diligent Post-Modernist posted by pink101:

Is what you're saying actually one of the foundations of Christianity? How should we word it to have in our comprehensive picture of Christianity?

In post-modernism, I suppose it does not matter, as you are not really discussing Christianity. It appears you are only discussing what others claim to be Christianity.

Do we deserve anything? Here is a quick definition of 'deserve'

to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.
-verb (used without object)
2. to be worthy of, qualified for, or have a claim to reward, punishment, recompense, etc.: to reward him as he deserves; an idea deserving of study.

According to this definition, the only thing a Christian deserves is salvation, to which God commanded us to claim....

The bible does not teach the we "deserve Hell".. That is the false statement I mentioned. It does not really matter if you (meaning whoever) wish to mask it with what others claim. In this understanding, people claim all kinds of things.. this does make a thing so. As an example - a person has told me they do not believe that 40mph is right for a stretch of road that is a highway. They believe it should be 55. But, nonetheless, the law states that is is 40. It really matters not what a person claims, but rather, what is the fact of a matter.....

Otherwise, the topic of this conversation has no basis, nor merit, nor any real purpose, as the claims would never end..... nor would the conversation... That is, until the definition of 'post modern' changes... and by its very definition, it will. So then, in the end, the premise is vanity and ever changing. Accordingly, there can never be any truth in the ongoing discussion (as it relates to title thread) because of the very foundation of what post-modern stands for.....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Crucifix - preChristian symbols

In response to Crucifix - preChristian symbols posted by BrianTubbs:

that Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate in Judea in the first century.

and also including Caiaphas - the high priest

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - The term Postmodernism

The term Postmodernism (sometimes abbreviated Pomo[1]) was a reaction to modernism (not "post" in the purely temporal sense of "after"). Largely influenced by the disillusionment induced by the First World War, postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmoderni...

Deconstruction is a completely separete subject entirely.

Deconstruction is a term in contemporary philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, denoting a process by which the texts and languages of Western philosophy (in particular) appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within themselves. Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960s, and proved more forthcoming with negative, rather than a pined-for positive, analyses of the school.

Subjects relevant to deconstruction include the philosophy of meaning in Western thought, and the ways that meaning is constructed by Western writers, texts, and readers and understood by readers. Though Derrida himself denied deconstruction was a method or school of philosophy, or indeed anything outside of reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to describe Derrida's particular methods of textual criticism, which involved discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying-and unspoken and implicit-assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief, for example, in complicating the ordinary division made between nature and culture. Derrida's deconstruction was drawn mainly from the work of Heidegger and his notion of destruktion but also from Levinas and his ideas upon the Other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruct

-- posted by _Boanerges_