tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post7701122359809440130..comments2023-10-31T07:23:17.922-04:00Comments on The Theos Project: Apologetics and Evangelism: A Dialogical ManifestoJonathan Erdmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-1711519310048056902009-06-09T14:50:46.404-04:002009-06-09T14:50:46.404-04:00aaa片免費看豆豆聊天室視訊聊天室18成人網聊天室尋夢園sex情色聊天室找一夜視訊情人高雄網情人視訊...<a href="http://eee478.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">aaa片免費看</a><a href="http://eee479.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">豆豆聊天室</a><a href="http://eee480.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊聊天室</a><a href="http://eee481.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">18成人網</a><a href="http://eee482.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">聊天室尋夢園</a><a href="http://eee483.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">sex情色</a><a href="http://eee484.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">聊天室找一夜</a><a href="http://eee485.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊情人高雄網</a><a href="http://eee486.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">情人視訊網</a><a href="http://eee487.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊辣妹080</a><a href="http://eee488.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">avhello成人電影院</a><a href="http://eee489.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">55123免費aa片室</a><a href="http://eee490.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">A片段觀看</a><a href="http://eee491.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">情人視訊網a</a><a href="http://eee492.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">aa影片下載城</a><a href="http://eee493.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">日本情色 視訊</a><a href="http://eee494.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊交友90739</a><a href="http://eee495.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">免費視訊情人辣妹</a><a href="http://eee496.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">av969 免費短片</a><a href="http://eee497.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">免費色咪咪影片網 a片</a><a href="http://eee498.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">美女視訊</a><a href="http://eee499.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">視訊情色網</a><a href="http://eee500.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">a片免費看</a><a href="http://eee501.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">夢幻家族影音視訊聊天室</a><a href="http://eee502.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">嘟嘟情人色網影片</a><a href="http://eee503.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">土豆網韓劇播放</a><a href="http://eee504.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">性愛姿勢 sogo 色論壇</a><a href="http://eee505.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">美眉共和國</a><a href="http://eee506.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">美女視訊</a><a href="http://eee507.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">色美眉部落格</a><a href="http://eee508.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">男同志聊天室</a><a href="http://eee509.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">免費成人情色</a><a href="http://eee510.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">愛情公寓</a><a href="http://eee511.leebu.org.tw" rel="nofollow">aaa片免費看影片</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-9615605174448273392006-11-07T14:00:00.000-05:002006-11-07T14:00:00.000-05:00As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, arriving at agreem...As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, arriving at agreement on truth even within the Christian community has been problematic. Let's say you enter dialogue with a non-Christian. From your Christian perspective, the high bridge extends across the abyss from your side. Essentially this means extending the Christian worldview across into previously uncharted territory. The non-Christian, on the other hand, sees the high bridge extending from his side of the abyss. Perhaps a Hegelian or a Confucian or a Stoic would hire some independent bridge-builder to start from the middle and work toward both sides simultaneously. <br /><br />But suppose no one tries to build the bridge. Both the Christian and the non-Christian build the best buildings they can on either side of the divide. There is no conflict between the two: neither wants to absorb the other. Can there be conversation across the gap, such that each side helps the other to build the best building he can?<br /><br />This I suppose is my limited hope for conversation. There may be conversion from one side to the other; there may be synthesis -- but let's assume there isn't. Can there be dialogue across the unbridgeable divide, or must both sides resolve themselves to speaking only among one another and never to those on the other side?john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-2784767719290411622006-11-07T12:42:00.000-05:002006-11-07T12:42:00.000-05:003. It's election day back in your country, no? So ...3. It's election day back in your country, no? So here are two realities: those who support the war in Iraq, and those who don't. I happen to be in the second camp, and have been from before the beginning. I know two war supporters. I've tried engaging them extensively in what I would regard as logical, evidence-based discussions of the war. I put forward what I regard as unassailable arguments about why the war is stupid, corrupt, futile, etc. <br /><br />But it's impossible. (These are smart guys, mind.) They see the world from an entirely different perspective. What I consider strong evidence for truth, these guys see as deception. I can't even replicate their arguments because I think they're being deceptive.