« Romans Prescribes the Gospel, Not Execution | Main | How to Respond When Someone Says, "No One Comes to Faith Through Arguments." »

June 18, 2016

Comments

Excellent.

C.S.Lewis could already see this coming in the 1940's in his book "The Abolition of Man." He summed it up quite succinctly in one sentence: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."

I think you could easily substitute the word "true" for "good" in that quote, as well.

Spot on Amy! You're on a roll, lately!

Really good. I'm cynical about the way people have become --labeling and shaming total strangers. But I'm kind of standing back, observing, arms folded, saying, "OK. So what do we do now?" Sometimes I wonder if third graders are capable of more decency than certain adults.

Outstanding article, Amy.
Your statement " After all, postmodern philosophers and theologians prefer their views strongly enough to write many books trying to convince others to take on those views as well.", uncovers the self-defeating core of postmodernism. What makes their words any more true than anyone else's?
I believe WL Craig thinks postmodernism is dead, but I think that's more on a scholarly level. You're right when you say most people haven't thought this through. They tend to vacillate between postmodern tendencies and some form of verificationism or naturalism to suit their own particular life situation in order to absolve them from answering to God.

I suggest (again): this is a good time for y'all (STR) to stop and think whether/how your activities with respect to the LGBT communities and the way you talk them contribute to the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere where crimes like Orlando get dreamed up and committed.

I say 'stop and think' because that's all I ask.

Maybe you'll conclude that, no, your activities contribute nothing of the sort.

So be it; I gave it an honest try.
______________________

By the way, neither relativism nor postmodernism nor 'the media' nor demagoguery lead me in the slightest to try.

On the contrary, it seems obvious to me that if Group A constantly speaks ill of Group B, then some in Group A will move from words to violence against Group B.

I can't see why your group would be an exception.

On the contrary, it seems obvious to me that if Group A constantly speaks ill of Group B, then some in Group A will move from words to violence against Group B. I can't see why your group would be an exception.

Apply that to the articles I linked to, and then I will leave it to you to consider the self-refuting nature of your comment.

Please spell that out.

Does it need to be spelled out?

How many gay businesses have been shut down, sued into bankruptcy, or even threatened by Christians protesting gay marriage?

How many Christian businesses have been shut down, sued into bankruptcy, or threatened by "gay rights" activists for opposing gay marriage?

Amy's point is that the violent rhetoric and the violent activity have been targeted at Christians and/or political conservatives; at people who still believe in a rational, logical search for Truth. It would be easier to believe these people who constantly preach about "tolerance" if they didn't have rolls of duct tape in their hands to gag anyone they deem "politically incorrect".

It's not Christian universities creating 100 square foot "free speech zones" for people with alternate views on God and sexuality, and then kicking people out of even the "free speech zone" for being too heretical. It is secular universities who create small "free speech zones" (in a country that is, by law, a free speech zone from the Rio Grande to the 49th parallel) then kick out pro-life groups for just being too politically incorrect to even be allowed in the free speech zone.

When a Christian college invites an atheist to speak on campus. A few people might grumble, but he is allowed to speak. When a conservative speaker gets asked to speak at a college campus there are protests and demands that any administrator involved lose their job.

Seriously! What needs to be spelled out? The mob violence, and the institutional (legal) violence, is almost all on one side of the political equation. Even when Christians "speak ill" of whatever you're going to include in "Group B" it's in the context of all humans being sinners and all sinners needing salvation. That may lead people moving from words to action, but that action generally won't be violence, unless you redefine "violence" to mean calling sin something as politically incorrect as "sin".

Do you really mean 'self-refuting'?

Liljenborg,

Self-refuting ideas or self-defeating ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

-Wikipedia

Notice: logical consequence.

Were my comment self-refuting, Amy wouldn't need links.

Logic would be enough.

Does that make it clear what needs to be spelled out?

My comment is not self-refuting.

Amy is simply wrong or she must mean to say something else.

Maybe it's something like what you say.

Rather than assume, I asked.

I thought that was the clearest and best way to continue the conversation.

RonH, you said "On the contrary, it seems obvious to me that if Group A constantly speaks ill of Group B, then some in Group A will move from words to violence against Group B." If this were true we should be able to substitute any group for Group A and Group B.

Let's try it:
Group A = fans of Bob Barker
Group B = people who don't spay or neuter their pets

On the contrary, it seems obvious to me that if fans of Bob Barker constantly speak ill of people who don't spay or neuter their pets, then some fans of Bob Barker will move from words to violence against people who don't spay or neuter their pets.

