are people in our post-postmodern world willing to talk about religion?
most definitely. people the world around are forced to talk about religion because of the conflicting worldviews that come into contact through globalization. i have found many people are more than willing to discuss religious topics.
second question: are people willing to talk about controversial practical issues like euthenasia or politics?
yes, the world over. people are very willing to discuss why a particular political policy should be enacted. or they are eager to argue the grounds for gay marriage. our post-postmodern world is forced, in fact to talk about such topics due to the expanding global commerce.
third question: are people willing to talk about the intersection of religious matters and practical matters?
i dont think so. people have seen the conflicts that have arisen from religious beliefs. they have witnessed the political wrongs that are done in the name of religion (which is not new and has always been present in history). they see the intolerance of people from all ends of the religious spectrum, and frankly, they are tired of it. no, more than that, they hate it.
i saw this very clearly as i was discussing with a group about the question of who has the right to determine life and death. there was much talk about whether vigilante justice (ie personal right) is justified. there was discussion of communal right (as in a democratic society) or even a dictatorial right to determine life and death. as we progressed in the topic, it became readily revealed that underneath the pretensions of the above systems that none of these truly had the right to determine life and death. in fact, even if they unfairly tried to judge a person, they often failed. for instance, often intentional efforts to kill a person (even in a manner considered legitimate like execution) fail. in the same way, even when someone tries to save life (a doctor for instance), they often fail even when they expect to succeed.
who then determines life and death? the obvious answer was that there might be a higher power (personal or innate) that dictated the rules of life and death. however, the group began to feel uncomfortable about that as a possibility. no one wanted to discuss how religion might intersect with the pragmatic question of life and death.
whether there have been, and continue to be, problems that arise from religious perspectives, we must not be limited in our decisions by determining that religion has no place in policy. instead of rejection religion, we must merely rejected dogmatic religious beliefs that refuse to even discuss difference of perspective. for you fundamentalists, this doesnt mean that you must concede truth. it doesnt mean you have to deny your beliefs. it merely means that you have to be willing to be open to the fallacy in your position. we have to admit that we are merely human. we have to acknowledge that there are others who may have valid points, even when they disagree with our religious beliefs. we must discuss our differences. we must discuss religion as it is relevant to the situation, but without a rigid rulebook.
will you be willing to put aside your dogmatic beliefs if they are proved wrong?
i will
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
are we jewish?
who has been traditionally held responsible for the death of Jesus? was it the pharisees, or pilate, or the jews in general?
in catholic tradition, the jews are held responsible. they are the ones who "crucified our Lord" or simply "Christ killers". in our modern world, this inherent despise for the jewish people led to such events like the expulsion of jews in russia or the holocaust under hitler. but in reality, it was most of the "christian" world that despised the jews. certainly, zionism has been a facet of our globalizing world in reaction to the holocaust, but israel is quickly loosing the world's sympathy through its harsh and violent responses to terrorism.
because of our cultural distaste for jews, it might seem from our western perspective that early christians were all gentile. while by the second century, most of the church was gentile, this was not so from the beginning. initially, the church was primarily composed of jews. in fact, christianity was not considered a new religion, but a fulfillment of judaism. the apostles were all jewish, and their first converts were all jewish. and contrary to modern revisionist history, the apostle paul never rejected his judaism. so what changed? how did christianity lose its jewish foundation?
one must remember who held the power in the church for nearly 1300 years, rome. the roman church soon grew to prominence in the roman world into which christianity was birthed. throughout the next few hundred years, prominence developed into preeminence. although a hiccup ocurred about 1000 AD when the greek church refused to accept roman authority, the roman church continued its primacy unabated until the 16th century. here, the protestant reformation firmly took hold of europe and the world. while the roman church remained in a position of power, its dominion was severely hindered.
one would think that when the protestants rejected roman doctrine that they might have returned to the church's jewish foundation, but too many years and traditions stood in the way. our hebrew heritage remained hidden in the intolerance of men like martin luther (notorious for disliking jews).
ultimately, the preeminence of the roman church seems to account for the rejection of jewishness. but why did this ever begin? why would a church reject its own foundations?
