Tangled Conversation
I'm tired of Kingdom talk.
Whoa! I'm sure I don't know what you mean. What do you mean?
I mean the word, not the reality.
Oh, how postmodern of you.
Is postmodern thought really that different? Does it not just bring out the...for lack of a better word...hypocrisy in our religious language? I mean really, any systemization of human thought is just that, human based perceptual definition and conceptualization.
Hmmm, so in effect any outward understanding of human thought is still within the trap of human based thinking. So can we then say that there is no moral difference between modernism and postmodernism thinking?
Well they both have their plusses and minuses I would think. How about this...what if their strengths ARE their weaknesses?
How do you mean?
What if the deficiencies of each are the opportunities, the portals through which God brings Himself to us, showcases His Son. What if in these missing, these low places, these glaring holes that we are "forced" to come to the ultimate reality.
Well that turns contemporary thought, and man's striving for truth and the description of reality on its head.
How so?
It means that foundationally we cannot derive from ourselves set propostions that will arrive at the true reality. Somehow in our efforts the fallen is mixed in -- perhaps the efforts themselves are the seeds of not only ultimate self-contradiction, but the failure of practically living out that which we have in fact postulated.
So man cannot work His way to revelation. Revelation is by definition of God. And therefore to understand, perceive, know the things of God, they must be revealed.
Right. Therefore any construct we humans come up with will by definition be false. It will be an illusion. Will be distortions of reality. Some modes of thought or worldviews will be distorted in different ways than others, but the fact is they all see reality warped, they all perceive an illusion, they all based on and ultimately are, a lie.
Ouch. That's harsh man. But it just might be fairly accurate, But the question is then, what value is this conversation? We use the rules of language and logic to have this conversation. They are all products of human rules and conventions.
True. But not really. They are tools, not the system itself. What I was saying is that the seeing mind is the problem, not the telescope that the mind sees out of -- or better yet, not the lens that the mind discovered. I chose the second one because language and logic are discoveries, not inventions per se. God speaks, and God thinks. He has REVEALED such. We are endowed with those two, plus many more characteristics. But I think we've gone off topic a bit. I think what I'm trying to say is that no human derived system of thought can be trusted, nor should it. We may live in a postmodern thinking world, and therefore we must engage postmodern thinkers so there are certain aspects of thought that must be adhered to, communicated, agreed upon (in common use, not necessarily belief). But the mind in which we inhabit does not necessarily have to be human derived.
So you are saying that the renewing of the mind is not necessarily the renewing of a modern or a postmodern mind.
Ding ding ding. That's what I think I was getting at. It's back to simple faith. We were not given the mind of the world. But we are "let this mind be in you" the mind of Christ. It transcends. It is not within the confines of the presuppositional or classificational systems of human thought. God does not fit in a box. The Christian mind is not the reaction of one system of thought to another -- although Christian culture can surely operate that way. It is entirely other, it is not a system even, it is a Person.
Whoa! I'm sure I don't know what you mean. What do you mean?
I mean the word, not the reality.
Oh, how postmodern of you.
Is postmodern thought really that different? Does it not just bring out the...for lack of a better word...hypocrisy in our religious language? I mean really, any systemization of human thought is just that, human based perceptual definition and conceptualization.
Hmmm, so in effect any outward understanding of human thought is still within the trap of human based thinking. So can we then say that there is no moral difference between modernism and postmodernism thinking?
Well they both have their plusses and minuses I would think. How about this...what if their strengths ARE their weaknesses?
How do you mean?
What if the deficiencies of each are the opportunities, the portals through which God brings Himself to us, showcases His Son. What if in these missing, these low places, these glaring holes that we are "forced" to come to the ultimate reality.
Well that turns contemporary thought, and man's striving for truth and the description of reality on its head.
How so?
It means that foundationally we cannot derive from ourselves set propostions that will arrive at the true reality. Somehow in our efforts the fallen is mixed in -- perhaps the efforts themselves are the seeds of not only ultimate self-contradiction, but the failure of practically living out that which we have in fact postulated.
So man cannot work His way to revelation. Revelation is by definition of God. And therefore to understand, perceive, know the things of God, they must be revealed.
Right. Therefore any construct we humans come up with will by definition be false. It will be an illusion. Will be distortions of reality. Some modes of thought or worldviews will be distorted in different ways than others, but the fact is they all see reality warped, they all perceive an illusion, they all based on and ultimately are, a lie.
Ouch. That's harsh man. But it just might be fairly accurate, But the question is then, what value is this conversation? We use the rules of language and logic to have this conversation. They are all products of human rules and conventions.
True. But not really. They are tools, not the system itself. What I was saying is that the seeing mind is the problem, not the telescope that the mind sees out of -- or better yet, not the lens that the mind discovered. I chose the second one because language and logic are discoveries, not inventions per se. God speaks, and God thinks. He has REVEALED such. We are endowed with those two, plus many more characteristics. But I think we've gone off topic a bit. I think what I'm trying to say is that no human derived system of thought can be trusted, nor should it. We may live in a postmodern thinking world, and therefore we must engage postmodern thinkers so there are certain aspects of thought that must be adhered to, communicated, agreed upon (in common use, not necessarily belief). But the mind in which we inhabit does not necessarily have to be human derived.
So you are saying that the renewing of the mind is not necessarily the renewing of a modern or a postmodern mind.
Ding ding ding. That's what I think I was getting at. It's back to simple faith. We were not given the mind of the world. But we are "let this mind be in you" the mind of Christ. It transcends. It is not within the confines of the presuppositional or classificational systems of human thought. God does not fit in a box. The Christian mind is not the reaction of one system of thought to another -- although Christian culture can surely operate that way. It is entirely other, it is not a system even, it is a Person.
posted by GBT at
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
