tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7855927905053117420..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Some Counsel for People Confused by PostmodernismPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29628683179407950992008-04-09T13:06:00.000-07:002008-04-09T13:06:00.000-07:00Reb,He planned it...Reb,<BR/><BR/>He planned it...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10154737944857589522008-04-09T10:43:00.000-07:002008-04-09T10:43:00.000-07:00The Holy Spirit saw this day coming.The Holy Spirit saw this day coming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11160398377458119212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4549351236764470352008-04-07T16:02:00.000-07:002008-04-07T16:02:00.000-07:00Wish I had more time, but I'm on my way to teach a...Wish I had more time, but I'm on my way to teach a class tonight. However, you can celebrate the fact that you will not find the words modernism or postmodernism in scripture all you want; what you will find is the "spirit of this age" that is characterized by a number of features, namely rebellion. Of course, rebellion is the first sin, it is Satan's sin, and it is the poison that accompanies all sins. Few will deny that postmodernism, including pagans who boast in it, is characterized by rebellion. If you likewise wish to focus on emotions, then look at the emotion of rebellion--which is also cognitive and spiritual--that surrounds not only postmoderns in general, but emergents in particular--just glance through any of their prominent websites and you see their seething anger. Is this the emotional warm-fuzzy's you are talking about? Is it really that hard for you to call rebellion what it is? Or rebels what they are? How's that for grouping people?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74606925067302390562008-04-07T13:37:00.000-07:002008-04-07T13:37:00.000-07:00Farmboy, great comment.I think of the letter to Ph...Farmboy, great comment.<BR/><BR/>I think of the letter to Philemon when I think of an expressive, feeling Paul... he could have just ordered it, but instead he appealed in love. He describes Onesimus as his heart. Amazing.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9858329502302611792008-04-07T11:49:00.000-07:002008-04-07T11:49:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley observes: "I also think that it would...Bryan Riley observes: "I also think that it would be interesting for any of you to tell your spouses what farmboy said..."<BR/><BR/>I've said as much and more to my wife countless times. She's a solid, super woman. Unlike Bill Clinton, she understands that it's better to do something that alleviates a person's pain than to merely feel that person's pain.<BR/><BR/>Bryan Riley also observes: "Words often fail to capture objective truth and can be argued to fit whatever we want them to." Given that God is infinite and we are finite, it is true that finite creatures cannot grasp the entirety of an infinite God. In this respect, the words of special revelation (Scripture) do not fully capture the objective truth of God and His attributes. However, to fail to fully capture the infinite is not the same as failing to accurately and faithfully represent those attributes. Still, special revelation is necessary if we are to know the specifics of God, His attributes, His plan of redemption, and such. It's not a know-completely or know-not-at-all dichotomy. Instead, given our finite, fallen natures, it's know as completely and fully as we can.<BR/><BR/>Men dedicated to defending, preserving and advancing the truth do not "argue words to fit whatever they want them to." Yes, all men bring biases to the task of accurate communication and interpretation. That doesn't mean, however, that we should give up on the task and go home. No, far from it. Instead, being aware of these biases, men dedicated to defending, preserving and advancing the truth do the best they can to address and subdue those biases. They study words to understand the truth and use words to communicate the truth, as best as fallen, finite humans can. That this task takes place within the Christian community further addresses and subdues the biases any one individual brings to the task.<BR/><BR/>Both the modern and postmodern worldviews have man as the measure of all things. The modern worldview thinks too highly of man, positing that objective truth exists and that man has the capacity to completely and exhaustively access objective truth. Based on this knowledge, man, who is presumed to be inherently good, can bring about almost unlimited progress.<BR/><BR/>The postmodern worldview over-reacts against the excesses of the modern worldview. Instead of complete, exhaustive access to objective truth, objective truth does not exist. Each man is free to construct his own subjective truth. It is in this worldview where men "argue words to fit whatever they want them to."