in order to understand the roman perspective about judaism, we must look at back into the 1st century in rome. when the good news of the messiah Jesus was proclaimed throughout the roman world to the jewish people, controversy immediately was sparked. we see that the roman-backed sadducees were the most antagonistic to the new sect of judaism. they did not want to lose the power they had gained from selling their birthrights to the romans. thus, from the acts of the apostles we find the early persecution of christians was from within judaism. however, the conflicts that arose throughout the empire soon came to the attention of the roman authorities. not understanding the nature of the conflict, the roman emperor claudius considered it merely a "jewish" problem. as recounted in the acts of the apostles and the roman historian suetonius, in 51 AD emperor claudius expelled all jews from rome, but his actions were limited to the capital city rome. not many years later, the emperor domitian found similar reason to enforce strict laws against "jewish practices". again, his decree had a relatively small scope and mainly applied to rome and asia minor.
after claudius, although jewish christians were forced out, there certainly remained some gentile christians. and in the course of generations, these gentile christians could easily forget the jewish traditions that the first christians had taught. then, with the laws against jewish practices, it would not be unlikely that these gentile christians would neglect their more jewish practices. most definitely it would not seem to make sense to hold on to jewish traditions that were not even originally one's own traditions, unless they had direct impact upon the christian faith. so in course of time, the church that remained in rome would have forgotten its jewishness entirely.
one might ask, however, who's to say that my perspective is not merely revisionist and that the years and years of tradition in christianity are the way it always was?
this is a legitimate misgiving. however, look at the rest of the church outside of the church in rome. what were their practices? had they remained more true to their jewish foundations? we see that the universal church was divided in its remembrance of jewish practices. we find the christian historian Socrates Scholasticus writing in the 5th century that the entire church celebrated passover and the resurrection of Jesus on the 14th day of nisan (the jewish day based upon the lunar calendar, rather than roman solar calendar) with the exception of the church in rome and alexandria. additionally, the historian sozomen insists that the christians at his time (also 5th century) still kept the sabbath on saturday, minus the church in rome.
it would seem that in the first centuries of christian history that the roman church was an exception to the widespread inclusion of jewish tradition incorporated into gentile christian churches around the world. if these jewish traditions were so widespread, then why would they all have been forgotten through the next thousand years? certainly, there is no clear answer to that, but it would seem very likely that because the roman church had such prominence in the early church its own distinctly non-jewish perspective would be pushed into the rest of the church. additionally, we find as christianity became the official religion of the roman empire that more and more of its traditions were influenced by the church in rome and by roman culture itself.
in contrast with years of tradition, i think that it makes most sense that the christian heritage was always intended to be distinctly founded upon its jewish background. we can never downplay the fact that Jesus was a jewish rabbi. but how should this apply to our lives in the westernized church? are we called to embrace judaism again? are we called to merely remember it? or should we even care?
in closing, here is a thought:
are christians, regardless of ethnicity, jewish? (Romans 9:4-8)
in catholic tradition, the jews are held responsible. they are the ones who "crucified our Lord" or simply "Christ killers". in our modern world, this inherent despise for the jewish people led to such events like the expulsion of jews in russia or the holocaust under hitler. but in reality, it was most of the "christian" world that despised the jews. certainly, zionism has been a facet of our globalizing world in reaction to the holocaust, but israel is quickly loosing the world's sympathy through its harsh and violent responses to terrorism.
because of our cultural distaste for jews, it might seem from our western perspective that early christians were all gentile. while by the second century, most of the church was gentile, this was not so from the beginning. initially, the church was primarily composed of jews. in fact, christianity was not considered a new religion, but a fulfillment of judaism. the apostles were all jewish, and their first converts were all jewish. and contrary to modern revisionist history, the apostle paul never rejected his judaism. so what changed? how did christianity lose its jewish foundation?
one must remember who held the power in the church for nearly 1300 years, rome. the roman church soon grew to prominence in the roman world into which christianity was birthed. throughout the next few hundred years, prominence developed into preeminence. although a hiccup ocurred about 1000 AD when the greek church refused to accept roman authority, the roman church continued its primacy unabated until the 16th century. here, the protestant reformation firmly took hold of europe and the world. while the roman church remained in a position of power, its dominion was severely hindered.
one would think that when the protestants rejected roman doctrine that they might have returned to the church's jewish foundation, but too many years and traditions stood in the way. our hebrew heritage remained hidden in the intolerance of men like martin luther (notorious for disliking jews).
ultimately, the preeminence of the roman church seems to account for the rejection of jewishness. but why did this ever begin? why would a church reject its own foundations?