Do you still think your statement holds up?

Your statement, taken to its logical conclusion, basically says that any group speaking ill of any other group for anything will lead to violence. Is that what you were hoping to communicate? In fact, once you start plugging in specific groups into your statement, the statement itself could be construed as "speaking ill," and thus inciting violence.

RonH is correct about (real) complicity in the Orlando massacre.

Islamic “talk” of violence as a (real) component in the path to the Kingdom’s coming *is* complicit in a (real) way for the Orlando shooting.

Complicity & Weapons:

Physical violence – intentional, natural, or otherwise – as the (real) means to the (real end) within mankind’s landscape:

[1] Postmodernism
[2] Islam
[3] Naturalism
[4] Pantheism
[5] Christianity

It’s not obvious that love’s egalitarian self-giving is found as the irreducible explanatory terminus of any moral ontology there. Except [5]. That is a challenge if anyone disagrees and, obviously, such is a referent to love’s timeless processions within “Trinity”. We mean specifically the context of Means. The Self-Sacrificing God instantiates in the radicalism of the Self-Assumed Cross on behalf of, for, to benefit, unto, promoting, profiting, into, and therein loving all which sums to the other, and not merely the fuzzy and warm other, but in fact any and all *other*. There is no interview scheduled for the other. There is no CV for the other to compile. There is no resume’ which the other must present. This love can be, and in fact freely is, entirely one-sided. The nature of “Self-Sacrifice” instantiated in and by “triune reciprocity”, or God, or Christ, *is* the moral and ontic-antithesis of the insanity we find in the likes of the Orlando shootings (and/or homicide bombers, etc.).

On violence, means, and ends we arrive within the ontology of “…… the God Who is glorified by sacrificing Himself for creation and not by sacrificing creation for Himself…..” (by Fischer)

ON WEAPONS:

The international language of power emerges.

There are greater things than the sword, and when it comes to "the path to Thy kingdom come", well, Christianity stands alone atop a bedrock of love and self-sacrifice not found in any other (metaphysical) terminus of explanation. Christianity didn't have the capacity to voice the international language of power as leverage for nearly 300 years. Yet it grew. We might even say that its politicalized empowerment, via the sword, 300 years in, wasn't a good thing in the "path to the Kingdom’s coming", as it offended Scripture's narrative on far too many fronts as per part 3 of a 5 part discussion here: http://northpointministries.org/messages/brand-new/recycled ...Obviously the other four parts provide helpful context. History is on the side of Christianity’s claims upon weapons. As in:

When we speak of that which the Postmodern cannot morally muster (well, with the exception of equivocations), or the Naturalist, and, also, when we speak of Islam's "path to Thy kingdom come", or when we speak of something more balanced, short of total power, Christianity is hopeless and doomed to fail, for in weakness does it rise as we discover Christianity’s weapons in "the path to the Kingdom’s coming".

Intellectual and philosophical divergence:

[A] On Christianity the weapons of our warfare in "the path to Thy kingdom come" are not material weapons, but are instead spirit and truth, prayer and hope, love and compassion, service and voice.

[B] On Christianity we discover yet another insult against the language of power: Any and all effervescence of this or that subtle tinge of even a faint, almost unnoticed, hatred for the other sums, having failed to come to clarity in the lens of the ontological topography which sums to Christ, to this: murder

We arrive, then, in and by both [A] and [B], at the following:

[1] The weapons which the Christian is called to dive into, as per the ontological topography which sums to Christ, as per [A]

[2] The murder against which the Christian is to fight, even conquer, as per the ontological topography which sums to Christ, as per [B]

Lastly:

There are irresponsible New Atheists, there are irresponsible Postmoderns, and so too with Christians, and so too with Skeptics, and so too with….. as the very human trait which RonH (rightly) points to as being (rightly) in need of constant introspection can be, if it goes unchecked, on some level complicit. That said, it’s just not obvious, at all, that the Postmodern’s reference to Christianity as either irrational, or immoral, or somehow off, or all of the above, as he presents what are his step-by-step efforts at presenting to us his own perception of the way things are vis-à-vis his reasoned arguments (flawed as they are) does not just ipso facto make him complicit should this or that confused Christian go out and do “Evil-Act-X” in response (etc.). In fact, we can and do rationally say (and we challenge the Postmodern (or etc.) to show otherwise) that any such act cannot be found in any irreducible moral sense to be an affront against what Postmodernism (or etc.) brings to the table of mankind’s moral quandary. Whereas, on Christianity, we are forced into the unavoidable conclusions discussed earlier.


if Group A constantly speaks ill of Group B, then some in Group A will move from words to violence against Group B." If this were true we should be able to substitute any group for Group A and Group B.