<BR/><BR/>The biblical wordview notes the existence of objective truth, based on the character and creative activity of God. The biblical worldview also notes the effect of sin on man's capacity to access objective truth. Men are blind in their trespasses and sin. Men hate the light and love the darkness. Men do what is right in their own eyes. This inability to access objective truth is most acute when it comes to spiritual truth. Part of being born again is God reorienting us so that we can see and understand the world from God's perspective, from a biblical perspective (2 Corinthians 5:17).<BR/><BR/>Only God can undo the blinding, incapacitating effects of sin. He does this by working through the power of His Word being proclaimed. I see this as one of the strongest arguments for a presuppositional, as opposed to evidential, approach to apologetics.<BR/><BR/>As a legal rabbit trail, consider the strict constructionist and living document approaches to interpreting the Constitution of these United States. How judges and attorneys from these two camps handle the Constitution has many parallels with how Christians from the biblical and postmodern worldviews handle Scripture.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29227949821148293822008-04-07T11:44:00.000-07:002008-04-07T11:44:00.000-07:00"I also think that it would be interesting for any..."I also think that it would be interesting for any of you to tell your spouses what farmboy said or to say let's talk about what matters, not feelings."<BR/><BR/>If we're talking about whether we should do domething like buy a house or something...or do something forbidden by Scripture...<BR/><BR/>Those things are more akin to what we're talking aboutr around here. The discussions on Pyro are not "I feel fat" or "Do you really love me? I mean, in your heart of hearts". While those are common (and necessary) conversations in a marriage, they are not what's going on here.<BR/><BR/>So no, feelings are not relevant to the discussion. If God says "A", my feelings towards "A" are irrelevant, "A" it is, like it or not.<BR/><BR/>There are facts to be believed in Scripture, irrespective of feelings. True, feelings may come (or not) but truth remains.<BR/>And even in marriage, we can't affirm or deny our relationship based on feelings, not even a little bit. That's what the world does "It didn't mean anything, honey, I don't have feelings for her". Try that and see how it flys.<BR/>And on the positive side "Follow your heart" is bad advice all the way around.<BR/><BR/>This is Spurgeon's point in the orginal post. It doesn't matter if I feel charitable, or if I feel like you are being uncharitable, the facts are plain and we must believe them. Telling someone that they are wrong and the Bible is right is hardly uncharitable, it is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70518004271517252692008-04-07T10:13:00.000-07:002008-04-07T10:13:00.000-07:00I was going to cease and desist, but I have been a...I was going to cease and desist, but I have been asked a couple of questions, and I do want to address a bit of what farmboy just said. <BR/><BR/>First, although I think it irrelevant, and it feeds into the incessant need to categorize people that we all tend to get caught up in, Remember Polycarp, I spent nearly 30 years in the SBC (at a small rural church as a child and a larger college town church as an adult) and am now a member of a nondenominational church that sprang out of a bible study of Church of Christ families and an pastor who had been SBC and then Fellowship Bible. <BR/><BR/>In response to farmboy's comment, I will first say this paragraph is a gem and is spot on:<BR/><BR/>"The postmodern worldview may well be a response to the modern worldview. As Christians, however, we have never been called to understand the world from either modern or postmodern perspectives. Instead, Christians are called to understand the world from the perspective of a biblical worldview."<BR/><BR/>I will also, in response, reveal a bit more about myself. I am a lawyer by training and spent ten years practicing law before finally giving in to God's call to the mission field.<BR/><BR/>I reveal that I am a lawyer because there is a HUGE difference, in my mind, between the Living Word, Jesus Christ, and words written on a piece of paper (or here electronically). Words often fail to capture objective truth and can be argued to fit whatever we want them to. We are creative people (created in His image) and we have these Jeremiah 17 hearts that put us in a difficult spot when it comes to reason and words. Here it seems people bemoan what they've called postmodern but perhaps we should bemoan post Enlightenment first. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the NT is not the new covenant law. Let's not fall guilty (be bewitched!) of what Paul railed against in Galatians 3. <BR/><BR/>Last thought...Feelings do matter. They mattered to God, as I've illustrated scripturally before and could add to. I also think that it would be interesting for any of you to tell your spouses what farmboy said or to say let's talk about what matters, not feelings. <BR/><BR/>Good discussionBryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68247789273579191292008-04-07T09:45:00.000-07:002008-04-07T09:45:00.000-07:00bryan riley offers the following: "I think this d...bryan riley offers the following: "I think this discussion shows the danger of making Christianity a religion of words." How can anyone understand the content of Christianity if Christianity cannot be described using words? Words have objective meaning. Because words have objective meaning, we need to be careful and precise in our use of words. Because words have objective meaning, we need to contend for the proper use of words, following the example of Mr. Johnson in his series of posts on contextualization.<BR/><BR/>John describes Jesus Christ as the Logos, the Word, and as the Way, the Truth and the Life. When we defend, preserve and advance the proper use of words and language, to a great extent we are contending for the Word and the Truth.<BR/><BR/>To the extent that postmodernism denies the objective meaning of words or denies the objective truth content of words, it is fair to conclude that postmodernism is an assult on the Word and the Truth.<BR/><BR/>The postmodern worldview may well be a response to the modern worldview. As Christians, however, we have never been called to understand the world from either modern or postmodern perspectives. Instead, Christians are called to understand the world from the perspective of a biblical worldview.<BR/><BR/>This is part of the problem at Cedarville University. The postmodern progressives are imputing (an interesting word to use here on another theological dimension) the failings of the modern worldview to the biblical worldview.<BR/><BR/>bryan riley also offers: "...I wanted to talk about it and how it made me feel..." I would suggest that, in the whole scheme of things, our subjective feelings are not all that important. Let's focus instead on what transcends us: objective truth.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05445789397476595536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24499627083222603772008-04-06T21:07:00.000-07:002008-04-06T21:07:00.000-07:00Strong Tower said:"One of the problems today is th...Strong Tower said:<BR/><BR/>"One of the problems today is that many people see the anchor, detach it from the ship and toss it over, then say, see, that anchor was no good after all."<BR/><BR/>But they don't realize until it is too late that the anchor rope was snagged to their leg when they threw it over...<BR/><BR/>And you know something? Heresy doesn't change! No matter how pomo, how "new" or fresh you are, the Gospel is the same. Always has. Always will be.<BR/>Mr. Spurgeon's comments are anbsolutely striking to me. They perfectly reflect and mirror what he saw a generation ago.Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05267525662313103148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2210968660483839272008-04-06T20:41:00.000-07:002008-04-06T20:41:00.000-07:00TUAD-e-mail me...TUAD-<BR/><BR/>e-mail me...Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16318526208409004622008-04-06T17:05:00.000-07:002008-04-06T17:05:00.000-07:00" ..nor will we though men count us fools for our ..." ..nor will we though men count us fools for our stedfastness."<BR/><BR/>"Create in me a clean heart O God,<BR/>And renew a steadfast spirit within me." Psalm51:10<BR/><BR/>"Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth" Eph. 6:14<BR/><BR/>"I have given them Your Word ... Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth." John 17:17<BR/><BR/>"Princes persecute me without cause,<BR/>But my heart stands in awe of Your Word.<BR/>I rejoice at Your Word<BR/>As one who finds a great treasure." Psalm 119:161-162<BR/><BR/>The Scriptures are God's greatest treasure to us, His Children, only second to Christ Himself, through the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>From Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.--The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36532510359673139732008-04-06T16:51:00.000-07:002008-04-06T16:51:00.000-07:00Right on, Dan.Right on, Dan.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86921269392357759732008-04-06T16:23:00.000-07:002008-04-06T16:23:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley: "Oh, as to your question on chest thu...<B>Bryan Riley:</B> <I>"Oh, as to your question on chest thumping and high fiving... first comment above is an example. But when one disagrees he becomes a they. An other - as in Lost."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that's rich, because "<B>Preson,</B>" who left that comment, is a perennial carping critic of our blog, and a tireless defender of all things postmodern. His comment was dripping with sarcasm; it was not a "high-five" by any stretch of the imagination. You should lurk and get to know people around here for a little while before psychoanalyzing the community.