in order to understand the roman perspective about judaism, we must look at back into the 1st century in rome. when the good news of the messiah Jesus was proclaimed throughout the roman world to the jewish people, controversy immediately was sparked. we see that the roman-backed sadducees were the most antagonistic to the new sect of judaism. they did not want to lose the power they had gained from selling their birthrights to the romans. thus, from the acts of the apostles we find the early persecution of christians was from within judaism. however, the conflicts that arose throughout the empire soon came to the attention of the roman authorities. not understanding the nature of the conflict, the roman emperor claudius considered it merely a "jewish" problem. as recounted in the acts of the apostles and the roman historian suetonius, in 51 AD emperor claudius expelled all jews from rome, but his actions were limited to the capital city rome. not many years later, the emperor domitian found similar reason to enforce strict laws against "jewish practices". again, his decree had a relatively small scope and mainly applied to rome and asia minor.
after claudius, although jewish christians were forced out, there certainly remained some gentile christians. and in the course of generations, these gentile christians could easily forget the jewish traditions that the first christians had taught. then, with the laws against jewish practices, it would not be unlikely that these gentile christians would neglect their more jewish practices. most definitely it would not seem to make sense to hold on to jewish traditions that were not even originally one's own traditions, unless they had direct impact upon the christian faith. so in course of time, the church that remained in rome would have forgotten its jewishness entirely.
one might ask, however, who's to say that my perspective is not merely revisionist and that the years and years of tradition in christianity are the way it always was?
this is a legitimate misgiving. however, look at the rest of the church outside of the church in rome. what were their practices? had they remained more true to their jewish foundations? we see that the universal church was divided in its remembrance of jewish practices. we find the christian historian Socrates Scholasticus writing in the 5th century that the entire church celebrated passover and the resurrection of Jesus on the 14th day of nisan (the jewish day based upon the lunar calendar, rather than roman solar calendar) with the exception of the church in rome and alexandria. additionally, the historian sozomen insists that the christians at his time (also 5th century) still kept the sabbath on saturday, minus the church in rome.
it would seem that in the first centuries of christian history that the roman church was an exception to the widespread inclusion of jewish tradition incorporated into gentile christian churches around the world. if these jewish traditions were so widespread, then why would they all have been forgotten through the next thousand years? certainly, there is no clear answer to that, but it would seem very likely that because the roman church had such prominence in the early church its own distinctly non-jewish perspective would be pushed into the rest of the church. additionally, we find as christianity became the official religion of the roman empire that more and more of its traditions were influenced by the church in rome and by roman culture itself.
in contrast with years of tradition, i think that it makes most sense that the christian heritage was always intended to be distinctly founded upon its jewish background. we can never downplay the fact that Jesus was a jewish rabbi. but how should this apply to our lives in the westernized church? are we called to embrace judaism again? are we called to merely remember it? or should we even care?
in closing, here is a thought:
are christians, regardless of ethnicity, jewish? (Romans 9:4-8)
weighing the issues
it is interesting to see how obscured a belief system or doctrine can become. the truth about history is often muddled by those who have the positions of power. thus, often today, we are far from the platform on which we believe we are standing.
fortunately, there is hope (i think). i have personally discovered a vast world opened to me. i find that no longer can a person (or organization) tell me complete falsehoods without quite easily doing something about it. i am now capable, if not of finding the truth, weighing the possible options and determining what appears to make the most sense. again, fortunately, i am not the only one who has discovered this vast tome of data. many others have joined me in my pursuit of discovery. what is it of which i speak? here's a hint: you are reading it right now.
i have found with the popularization of the internet for mass communication has incredibly opened the door for one to see both sides of an issue (or really the multiple facets of any quandary). i grew up believing one thing about easter, and now i find that the tradition that i followed most likely found its roots not in the apostles' teachings but in a migration of christian personnel from being predominantly jewish to a majority gentile. as christians became more and more removed from judaism, new traditions began to spring up. passover was no longer celebrated on the historic days, but now it was hellenized. finally, it was the roman and alexandrian churches that sealed the nails on the coffin of traditional christian celebration of the passover/resurrection on nisan 14.
however, this research was not easily found. in fact, i had to find the writings of the early fathers of the church to discover this. how many people will spend the time to find and then actually read through a document that was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and culture? i confess, i found it a struggle.
so is there hope for the truth to be proclaimed via post-postmodernity? most definitely. the opportunities are incredible.
