Comments for Apologia Christi

Comment on A mosque at Ground Zero? by Josh

Josh — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:42:41 +0000

I tend to agree with your position more and more…

Comment on A mosque at Ground Zero? by Reggie

Reggie — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:01:53 +0000

Are all Muslim’s terrorists? Perhaps if neo-nazi’s put a tribute to Hitler in Holocaust remembrance sites people would be rightly offeneded. In like manner if Neo-Alqaeda errected a tribute to Bin Laden people would rightly be offended. But not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Muslims see the Jihadists vision as a valid form of Islam. If we as residents of the United States want to persist in these stereotypes there is no possibility of healing between our civilizations. Therefore, the mosque should rightly be built in recognition that such stereotypes will not be authoritative. The first ammendent freedom of assembly would be in serious jeopardy if a mere stereotype is going to stand in the way. Therefore, it seems as if your analogy falls apart and it would seem in fact that the best way to overcome the stereotypes would be the building of the mosque.

Comment on Does a metaphorical Jesus follow from a metaphorical Adam? by the paradox of “literal interpretations” (and how to stop being perfect) « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:00:02 +0000

[...] Does a metaphorical Jesus follow from a metaphorical Adam? (apologiachristi.com) [...]

Comment on Does a metaphorical Jesus follow from a metaphorical Adam? by Literal Genesis, Metaphorical Jesus | timothymichaellaw

Literal Genesis, Metaphorical Jesus | timothymichaellaw — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:08:09 +0000

[...] Does a metaphorical Jesus follow from a metaphorical Adam? (apologiachristi.com) [...]

Comment on The Plurality of Truth, Mortal Sin or Divine Blessing? by Plutarch and θεόπνευστος | Unsettled Christianity

Plutarch and θεόπνευστος | Unsettled Christianity — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:46:41 +0000

[...] The Plurality of Truth, Mortal Sin or Divine Blessing? (apologiachristi.com) [...]

Comment on Modernism, postmodernism and then what? by Josh

Josh — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:44:12 +0000

You are absolutely right. Philip Clayton addresses this to some extent in his ‘Transforming Christian Theology’ (which I haven’t read, only skimmed). I would like to add, that I am deeply impressed, after engaging post-Enlightenment theologians, with their profundity, analysis, and creativity. Of course my point is that we should investigate how others, not burdened by the legacy of the Enlightenment, integrate natural and supernatural and what they do with epistemology.

Comment on Modernism, postmodernism and then what? by Dave M

Dave M — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:36:01 +0000

“We may begin this liberation of ‘the Church from Western Cultural Captivity’ by listening to non-Western voices from within Christianity that do not carry the burden of a modernist past.”

A question: As much as I welcome the reading of sources outside of the Western tradition – and I certainly do – I can’t escape the fact that I am informed, both explicitly and implicitly, by certain theological traditions within Western Christianity that have formed me. Certainly, in some ways these traditions have formed me in ways that are more “culture” than “Christian” and it’s very helpful to read sources from outside of that trajectory to shed light on that.

But I think a larger problem is that no one reads – anything. There are lots of theologians who are within the Western tradition but who can’t talk intelligently about the leading lights within that tradition. Most people who don’t have some formal theological training will avoid theological reading all together. I think that presents pastors and theological educators with a conundrum that I haven’t figured out how to work with at this point.

Comment on A quick thought on the impact of postmodernism on Christian Apologetics by Robbert Veen

Robbert Veen — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:12:14 +0000

I doubt it. Saying that there is no truth is not the same as saying that there is a truth, i.e. that there is no truth which would be self-contradictory. It could mean that I know what truth means, but there is still no instance of it. My use of the meaning of the word truth would not contradict my negation that none is to be found, or that none hasn’t been found yet.
I think that the pragmatic contradiction i more important – and might even be more persuasive to postmoderns – When I say, speech is impossible, the meaning of my statement is not logically wrong, but it is contradicted by the act itself.
Furthermore, even if it were logically self-contradictory to claim that there is no truth, does that help us to establish that there is absolute truth? isn’t there a difference? When we talk about the existence of God e.g., isn’t that meant to be an absolute truth?
My last paragraph was about the effect that this reasoning would have on postmoderns. Wouldn’t postmodern Man be inclined to cheerfully accept the argument, thank you for your wonderful magic and then forget about it? (The ‘hearer of the Word’ in James 1:24 comes to mind.)
Thanks for responding! It wasn’t meant to take up all of your time…. :-)

Comment on A quick thought on the impact of postmodernism on Christian Apologetics by Josh

Josh — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:50:51 +0000

Robert, I did not understand the past paragraph in your comment. However denying absolute truth is not just impossible in a pragmatic sense. It is so in a logical sense. Not being able to do so proves that there is such a thing as absolute truth. It is an important hint for truth.

Comment on A quick thought on the impact of postmodernism on Christian Apologetics by Robbert Veen

Robbert Veen — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:02:05 +0000

I tend to agree with your idea that there is no escape from affirming an ‘absolute truth’ either way. That is a valuable and basic metaphysical insight: the scep[tical argument against truth is self-contradictory in a pragmatic sense. One can say without logical contradiction that there is no truth, but one cannot “exercise” that position, i.e. make that claim in a conversation without contradiction. After all, the sceptic expresses a position which he thinks is true.
I wonder however how persuasive such a metaphysical argument would be in the current situation. It requires a kind of faith in reasoning since we trust the outcome of a series of reflections without being able to fully grasp the implications.