<BR/><BR/>As for your claim that anyone who disagrees <I>"becomes a they. An other - as in Lost"</I>—that is purely and demonstrably in your own imagination. Search for the pronoun "they," and you'll discover that it was used precisely once by one commenter before you yourself started using it, and you personally were not included in the reference until you included yourself.<BR/><BR/>Yet you portray yourself as beaten and bloodied by these comments. Why? Because someone disagreed with you. That is <I><B>all</B></I> anyone did to you here.<BR/><BR/><B>Newsflash:</B> people—<I><B>LOTS</B></I> of them—disagree with me every day in these comment-threads. It's true that this forum is not about "feelings." I have nothing about them; you're welcome to have as many as you like. It's just that we discuss ideas and propositions here, and we generally avoid letting anyone's personal feelings—including mine—become the topic of discussion or commandeer our comment-threads. There are certain places in the blogosphere where people love to emote and analyze their own feelings <I>ad nauseum.</I> Not here. And if mere disagreement makes you "feel" so bad, and if you're going to use how you "feel" as your central argument against every opinion you disagree with here, you're liable to start getting a few of those verbal "high-fives" on the back of your head.<BR/><BR/>Now let's get this thread back on topic, or I will close it.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43739167475902760332008-04-06T15:29:00.000-07:002008-04-06T15:29:00.000-07:00But, I call Dan Phil all the time ;)But, I call Dan Phil all the time ;)Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40969798886019330352008-04-06T15:27:00.000-07:002008-04-06T15:27:00.000-07:00Olan, if you want to take our discussion off of Da...<I>Olan, if you want to take our discussion off of Dan's blog....</I><BR/><BR/>That's funny, Bryan: are you calling Phil "Dan"?<BR/><BR/>Because if you are, that's the first time it's gone <I>that</I> way! (Usually it's the reverse.)DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58895856485910749632008-04-06T15:26:00.000-07:002008-04-06T15:26:00.000-07:00I wrote my comment yesterday before going out with...I wrote my comment yesterday before going out with the family all day and night; wow, it looks like I missed all the action throughout the day. <BR/><BR/>Thank you Phil for clarifying so concisely to Bryan what I would have tried to do in many more chunks of text, as I wanted to say the same thing about the perceived "chest-bumping" and "chip-on-the-shoulder" preconceptions. <BR/><BR/>Bryan: I asked you a similar question on the "Coffee" posting the other day, but I'll ask it once again: I notice you like to focus on the value of subjective, relativistic, and circumstantial feelings/emotions (a perspective that I nor others here view in the same way you do in contrast to the far superior value of absolute, objective, and timeless Truth), so I will ask WHY is that your feelings seem to reflect varying degrees of opposition, rather than wholehearted enthusiasm and embrace, to so many of the frequently-made statements here at TeamPyro (which read like sweet honey to those who love to submit to God's authority): the absolute sovereignty of the Lord God in all circumstances, the folly of man's attempts to make the Lord God small through postmodern contextualization, semantics, and relevancy, the rejection of any doctrine/person that undermines the Gospel, our total deparvity as wretched sinners, the recognition and celebration of God's HOLINESS with fear and trembling that must always be close to our minds and hearts if we are to even begin to appreciate, understand and apply God's mercy, grace, and LOVE. In my experiences with postmodern and/or emerging/ent people who profess an association with Christ (and self-declared postmodern pagans in my workplace for that matter), there is consistently a rather vitriolic reaction to those statements of the Christian faith that are absolute, confident, black and white, objective, and in full submission to God's authority. Now, before you emotionalize this and jump to the conclusion that I am likening you to either an emergent or a pagan (I could see how you might do that, given the way you have processed what others here have said), I am suggesting that you may not even realize to what degree this spirit of the age--the one that has taken hold of the emergents entirely--has shaped your rhetoric, your hearing of the rhetoric of others, your understanding of false notions that have entered the church like "tolerance over truth" or "belonging before believing", or the many other branches of relativism/liberalism that exist in both the church culture and the secular culture around us. This is not a condemnation, but rather edification (I know you may not see it as such). However, as