will our generation put the time and effort into discovering the truth for themselves? i don't know yet. i suppose it depends upon people like you are i. are you willing to join me in revolutionizing the post-postmodern world?
fortunately, there is hope (i think). i have personally discovered a vast world opened to me. i find that no longer can a person (or organization) tell me complete falsehoods without quite easily doing something about it. i am now capable, if not of finding the truth, weighing the possible options and determining what appears to make the most sense. again, fortunately, i am not the only one who has discovered this vast tome of data. many others have joined me in my pursuit of discovery. what is it of which i speak? here's a hint: you are reading it right now.
i have found with the popularization of the internet for mass communication has incredibly opened the door for one to see both sides of an issue (or really the multiple facets of any quandary). i grew up believing one thing about easter, and now i find that the tradition that i followed most likely found its roots not in the apostles' teachings but in a migration of christian personnel from being predominantly jewish to a majority gentile. as christians became more and more removed from judaism, new traditions began to spring up. passover was no longer celebrated on the historic days, but now it was hellenized. finally, it was the roman and alexandrian churches that sealed the nails on the coffin of traditional christian celebration of the passover/resurrection on nisan 14.
however, this research was not easily found. in fact, i had to find the writings of the early fathers of the church to discover this. how many people will spend the time to find and then actually read through a document that was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and culture? i confess, i found it a struggle.
so is there hope for the truth to be proclaimed via post-postmodernity? most definitely. the opportunities are incredible.
will our generation put the time and effort into discovering the truth for themselves? i don't know yet. i suppose it depends upon people like you are i. are you willing to join me in revolutionizing the post-postmodern world?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
a lesson from the ants
it's amazing how differently each of us perceives our reality. even two people from the same cultural background that have the same demographic information will still come to a completely different conclusion about a mutually observed event. really incredible how unique we are.
recognizing and embracing this diversity provides many unique insights that would otherwise go unnoticed by our biased viewpoint. so these differing perspectives can actually bring unity rather than divide us. one interesting fact i read recently in a scientific journal was the phenomena of south american ants migration to europe (most likely via ships that trade between the continents). these ants that, in their own environment are very fierce and territorial. they will attack other ant colonies; their very nature is warlike. however, when these same ants come to a new world (ironic in this case the old world is that new world), they become very cooperative with each other and the naturally resident ants. something in them changes. it's not that they are different ants. it's that they are in a new environment. they, by necessity, must change in order to continue to survive. they have to build their networks, rather than destroy them.
there is no question that for peaceful interaction there must be a common language spoken. this may not always be an actually oral language, but it is a common bond. this common bond must lead to some form of communication between the existing parties. for without this communication the differences will be misunderstood by the opposite party. for example, i was speaking with a man from sri lanka tonight. he told me that before he met an american, he thought that all americans were violent and would kill you or beat you as soon as look at you. therefore, he had always been terrified of meeting an american. however, as he was forced to interact with americans, he found that his false beliefs were not entirely true. in this case, communication between the opposing groups must take place for any difference to be solved.
in most cases, the form of communication that develops is an oral language. it is very rare that both sides will learn the language of the other. so it becomes necessary, with few exceptions, for the immigrant to assimilate in this small area to learn the dominant language of the culture. in our american history, there have been many immigrant groups that have been forced to assimilate. in fact, this is most likely the driving force behind our own typically american prejudices. we (or to be truthful, in most cases, our parents or our parents parents, etc) had to assimilate. therefore, they must also. as americans, we think that because we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, so must everyone else. this, however, is far from what has traditionally made us a great nation. we are great because of our diversity. we are like those ants. we came to a new world and had to cooperate to continue our existence.
now, we have become like the ants before they left south america. they were territorial. that is how we have become. we fight over what we think is "ours". we will not even peacefully coexist with others who have a similar perspective as us, and certainly not with someone who disagrees. that is why we see a democrat and a republican duking it out. a republican-controlled congress will oppose legislation purely because it is democrat, and vice versa. we see a country which can no longer cooperate.
what if we were to appreciate the differences in others? what if we were to stop thinking of them as opponents (which i even caught myself almost writing "opponent in the last sentence) and think of them as fellow americans? we don't have to agree on every point. in fact, we shouldn't, but we should be willing to peacefully coexist. we must be willing to interact in a manner that will lead to cooperation rather than enmity. what if we recognize that our american history is rife with examples of newbies coming to a new world and by necessity learning to appreciate others' distinct and unique perspectives? what if we were to realize that this is exactly what made america great?
what if we were to take a lesson from the ants?