<br /><br />Time for dinner, but I hope you've had a similar experience. Pro vs. antiwar people just seem to see different realities. Those who move from one camp to another aren't typically persuaded from within their own reality. Instead, they shift entire realities. Time for dinner: can't elaborate further. Hopefully you get my drift.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-10755915031515208342006-11-07T12:34:00.000-05:002006-11-07T12:34:00.000-05:002. This whole Gadamer vs. Derrida discussion has g...2. This whole Gadamer vs. Derrida discussion has gotten way out of hand. I've read lots of Derrida, but as for Gadamer? 15-20 pages tops.<br /><br />Still, I think Derrida presents excellent support for a multiple-realities point of view. The same text can mean something completely different when framed inside a different set of assumptions.<br /><br />Here's Zizek: <i>Postmodern relativism is precisely the thought of the irreducible </i>multitude of worlds<i>, each of them sustained by a specific language-game, so that each world "is" the narrative its members are telling themselves about themselves, with no shared terrain, no common language between them; and the problem of truth is how to establish something that...remains the same in all possible worlds.</i> <br /><br />It's a question of antagonism versus difference. Antagonisms are opposite poles of the same continuum, and so they can potentially be resolved somewhere along that continuum. Differences aren't resolvable so easily because they don't have enough terms in common.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-3845333428244425922006-11-07T12:21:00.000-05:002006-11-07T12:21:00.000-05:001. Your rather dismissive "science-God quibbles" r...1. Your rather dismissive "science-God quibbles" remark certainly positions your discourse within a framework that a lot of other people -- especially scientists -- don't share. But that illustrates my point. In your worldview, you can't see what all the scientific fuss is about; others can't see what all the religious fuss is about. <br /><br />Say I'm trying to make my empirical worldview as "good" and "true" as I can make it. Is it possible for me to benefit from dialogue with a non-empiricist, a dialogue that doesn't degenerate into debate into which worldview is better? And vice versa for the religionist, of course.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-49479477072660266832006-11-07T10:01:00.000-05:002006-11-07T10:01:00.000-05:00So if two people who occupy two separate realities...<i>So if two people who occupy two separate realities engage in dialogue, do the two separate realities get truer and better, or is there some high bridge that links the two, some sort of transcendence or synthesis?</i><br /><br />Within Christian theology the answer to this question would seem to be an emphatic affirmation. (1)The existence of truth, (2)the presence of God in the community, and (3)the guidance of an authoritative canon would provide the "high bridge that links the two."<br /><br />This, of course, can only seem to be a pipe dream in some circles, though. But this, I believe, is why the entire New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the aspect of love, charity, and unity. If a community develops mature, stable, and edifying relationships then the ground is fertile for sincere and productive dialogue. This unity opens up the full utilization of the three factors mentioned above.<br /><br />Interestingly, Christian communities who have only focussed on one or two of those factors and done so to the neglect of others and in a spirit of <i>dis</i>unity have found dialogue rather unnecessary and trite. But the key is a spirit of goodwill and charity within the community of faith.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-58039117771504722632006-11-07T09:55:00.000-05:002006-11-07T09:55:00.000-05:00Well, I'm not a science guy, so I can't give too m...Well, I'm not a science guy, so I can't give too much input into the Science/God quibbles....I've personally never seen what all the fuss was about. Just as in philosophy, I think the Scriptures allow room for different scientific perspectives - but beyond that i'm pretty much useless...<br /><br />Interestingly the issue of truth seems to be a something of a dividing point between Gadamer and Derrida. While I certainly don't see D. denying or even relativizing truth (as some might claim) there certainly is not the same emphasis as in Gadamer's writings. In G. we see a pursuit of truth: dialogue exists to somehow <i>get at</i> truth. (There are passages in G. that can be taken as relativistic, but I think it is just part of his internal struggle between a search for truth and the knowledge of our historical situatedness "horizon".)