a believer in the sovereignty of God, I do not believe in accidents nor luck; I believe you are here, reading this blog at this very moment, because God has directed you. Please search your heart and mind as you consider the discussion in which you've become engaged in recent days; ask what God might be trying to teach you through it. Perhaps it might be an examination of the environment of your present church or your reading? We are all subject to being shaped and/or influenced, which is why so many here at this blog believe that anything that would influenece us must be scrutinized and willfully submitted to God's authority--which is by no means a form of legalism I might add; it is wisdom. For what it's worth, what denomination or church do you attend?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11283923291678871292008-04-06T14:35:00.000-07:002008-04-06T14:35:00.000-07:00Doulos, thank you. I think you made a great comme...Doulos, thank you. I think you made a great comment. <BR/><BR/>Olan, if you want to take our discussion off of Dan's blog (likely a great idea), then please just email me at bwriley4[at]yahoo[.]com. I may see if you have an email out there somewhere.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70794271962746667862008-04-06T13:46:00.000-07:002008-04-06T13:46:00.000-07:00Bryan,First, you deconstructed the counsel by Spur...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>First, you deconstructed the counsel by Spurgeon to fit your philosophy of Christianity. The very thing he gave counsel not to do - you contradicted as seen here:<BR/><BR/>Spurgeon said, “<I>Brethren, aspire not to the “charity” which grows out of uncertainty</I>….” You said, <I>I have only found those who acknowledge that many of God’s ways are difficult to understand and they graciously (with charity) accept people with regard to disputable matters (those which grow out of uncertainty)</I>(interpretation in parentheses mine).<BR/><BR/>Then I showed you the inconsistency of your philosophy (for correction, not for condemnation) because instead of "graciously accepting people with regard to disputable matters, you call those who speak it, "uncharitable." "<I>It seems some of the commenters here keep throwing huge groups of people (anyone they label postmodern) under the bus</I>."<BR/><BR/>Look at the context of what I was quoting from you at 3:58 PM, April 05, 2008 and you will see that the "they" I was referring to was "<I>the Christians who won't say that hard truth is inherently uncharitable but will say that those who speak it are</I>." That's you!<BR/><BR/>Now you're even twisting what has been said about Jesus labeling the Pharisees and Sadducees:<BR/><BR/>You said, "<I>Did the Pharisees adn Saducees mislabel</I>?" You do know that's another Red Herring don't you?<BR/><BR/>And then: "<I>I absolutely agree that Jesus lumped them together, but they were all of one mind as to the law and their writings</I>." What? The Pharisees and Sadducees were all of one mind? You haven't read the Scriptures! Read Acts 23:7-8.<BR/><BR/>I'll be glad to deal with your question to me about poison - but will have to do it another day.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Olanolan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11479483586051602612008-04-06T13:06:00.000-07:002008-04-06T13:06:00.000-07:00I came late to the party, so have the perspective ...I came late to the party, so have the perspective of reviewing the whole comment chain. Here's my observation, to you Brian R and the respondents.<BR/><BR/>Once again, we see the near impossibility of engaging in meaningful discussion with someone who self-identifies as holding to a postmodern position. Why? Because postmodernism, like the emerg*** spirituality that flows from it, seeks to intentionally defy clear definition. Whenever a reference is made to "pomos" or "emergents" the response seems to be "Who is that?" or "I don't agree with all of that" or something similar. I agree that using terms like "them" is not always helpful in these kind of debates, especially when referring to postmoderns who want to use the label on their terms but protest when others use it to refer to them. And then the debate becomes more focused on tone, nuance and emotions as the words are deconstructed and ancillary motivations are applied, resulting in a complete inability to communicate with any clarity and then veiled accusations (pomo/homo, chest-thumping, etc). This is exactly what's going on in this whole comment thread. And it's extraordinarily frustrating.<BR/><BR/>Go back to the original post and to Spurgeon's words. What's the point? The point is that contrary to the core tenets of postmodern philosphy that say certainty is overrated, the opposite is true. Certainty of some core, essential truths provided by God in Scriptures is a foundational anchor for anyone who would call themself a follower of Christ. And the clear and certain communication and defense of those truths is in fact the highest expression of love there can be.