At 09:55 AM 6/19/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:
>(1) I had posted: "Good Christians are to be
>found on both sides of the issue; that fact
>leads me to hold that none of the arguments are "irresistible."
>
>Janice commented: " The criteria that makes a
>biblical argument irresistible is the use of
>sound hermenutics. Plenty of "good Christians"
>couldn't even define the word let alone engage
>in them.You injected the generalization ("good
>Christians") into the mix as if the subjective
>opinions of biblical illiterates/relativists
>should be used as a criteria -- ie: carry equal
>weight with the opinions of respected scholars.
>The epitome of postmodern thinking is in its
>rejection of the law of noncontradiction, e.g.
>each person's "truth" carries equal weight -
>there is no standard. The quintessential example
>of postmodern thinking in academia is the denial
>that any text has a fixed meaning, or that the
>intention of its author can be known.
>
>Me again: "I take it that your claim is that
>those favoring your preferred position are, for
>the most part, "using sound hermeneutics" and
>all those on the other side are not doing so.
>Perhaps so, I am unqualified to say. But I am skeptical of such a claim."
>
>Janice: "You're funny. First you set up the
>straw man (my claim) then knock it down. Only
>illogical/uncritical readers fall for those sorts of tactics."
>
>Me again: Yes, I am often funny. In this case I
>inferred from your posts what your claim was. I
>assume from your answer that such is not your claim. Fine.
>
>I have studied under and interacted with
>postmodernists. I do not share their views; none
>the less I do not agree with your characterization of them.
@ You've "studied" under them ??? :)
Well, if you have ever interacted with true
postmoderns, you can't legitimately deny the, "it
may be true for you but not for me" (relativistic
denial of the law of noncontradiction)
characterization of them. These are the icons of postmodernist thought:
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean- François
Lyotard, Richard Rorty, et.al.. You've not heard of them???
The first pillar of postmodernism is its
epistemological belief that there is no reality
independent of the linguistic interpretation of
our personal experiences. The second pillar of
postmodernism is its linguistics belief that we
literally create our own worlds by the speech we
employ in describing and interpreting our
experiences. The third pillar upon which
postmodernism rests is its embrace of the pragmatic. ..
Postmodernism repudiates foundationalism, which
is "the idea that knowledge can be erected on
some sort of bedrock of indubitable first
principles" (Erickson, 1998:18). The fact that
postmodernists object to all controlling
metanarratives is indisputable. Walsh (1995:138)
is pointed: "It matters little whether this
scheme is an abstract metaphysical system or a
comprehensive metanarrative of history; both are
equally suspect to the postmodern mind." The
rejection of foundationalism is at heart a
rejection of authority (cf. Van Huyssteen,
1993:373). This is evident from the volatile
language employed by postmodernists. Words such
as imperialist and terrorise are employed to
describe grand narratives (cf. Derrida, 1981:34; McGrath, 1996: 189-190).
Radical Relativism - Once there is a denial of
objective truth, the inevitable consequence is
relativism. ....Cooper (1993:111) adds that
relativism is popularised in the cliché "it may
be true for you but not for me". He explains
relativism in detail: Relativism begins with the
obvious fact that human beings hold a wide
variety of differing and often conflicting
beliefs about basic issues. Some believe in God,
others are atheists, some think that killing
humans is always wrong, others willingly
sacrifice their own children, some cure diseases
using modern medicine, others do so with
spiritual rituals… Relativism moves from the fact
of apparent irreconcilable differences amongst
people to the conclusion that there is no single
standard of truth normative for everyone… Since
truth and values are relative, the views of all
people are to be tolerated and respected. ...
Cherished Pluralism - Pluralism reserves a major
role in postmodern thought. Newbigin (1989:1)
refers to “cherished pluralism”, while McGrath
(1992:362) puts pluralism in
perspective: Pluralism…is nothing new. What is
new is the intellectual response to it: the
suggestion that plurality of beliefs is not
merely a matter of observable fact, but is
theoretically justified-not only in intellectual
and cultural life in general, but also
particularly in relation to religions.
... Carson (1996:13-19) lists many branches of
pluralism, such as: empirical, philosophical, and
cherished pluralism. Therefore, it is noticeable
that we can speak of various aspects of
pluralism. For instance, cultural pluralism
cherishes a variety of cultures within a
particular society and acknowledges that it leads
to enrichment. There is also intellectual pluralism (McGrath, 1992:363),
Religious pluralism, on the other hand, is the
belief that differences between religions are not
a question of truth and falsehood, but different
perceptions of the one truth (Newbigin: 1989:14)
and according to Carson (1996:19) “no religion
should pronounce itself true and others false". ..