Proverbs 6:6-8 and 30:24-25
recognizing and embracing this diversity provides many unique insights that would otherwise go unnoticed by our biased viewpoint. so these differing perspectives can actually bring unity rather than divide us. one interesting fact i read recently in a scientific journal was the phenomena of south american ants migration to europe (most likely via ships that trade between the continents). these ants that, in their own environment are very fierce and territorial. they will attack other ant colonies; their very nature is warlike. however, when these same ants come to a new world (ironic in this case the old world is that new world), they become very cooperative with each other and the naturally resident ants. something in them changes. it's not that they are different ants. it's that they are in a new environment. they, by necessity, must change in order to continue to survive. they have to build their networks, rather than destroy them.
there is no question that for peaceful interaction there must be a common language spoken. this may not always be an actually oral language, but it is a common bond. this common bond must lead to some form of communication between the existing parties. for without this communication the differences will be misunderstood by the opposite party. for example, i was speaking with a man from sri lanka tonight. he told me that before he met an american, he thought that all americans were violent and would kill you or beat you as soon as look at you. therefore, he had always been terrified of meeting an american. however, as he was forced to interact with americans, he found that his false beliefs were not entirely true. in this case, communication between the opposing groups must take place for any difference to be solved.
in most cases, the form of communication that develops is an oral language. it is very rare that both sides will learn the language of the other. so it becomes necessary, with few exceptions, for the immigrant to assimilate in this small area to learn the dominant language of the culture. in our american history, there have been many immigrant groups that have been forced to assimilate. in fact, this is most likely the driving force behind our own typically american prejudices. we (or to be truthful, in most cases, our parents or our parents parents, etc) had to assimilate. therefore, they must also. as americans, we think that because we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, so must everyone else. this, however, is far from what has traditionally made us a great nation. we are great because of our diversity. we are like those ants. we came to a new world and had to cooperate to continue our existence.
now, we have become like the ants before they left south america. they were territorial. that is how we have become. we fight over what we think is "ours". we will not even peacefully coexist with others who have a similar perspective as us, and certainly not with someone who disagrees. that is why we see a democrat and a republican duking it out. a republican-controlled congress will oppose legislation purely because it is democrat, and vice versa. we see a country which can no longer cooperate.
what if we were to appreciate the differences in others? what if we were to stop thinking of them as opponents (which i even caught myself almost writing "opponent in the last sentence) and think of them as fellow americans? we don't have to agree on every point. in fact, we shouldn't, but we should be willing to peacefully coexist. we must be willing to interact in a manner that will lead to cooperation rather than enmity. what if we recognize that our american history is rife with examples of newbies coming to a new world and by necessity learning to appreciate others' distinct and unique perspectives? what if we were to realize that this is exactly what made america great?
what if we were to take a lesson from the ants?
Proverbs 6:6-8 and 30:24-25
Monday, January 22, 2007
our post-postmodern world
kierkagaard would have called himself modern. hegel believed himself to be modern. but was this really true? in fact, we find them very purely postmodern in their thought and their outlook on life.
we think that we are postmodern.
maybe we need to rethink this. are we really postmodern, or like kierkagaard and hegel are we deluding ourselves? certainly, we have many of the same philosophies as postmodernism, but this doesn't by necessity determine that we are postmodern. in fact, you will find that each era in history has had some connection to the past. therefore, it is possible that we too are in an time of change. maybe we are moving into a post-postmodern generation?
what would indicate that this is happening? is this a flashing neon light that needs to pop up? will someone write a book about it? will it hit the frontpage news? what (and also who) determines that we are no longer postmodern?
i think that as we look at the culture of today, we find many themes that are postmodern. we still see a general public that abhors absolute truth. we still find ourselves in a chaotic "everyone-is-right-and-has-there-own-validity" society. however, are these signs enough to label us postmodern?
i would contend that there is a reawakening happening as i write this. look around you. we see a world that is being ravaged by greed and protectionism. we see a world where there is no longer the good cowboy in the white hat. everyone seems to have a hidden motive. but more and more recently, we find our generation is fed up with this. look at the recent film Man of the Year. this movie laughingly pokes at the political process in america, expertly demonstrating there must be another way.