In which case, internet atheists are responsible for Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are bullied and murdered around the world.

But the idea is absurd because there is no logical connection from "speaks ill of" to "commits violence against."

Make Fascism Great Again, 2016,

I should not have to correct you this way.

Please read more carefully.

In which case, internet atheists are responsible for Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are bullied and murdered around the world.

No. But, there could come times when 'internet atheists' should consider whether their activities 'contribute to the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere ...'.

But the idea is absurd because there is no logical connection from "speaks ill of" to "commits violence against.

I see no 'logical connection' either.

That does not make the 'idea absurd'.

Arlene,

Your statement, taken to its logical conclusion,

Tell you what: I'll amend my comment if you'll read it as is.

"On the contrary, it seems obvious to me that if Group A constantly speaks ill of Group B, then some in Group A MAY move from words to violence against Group B."

Edit:

Two edits to the comment time stamped: "Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 19, 2016 at 08:59 AM"

First:

Near the opening, it is changed to this:

"Swaths of “talk” of violence as a (real) component in the path to the Kingdom’s coming *is* complicit in a (real) way for the Orlando shooting. It's unclear where Islam (or any other moral means/ends) lands here, but *if* (physical) means (weapons) are in fact, per Islam, (real) means to the path to the Kingdom's coming, well then "that" is something for our Muslim friends to address (discuss) internally and hopefully outwardly as well. Indeed, such discussion and clarification is (truly and openly) wanted not only by large and growing numbers of Muslims but in fact pretty much everyone.

But this isn't about Islam. We have to think bigger, wider. This is about means and ends period."

Second:

This closing is added:

When we say, if we say, that the highest ethic is love, well reason as truth-finder discovers that such a claim upon the nature of reality either maps to the fundamental shape of reality or it does not. But if love is the fundamental shape of reality such that reason as truth finder shall (factually) be *un*reasonable should she chase after some other shape, well then we have come upon something of reciprocity, something of self/other. Something triune.

Edit:

Mea culpa.....

This:

"That said, it’s just not obvious, at all, that the Postmodern’s reference to [ .... ] does not just ipso facto make him complicit should this or that confused Christian go out and do “Evil-Act-X” in response (etc.)..."

Should obviously be:

That said, it’s just not obvious, at all, that the Postmodern’s reference to [ .... ] just ipso facto makes him complicit should this or that confused Christian go out and do “Evil-Act-X” in response (etc.).

Hi RonH,

“I suggest (again): this is a good time for y'all (STR) to stop and think whether/how your activities with respect to the LGBT communities and the way you talk them contribute to the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere where crimes like Orlando get dreamed up and committed.”

Please provide any evidence that the person(s) responsible for the crimes in Orlando, San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon, or on 9/11 were influenced in any way by STR or like organizations. If anything, I’d think the failure would be in STR, or like organizations, not being able to influence them in order to prevent the tragedies.

While listening to CNN (if I remember correctly) I heard a guy, while discussing the Orlando tragedy, transition to a conversation about the greater problem being the homosexual suicide rate, which he attributed to an atmosphere created by those who believe homosexuality to be immoral (I’m guessing he wasn’t as bold as RonH to attempt to tie the tragedy to the Christian church with all evidence pointing elsewhere). The change in topic seemed to me to be insulting to those affected by or empathetic to the tragedy.

Should Christians cease speaking what we know to be true, with a graceful and tactful approach, out of fear that someone might have an irrational and illogical reaction and do harm to themselves and or others? Or, are Liberals just too comfortable pointing fingers towards people holding views that they dislike?

Ron,

People reading your comments MAY move from words to violence against Christians. Since Christians are currently being bullied and murdered, the time for you to stop and consider whether your comments are contributing to an atmosphere where these acts of bullying and murder are being dreamed up and committed is right now.

As you said, there is no logical connection between your words and Christians being bullied and murdered, but that still doesn't make it absurd.

P.S. How do sophists sleep at night?

The comments to this entry are closed.