Postmodernism is not only committed to pluralism,
but also to pragmatism. In the modern worldview,
everything had to be rational; today it only has
to work. This is pragmatism and it is not unique
to postmodernism. The reasoning takes the line
that, since objective truth is beyond our grasp,
we should follow the most practical path. Hence,
the new search is not for truth, but therapy, and
well-being (cf. Houston, 1994:186).
Postmodern pragmatism prizes efficiency as the
supreme concept, with an added emphasis on
technique. The all-important question is: Does it
work? Pragmatism also extends to religion. The
role of religion according to the neo-pragmatist
is not to emphasise objective truth; rather
religion should address itself with practical
help for people (cf. Netland, 1994:93). This
pragmatic position views religion as worthwhile,
if it can produce health, wealth, and happiness (cf. Lutzer, 1994:35).
One of the most disturbing aspects of
postmodernism is its movement towards nihilism.
Altizer (1994:1013) describes nihilism as,
"nothing less than the death of the Christian
God, a death of God, which has ushered in our
nihilism, for our nihilism is the mortuary of
God". Henderson (1998:189) comments on the
alleged death of God: "What that leaves us is a
world with no purpose, no centre, no source, and
no hope. This is nihilism, the view that nothing of meaning exists."
[snip] Continue -
Source:
http://www.tbs.edu/papers.php?paperID=2&parentID=18&childID=13&childType=link
>When I wrote that "good Christians" appear to
>not all agree on the issue, I was thinking of
>many I have read (on both sides). I have no
>reason to believe that any of them are "biblical
>illiterates," indeed, just the opposite. Sally
>Geis and Donald Messer published a
>point-counterpoint book a few years back. I
>recommend it. I also recommend the book just out by Jack Rogers.
@ Tee hee. As if what they have to say would be "new" to me???
I already know what left-wingers (including their
"theologians") believe and promote - that's why I
spend my spare time debunking their
arguments. And that includes culture-of-death /
utilitarian arguments like those people you mention make here:
"Christianity has not always had a severe
sanction against suicide," [Sally] Geis noted.
"[Rev. Donald] Messer said he believes Scripture
indicates that God has given humanity a good deal
of autonomy and personal choice, that God is
caring and compassionate and that God has not specifically forbidden suicide."
"In the exceptional case there may be moral
warrants for an appropriate self-sacrifice of
one's own life" ~ Harmon Smith, Anglican priest
United Methodist-related Duke University.
Source: "Is suicide inherently
wrong? http://www.wfn.org/1997/01/msg00031.html
"Caught in the Crossfire: Helping Christians
Debate Homosexuality. Edited by Sally Geis and Donald Messer. Abingdon. 206 pp.
A handbook for teaching about the Christian
understanding of homosexuality, this collection
gathers essays on either side of a set of
divisive issues: homosexual ordination,
homosexual marriage, biblical teaching on
homosexuality, etc. The essays are interesting,
but the editors, in their relentless claim to be
superior to the debate, actually succeed in
teaching only a sort of "super-ethics" that some
readers may think invalidates all the essays in
the
collection. Source:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9512/reviews/briefly.html
"Homosexual behavior, as such, is not sinful. ..
What is holding us back as a church is a false
theory -- that the Bible condemns all homosexual
practice as sin." ~ Jack Rogers, emeritus
professor of theology at San Francisco
Theological Seminary... in an address entitled
"The Church We Are Called to Be" to a conference
of The Covenant Network the key prohomosex
lobbying group within the
PCUSA.) Source: http://covenantnetwork.org/sermon&papers/Rogers.htm
Rogers is accused of deliberate misrepresentations and distortions:
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.: "..Rogers goes on
to attack my work by repeating a blatant
misrepresentation that he had made two years
earlier in a national Covenant Network address
(2001). ....Rogers willfully distorts my
“both-and” argument regarding Scripture and
nature into an “either-or.” He alleges that my
argument actually ignores the special revelation
of Scripture or regards it as irrelevant. Given
that my 500-page book is mostly about Scripture’s
case against same-sex intercourse, such an
allegation is absurd. ..." For
example [snip] continue: http://www.robgagnon.net/ResponseToRogers2.htm
>(2) Janice: "The reason why there are so many
>biblical illiterates is because of the fact that
>the church at large has failed in its
>responsibilities. That's going to change."
>
>Me: I am puzzled. What do you mean by this? I
>agree (generally) with your first sentence but I
>see no general force for change. In our little
>church in Rico we strive always to rectify this
>condition; but it is a general condition and a big problem.