<br /><br />The differences can easily be overblow due to the conference at which D. seemed to distance himself from G. by talking about a "hermeneutics of suspicion." From what I understand D., himself regretted taking such a hardline against G. So, I think that there is probably more continuity between the two, just with different emphasis: G. being more proactive in trying to attain something (usually truth), while D. seems to focus more on the limiting aspect of "writing" that results in the ability for all language to be deconstructed - based upon its own, internal make-up.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-14841142662061325792006-11-07T09:30:00.000-05:002006-11-07T09:30:00.000-05:00Hey, this is your Manifesto, not mine. I think opt...Hey, this is your Manifesto, not mine. I think option 1 is Gadamerian; option 2 is perhaps more Derridean. I also contend that option 2 is more elohimic -- truth and goodness are relative to the particular created reality in which they manifest themselves.<br /><br />So if two people who occupy two separate realities engage in dialogue, do the two separate realities get truer and better, or is there some high bridge that links the two, some sort of transcendence or synthesis? So, e.g., must empirical science and Judeo-Christian faith remain "non-overlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould argued?john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-20045539426873265832006-11-06T16:31:00.000-05:002006-11-06T16:31:00.000-05:00Interesting thoughts. Your last two questions soun...Interesting thoughts. Your last two questions sound very "Gadamerian." Gadamer, from my readings of/on him seems to think along these lines.<br /><br />But, I can't help but ask: Ktismatics believes in universal truth and goodness?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-3928566574776595432006-11-04T06:00:00.000-05:002006-11-04T06:00:00.000-05:00I can imagine participating in a conversation wher...I can imagine participating in a conversation where I try to hear what you're saying from your perspective rather than my own. So if you speak as a Christian, I do the best I can to construct a Christian perspective, then I put myself inside that perspective as I absorb what you have to say. So in a sense I'm already converted, though it's on an experimental, simulated basis rather than as a firm commitment. Likewise when I speak I can try to project myself into your perspective. I make what I have to say fit into your worldview rather than trying to draw you into mine.<br /><br />Let's say we both converse according to these same principles of engagement. If things like goodness and truth operate on a universal level, then perhaps they can make themselves evident inside our two radically different points of view. Would those two points of view then converge on the one truth? Or would the truth separately enlighten and improve both points of view separately?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-62072744805396205242006-11-03T17:47:00.000-05:002006-11-03T17:47:00.000-05:00Good questions....I think part of openness in dial...Good questions....I think part of openness in dialogue depends, in part, in not trying to pre-determine the nature of that dialogue. I don't know that I am going to always have expectations of having someone change his/her mind - that would depend on the situation. And, to be honest, I don't know that my goal is to change minds and make converts as much as it is to simply present my faith as I understand it and as I have lived it and allow the dialogue to go from there.<br /><br />One problem that I think we Christians can have is to measure the success/failure of a dialogue based on whether or not we make conversions...but I don't really see the numbers game as being a big emphasis in Scripture. There seems to be more of an emphasis on a genuine lifestyle that is lived out and puts itself in the marketplace of ideas.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-12079132091837408362006-11-03T16:51:00.000-05:002006-11-03T16:51:00.000-05:00You've couched this manifesto in terms of apologet...You've couched this manifesto in terms of apologetics. As a Christian engaging in open dialogue you presumably want the other to remain open to the possibility of changing his/her mind, perhaps even to accepting the Christian faith. Does the other have reason to believe you are similarly open to changing your mind, perhaps even abandoning your faith? How open do you think your God wants you to be?<br /><br />I can imagine dialogue that has no interest in persuasion in either direction. The intention is mutually to explore ideas that each person finds potentially enlightening for him/herself. Is that good enough?john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-26476052910572709332006-11-02T15:23:00.000-05:002006-11-02T15:23:00.000-05:00Manifesto? Dude, now your talking! I'll be back he...Manifesto? Dude, now your talking! I'll be back here, but first may I commend this blog on general principles: interesting, diverse, well-written, engaging, courteous, principled. I'm pleased to be a frequent guest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com