at the same time that we are fed up of such shananigans, i also find a growing sentiment among my peers that indicates a shift from the absolute relativism of postmodernism. instead, we find there is a resurgence of reason. there is no question that faith (whatever that actually meant to us) was the driving force in the postmodern world. no longer could reason prove anything. thus, whatever an individual chose to put there faith in was ok. in fact, the more blind the leap of faith, the more we found that this leap was commended for being faithful.
however, look at Pope Benedicts recent igniting speech at Regensburg. yes, he was misquoted and taken out of context. yes, he did speak of islam. but his primary topic was the combination of faith and reason. although i thought, in my prideful arrogance, i was the first one to bring faith and reason back together. (for my thoughts on this check out my blook http://merehumanity.wordpress.com) there are many others who are coming to exactly the same conclusion.
how will this impact our cultures? how will the world be changing?
i am not sure. but i know that the world may still be postmodern, but we are on the brink of change. there is no room for absolute relativism in a world where people will blow themselves up to kill you. or in a world where an american president is spying on his own people. or in a world where people on all sides of the debate are desirous of wiping each other off of the map. in this ever globalizing world, there can no longer be "whatever floats your boat" mentality. there are conflicts already. there will be more conflicts. relativism will not be the solution. some people are just plain wrong.
we can rid ourselves of reason all that we want, but deep down inside, we all feel that what the terrorists are doing is wrong (we may also feel that the response to terrorism is wrong, as well). we don't need a logical treatise to tell us that there are evil men out there.
i think that this harsh reality will enable us to move from the postmodern extreme relativism into a faith and reason culture, where reason drives faith and faith drives reason. so as to which direction this flow should go, tune in next time for my next thoughts.
we think that we are postmodern.
maybe we need to rethink this. are we really postmodern, or like kierkagaard and hegel are we deluding ourselves? certainly, we have many of the same philosophies as postmodernism, but this doesn't by necessity determine that we are postmodern. in fact, you will find that each era in history has had some connection to the past. therefore, it is possible that we too are in an time of change. maybe we are moving into a post-postmodern generation?
what would indicate that this is happening? is this a flashing neon light that needs to pop up? will someone write a book about it? will it hit the frontpage news? what (and also who) determines that we are no longer postmodern?
i think that as we look at the culture of today, we find many themes that are postmodern. we still see a general public that abhors absolute truth. we still find ourselves in a chaotic "everyone-is-right-and-has-there-own-validity" society. however, are these signs enough to label us postmodern?
i would contend that there is a reawakening happening as i write this. look around you. we see a world that is being ravaged by greed and protectionism. we see a world where there is no longer the good cowboy in the white hat. everyone seems to have a hidden motive. but more and more recently, we find our generation is fed up with this. look at the recent film Man of the Year. this movie laughingly pokes at the political process in america, expertly demonstrating there must be another way.
at the same time that we are fed up of such shananigans, i also find a growing sentiment among my peers that indicates a shift from the absolute relativism of postmodernism. instead, we find there is a resurgence of reason. there is no question that faith (whatever that actually meant to us) was the driving force in the postmodern world. no longer could reason prove anything. thus, whatever an individual chose to put there faith in was ok. in fact, the more blind the leap of faith, the more we found that this leap was commended for being faithful.
however, look at Pope Benedicts recent igniting speech at Regensburg. yes, he was misquoted and taken out of context. yes, he did speak of islam. but his primary topic was the combination of faith and reason. although i thought, in my prideful arrogance, i was the first one to bring faith and reason back together. (for my thoughts on this check out my blook http://merehumanity.wordpress.com) there are many others who are coming to exactly the same conclusion.
how will this impact our cultures? how will the world be changing?
i am not sure. but i know that the world may still be postmodern, but we are on the brink of change. there is no room for absolute relativism in a world where people will blow themselves up to kill you. or in a world where an american president is spying on his own people. or in a world where people on all sides of the debate are desirous of wiping each other off of the map. in this ever globalizing world, there can no longer be "whatever floats your boat" mentality. there are conflicts already. there will be more conflicts. relativism will not be the solution. some people are just plain wrong.
we can rid ourselves of reason all that we want, but deep down inside, we all feel that what the terrorists are doing is wrong (we may also feel that the response to terrorism is wrong, as well). we don't need a logical treatise to tell us that there are evil men out there.
i think that this harsh reality will enable us to move from the postmodern extreme relativism into a faith and reason culture, where reason drives faith and faith drives reason. so as to which direction this flow should go, tune in next time for my next thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