>
>Janice: How do you "strive" to do it?
>
> Me: I'll be happy to answer your question if you answer mine.
@ As you suspect, I already know your answer.
The very last things you would be striving to do
are the things that I listed. Prove me wrong - PLEASE. :)
>When you write "That's going to change," you
>must have had something in mind that was going
>to cause that change. Since I see no credible
>cause on the horizon, I would like to be informed.
@ The pendulum has already begun to swing in the
other direction. The backlash against the
left-wing extremist PC authoritarians is well
underway. If it's happening under your radar,
that is just because you need to get out more. :)
>(3) Previous posts: Don wrote: "The same sort
>of argument that Janice makes to justify the
>condemnation of homosexual behavior can and has
>been made to justify anti-Semitism, slavery and the subjugation of women."
>
>I wrote: "Don -- that is true enough, but
>(speaking as the devil's advocate) that does not
>make them invalid. It is a good argument, to be
>sure, but it does not go far enough.
>
>Janice observed: "The argument used above is
>illogical, so it's not a good argument by a LONG
>shot.. It's like saying that the best way to
>stop misspelled words is to get rid of pencils,
>and the best way to stop people from being murdered is to get rid of guns."
>
>Here is why I disagree: The argument is not
>illogical if one starts with the assumption that
>same-sex intimacy may not, in some instances, be a sin.
>
>If one starts with the certainty that same-sex
>intimacy is, in all instances, a sin, then I
>agree, the argument is illogical. It is because
>of this that I wrote to Don as I did.
>
>Janice then wrote "You continue to be
>funny. You knocked down the strawman you set up
>("if the argument is") and are now attempting to
>justify doing it. Forget your strawman, because it wasn't "the argument"."
>
>Me again. Yep, I'm still funny. But you appear
>(to me) to be inscrutable. It is difficult to
>dialog with you because I simply don't understand what you mean.
>
>Janice again: "THIS simple exegetical question,
>"What relevance does Romans 1:27-8, 1 Cor. 6:9,
>and 1 Tim. 1:10 have to homosexuality?" was "the
>argument". Romans 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim.
>1:10, and Homosexuality James Patrick
>Holding http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html"
>
>Me again: OK, I understand that. Two points. (1)
>As far as I can understand, those passages have
>NO relevance to homosexuality, for the word
>"homosexuality" refers to a condition, and not
>to an action. (2) Holding plows old ground,
>better covered years ago by Thomas Schmidt. It
>is a respectable position to take; I do not
>fault Holding for holding (sic) it. However, it
>is hardly an "irresistible" argument; there are
>Christian scholars who think differently. Jack Rogers, for example.
@ If you choose to accept the novel ideas
of people like Jack Rogers, be my guest. I view
him as just another intellectually dishonest joke.
>I realize you call my point 1 above a "tap
>dance." But it is not possible to discuss any
>issue intelligently unless both sides agree on
>the meaning of words. When the word
>"homosexuality" is used to describe action, as
>is often done by people who don't know any
>better, it leads to unnecessary confusion among
>those who (properly, IMHO) use it to refer to a condition. ~ Burgy
@ You must deal with this ISSUE in an
intellectually honest way and stop the tap-dance.
Below are a couple of excerpts from an article
which I hope you will continue to read at the
link I'm providing. This is reality 101:
Throughout the ancient world, and up to the
recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality
infused virtually all of society. Human
sexuality, especially male sexuality, is
polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than
animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women
and with men; with little girls and young boys;
with a single partner and in large groups; with
total strangers and immediate family members; and
with a variety of domesticated animals. They have
achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as
leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing,
through urinating and defecating on each other
(interested readers can see a photograph of the
former at select art museums exhibiting the works
of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by
dressing in women's garments; by watching other
human beings being tortured; by fondling children
of either sex; by listening to a woman's
disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of
course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts
of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate,
that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of
course, not all of these practices have been
condoned by societies parent-child incest and
seducing another's man's wife have rarely been
countenanced but many have, and all illustrate
what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the
“un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to. ... [snip]
Inventing homosexuality
The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting
all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more
radical, more challenging to the prevailing
assumptions of mankind, than with regard to
homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to
have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in
the ancient world sexuality was not divided
between heterosexuality and homosexuality. That
division was the Bible's doing. Before the Bible,
the world divided sexuality between penetrator
(active partner) and penetrated (passive partner). ... [snip]
Continue here - Why Judaism and Christianity
rejected homosexuality.
<http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
~ Janice
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 19 16:28:11 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 19 2006 - 16:28:11 EDT