Protestantism

» redback - Bias

In response to Bias posted by BrianTubbs:

To all.
We can dissect Christianity along the 10 identified points and more but can you add the prism (if still relevant) of post-modernism as a factor so this slow-moving Aussie can see its relevance. In an inclusive 'social discourse', I really need self-contained discussions, not ones dependent on me first reading a cited book, while the topic speeds past.

Christianity's impact on the world, external pressures on Christianity's capacity to deliver its goods are parts of a broader, complex, indeterminate mix it seems to me. Each period in history brings its own challenges to that mix. If parts of this mix have labels of convenience, so be it. Issues of substance are more complex than labels.

Has post-modernism of whatever persuasion, created in Christianity, a loser or a battle-scarred winner? If so, by what indicators?

Of course, all this alludes to perceptions of Christianity and what it's role is or needs to be on this Earthly coil. There is a point to add to the ten in this. Christianity is presumably greater than the sum of its ten parts, so I suggest an umbrella point.

My clumsy posts only seek a better understanding.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Perceptions

In response to Bias posted by redback:
.
Jeff brings up the idea of perceptions regarding Christianity.
.
It looks like there are two major perceptions of Christianity available for expression--Christian and non-Christian.
.
Does understanding other religious formats help us get a grasp on the structure of Christianity? Or is it that we just don't want to know what Christianity really is in and of itself? Are we supposed to just bump along in the dark not knowing the finer details and inner workings of what it is in which our society has put so much stock for all of us? We are the products of a 2,000 year Christian tradition in the making if we want to fess up to it or not.
.
As far as Postmodernism is concerned, the usage here is that we are interested in getting a good grasp on what Christianity is rather than just accepting the word as though it represents some solidly understood concept. Isn't it coming to be obvious that even the "Christians" are not in agreement about what it means?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Quoting Wendell

.
Quoting Wendell from post #20 up above:
.
"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. (My bold emphasis, Pink)
.
We cannot be sure if these are Wendell's words or not as it is unclear if he is quoting some other source or not. But, it appears as though he intends them to be appropriate to this discussion thread. I think they are. In fact, it is my intention that we do exactly as is described in the bold face.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - The term Postmodernism

In response to The term Postmodernism posted by _Boanerges_:

We cannot be sure if these are Wendell's words or not as it is unclear if he is quoting some other source or not

Repeating post 20 (wow... looks like some links are attached!)

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. my words added.... ]

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_

» pink101 - "Do Not Disturb" Sign Hangs Out?

In response to The term Postmodernism posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Why do you attach those links?
.
I don't see any quotation marks around any of your statements. And, I don't see that you give any credits to any author or any source.
.
It appears as though you are the author and that the links are shown so that readers can see that the authority involved agrees with you.
.
By the Way, is deconstructing seen as a negative act or is it positive?
.
Doesn't the answer depend on the results of the deconstruction?
.
If, in the final analysis, we are more accurately informed, shouldn't we be thankful that our deconstruction was successful?
.
Or does the prospect of such an exposure frighten those who base their beliefs on structures they are afraid will not stand up to scrutiny? Is that why the "Do Not Disturb" sign hangs out?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - "Do Not Disturb" Sign Hangs Out?

In response to "Do Not Disturb" Sign Hangs Out? posted by pink101:

Why do you attach those links?

because they are the source - wikipedia - of the quotes..

I don't see any quotation marks around any of your statements. And, I don't see that you give any credits to any author or any source.

why bother.. this is not a publication, its a conversation. If you cannot figure out that the quotes are from Wikipedia, it only shows that you did not do your research...

It appears as though you are the author and that the links are shown so that readers can see that the authority involved agrees with you.

Appearances can / and are - deceiving.... Do not be fooled, check out everything...

is deconstructing seen as a negative act or is it positive?

It is positive...

Doesn't the answer depend on the results of the deconstruction?

No...

If, in the final analysis, we are more accurately informed, shouldn't we be thankful that our deconstruction was successful?

If - is a subjective claim... When making "if" statements, the answers will always be subjective. In a logical discourse, starting off a premise with an if, then ending it with a question of fact is a fallacious argument and must be tossed out as such. Maybe you should reconsider your statement to reflect something along these lines:

[when] in the final analysis, we are accurately informed, shouldn't we be thankful that our deconstruction was successful?

Or does the prospect of such an exposure frighten those who base their beliefs on structures they are afraid will not stand up to scrutiny? Is that why the "Do Not Disturb" sign hangs out?

Personal opinions, such as the above statement, only shows bias and not objectivity. I would re-state your statement to read as follows (in other words, you setup an strawman argument - see logic for more info). Additionally, your statement is based from a false premise (fallacious) - therefore - the "or" becomes subjective and ends up a strawman argument....

re-wording your states as follows:

The prospect of such exposure [may] frighten those who base their beliefs on [non]-structures, [which then] - will cause them to be afraid that their [opinions] will not stand up to [objective] scrutiny. [In] this way, there would be no need for a "Do Not Disturb" sign.

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - You Missed, Big Guy

In response to "Do Not Disturb" Sign Hangs Out? posted by _Boanerges_:
.
lol
.
I ask a subjUNctive question and Wendell responds with http://www.jamglue.com/tracks/16368-Ak-4...
.

.
You missed, Big Guy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - You Missed, Big Guy

In response to You Missed, Big Guy posted by pink101:
you are not very subjective, Phil...
It does not take readers long to figure that out....
it appears then that your purpose for this conversation is.. ? what?....

subjunctive
"-Usage note The subjunctive mood of the verb, once used extensively in English, has largely disappeared today. The subjunctive survives, though by no means consistently, in sentences with conditional clauses contrary to fact and in subordinate clauses after verbs like wish: If the house were nearer to the road, we would hear more traffic noise. I wish I were in Florida. The subjunctive also occurs in subordinate that clauses after a main clause expressing recommendation, resolution, demand, etc.: We ask that each tenant take (not takes) responsibility for keeping the front door locked. It is important that only fresh spinach be (not is) used. The subjunctive occurs too in some established or idiomatic expressions: So be it. Heaven help us. God rest ye merry, gentlemen. Were in the phrase as it were, meaning "in a way," is a subjunctive: His apology, as it were, sounded more like an insult."

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Haven't You Noticed?

In response to You Missed, Big Guy posted by _Boanerges_:
.
it appears then that your purpose for this conversation is.. ? what?....
.
You mean this latest go around with you? Why, Wendell, I thought you would have figured that out all by your self. It's to give you the opportunity to expose yourself in front of the readers.
.

.
lol
.
We're taking you apart. Haven't you noticed?
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Haven't You Noticed?

In response to Haven't You Noticed? posted by pink101:

We're taking you apart. Haven't you noticed?

no.. nor does that interest me, nor does it bother me. All that is important is the claims.... All else is vanity and vexation of spirit.....

-- posted by _Boanerges_