<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12953572\x26blogName\x3dThe+Thirsty+Theologian\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dTAN\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://thethirstytheologian.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://thethirstytheologian.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d1980940045914153307', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
I Think, Therefore, I'm Right

I want to encourage you to read the articles by Ron Gleason that I have linked to in the On the Web section in the left column, particularly those dealing with postmodernism. Although the articles themselves are of great value, the following discussion illustrates, better than anything, the bankruptcy of postmodern “thought.” Here is a sample from one of the comments following A Generous Orthodoxy or a Dangerous Heterodoxy?

My faith… is not built on a historical person, character, or event, but a mythological one (myth not in the sense of Greek Mythology, but just the general sense of extraordinariness). For me, the event of the Resurrection is real because i believe it as such (a la Vattimo and Badiou) and that makes it true enough for me. Beliefs and opinions cannot be disproved.

If the resurrection is proven totally false, what would you believe in?

i've already told you: the Christ of faith. If i had to exclude Christianity, i would not know. There are too many religions out there that are interesting to me.

If by exclusive, you mean all these religions claim to provide ways to "salvation", wouldn't, by laws of logic, that one or all of these are misleading? If by inclusive, the rest of the listed religions claim that all religions can lead to "salvation" and there exists exclusivistic religions, wouldn't, by the law of non-contradiction, that these religions are also misleading?

Exclusive means simply that adhering to that religious faith, one could not adhere to any other one because that faith defines itself as being the sum total of religious faith (and therefore, all others are absolutely false). Inclusive means simply that the above is not true.
Also, don't try to bring Greek philosophy to non-Greek theology. Faiths aren't logical.

How would one, theoretically, "fall under the lordship of Christ", as a satanist?

Satanism doesn't trust Satan, but some kind of pervasive force (like Star Wars). The concept of a God in satanism is agnostic and irrelevant to that faith. Belief in a God (or Christ) doesn't affect the core beliefs of satanism. The Christian religion wouldn't like it too much because of the misconceptions of satanism, but that's not the Christian faith.

A person could be a Satanist and a Christian simultaneously. If you have a problem with that, it is because of your misconceptions about Satanism. It gets better.

Based on what you said, can I say that your view of faith is akin to a phenomenon we medical people describe as "the placebo effect"?

You're right.

How does one determine which story is more powerful or, in a more pragmatic sense, will assist in your salvation?

The community to which i belong.

I think you do hold quite firmly to your definition of faith but I can argue that the content of your faith, at least as you have presented, remains quite illogical. Yes, I know that's a claim using greek philosophy. Why bother with logic? Sure, why not, except that it does govern all our thoughts.

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Religious faith is illogical. It is faulty to try to make it logical that one runs into problems. i believe Paul, Kierkegaard, Badiou, Vattimo, and others all say that faith does not require logic. Belief itself is always illogical. i can't prove God, so instead of trying to make "God" a conclusion of some argument, it is better to just assume "God" and put that in the assumptive set...and go from there.

Perhaps I should approach this question another way, why would you place your faith in someone who didn't exist? How would you define faith anyways? Who is this christ in whom you place your faith?

Faith is belief. It is validated by one's adherence to that belief. It does not require logic. In fact, the moment it becomes logical, it is no longer belief, but fact. It's not that the someone in whom i place my faith is non-existent--my belief makes that someone exist....although not necessarily historically. It is impossible to believe in non-existent things as my belief makes them real for me.

Did you get that? It is impossible for this postmodern to place his faith in something that doesn’t exist, because his faith is the agent that makes it exist. He is making a god of himself. Whatever he believes is true just because he believes it. “[Belief] is validated by one's adherence to that belief.” I was going to use Scripture to demonstrate his error, but now I don’t have to. I believe he is wrong, therefore, he is.

2005-11-14 at 12:01 AM MT | |

Anonymous phil sayth,


Have another couple of cold frosty ones while you're thinking about this. I have an important question that I can use your help with. I understand that your guy Pat Robertson suggested that the heathens in Dover, PA pray to Darwin after Pat's friend God wipes the Patforsaken place off the face of the earth. But I'm left wondering about the people in Massachusetts. Presumably Pat's going to ask God to wipe out that limp-wristed state for their support of gay marriage. My question is this: When God wipes out Massachusetts who do the people there pray to, Liberace? How about that Gomer Pyle guy, I understand that he was a little light in the loafers. Let me know when you can.


11/14/2005 9:29 AM  
Blogger Loki Odinsson sayth,


I really don't know what what your point is.

Pat Robertson is not "my guy." Frankly, he's an embarrassment to the name of Christ. He does not represent my views at all.

Jim Nabors ("that Gomer Pyle guy") is not gay.

11/14/2005 9:49 AM  
Blogger Brad sayth,

Does the inverse of this hold true for postmoderns? "I don't believe it, therefore, it's not"....I wonder if he still looks both ways when he crosses the road if he believes there is no car coming?

11/15/2005 5:28 AM  
Blogger Loki Odinsson sayth,

I suppose he would look, but it's pretty hard to argue that seeing the car makes it exist. To be consistant, he would have to say that. I'm sure he would cry reductio ad absurdum, but we're way past absurd already.

11/15/2005 7:40 AM