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure my comments will be further deconstructed here, but "that's all I have to say about that."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44866346168138299342008-04-06T11:25:00.000-07:002008-04-06T11:25:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley: "Clearly I am responsible for my fee...<B>Bryan Riley</B>: "Clearly I am responsible for my feelings,..."<BR/><BR/>Thank you for acknowledging that. Therefore, if you don't like how you're feeling, then you've stated that you're responsible for how you're feeling.<BR/><BR/><B>Bryan Riley</B>: "... but as brothers and sisters in Christ we belong to one another. Romans 12:5. We are to owe nothing to one another but to love."<BR/><BR/>I would posit to you that my act of love towards you is trying to help you understand that you may have an unhealthy fixation on your feelings.<BR/><BR/><B>Bryan Riley</B>: "i talked about how I felt because you cannot refute that."<BR/><BR/>Yes. I saw that and I saw through that.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66049149154366324632008-04-06T11:08:00.000-07:002008-04-06T11:08:00.000-07:00Sorry Truth Unites, I missed that question, and af...Sorry Truth Unites, I missed that question, and after this comment will give you all a rest as to these posts (unless someone actually deems my earlier questions relevant and takes time to answer them). <BR/><BR/>I hope I can continue in future conversations.<BR/><BR/>Clearly I am responsible for my feelings, but as brothers and sisters in Christ we belong to one another. Romans 12:5. We are to owe nothign to one another but to love. We are clearly to hold each other dearly, putting others' needs above our own. So, given all of that, it becomes each of our responsibility to do all things to lead to peace and to do away with unwholesome talk and to guard our tongues so that they are filled with words of love and edification. <BR/><BR/>i talked about how I felt because you cannot refute that. I did feel that way. My words were twisted and I was accused of being a them and many made judgments about my point of view, reading each word I wrote to see how it fit into one's view of those darned postmodern folk. <BR/><BR/>If we are not able to see through others' eyes, we will struggle to love them. We will question their hearts, their motives, their everything. But if we can begin to set aside our selfish perspective and our rights and take on their perspectives, we can begin to love more purely.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71144237367828629422008-04-06T10:56:00.000-07:002008-04-06T10:56:00.000-07:00Bryan Riley: "Are feelings not important?" No one...<B>Bryan Riley</B>: "Are feelings not important?" <BR/><BR/>No one ever said they weren't. However, that wasn't my question. My question was this: "Who do you consider more responsible for your feelings and how you're feeling: Is it you or is it other people, for example, the TeamPyro bloggers?"Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81827373149911578142008-04-06T10:49:00.000-07:002008-04-06T10:49:00.000-07:00Phil, also, I really don't have a clue what you me...Phil, also, I really don't have a clue what you mean by describing me as being passive/agressive. Perhaps I need examples.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59997779563020907552008-04-06T10:16:00.000-07:002008-04-06T10:16:00.000-07:00Oh, as to your question on chest thumping and high...Oh, as to your question on chest thumping and high fiving... first comment above is an example. But when one disagrees he becomes a they. An other - as in Lost. :)Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79736959129752322882008-04-06T10:15:00.000-07:002008-04-06T10:15:00.000-07:00Phil, I am trying, but it seems I speak in a diffe...Phil, I am trying, but it seems I speak in a different language. Things I say get deconstructed and misconstrued. i also thought this was a topic about people confused by postmodernism. Some have accused me of being one. How about we let me flesh out my thoughts and feelings, as well as your own, to try to understand how I am confused? <BR/><BR/>Are my questions off topic? Perhaps if someone would answer them I could then make the point as to how they are on topic? Who knows. <BR/><BR/>Look I am happy to talk intellectually about something, but I don't think God approaches us just with the mental and intellectual, so I am a bit confused as to why people struggle with talking feelings. Perhaps that is part of the problem and the misunderstanding between those labeled here as PM or emergent and those labeled here as guardians of sound doctrine? I don't know... i'm thinking out loud. is that okay? (I am not being sarcastic at all; I am trying to learn your rules.)<BR/><BR/>thanks for trying to understand.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.com