If a speed limit is posted, that is the legal limit a person may go. Police set their radars higher BECAUSE people do not obey and the machine will be steadily going off… they have to set it higher to keep it from going off so much and to concentrate on those breaking the law at higher, more dangerous speeds. Rationalize all you want, but when you go above a limit, you have exceeded what is allowed, period. Every person knows whether or not they are trying to meet the limit, or if they are trying to “fudge a little”.

I would expect the Christian to be the one obeying the speed limit even if no one else is… Aren’t we obligated to be the best citizens we can be? The answer lies in what our motives are… to do what’s right, or to do what is convenient or most pleasing to self.

But once you peel away the screaming insanity of some of its self-contradictory claims, one can find an important and absolutely necessary critique of modernity.

Derrida’s “incredulity toward metanarratives” is an important idea, as is the idea that metanarratives are often attempts to seize power.

If we can’t see that the rampant modern worship at the altar of Science can be more completely explained by postmodernity than by modernity (which merely blesses whichever school of thought WINS the power battle), then we’ve got serious problems with our way of understanding the world.

“Two plus Two can equal five” is a linguistics game that no sane human actually believes in practice.

Postmodernity, ironically, does a great job of forcing people to be empirical with their claims. If the Gospel is really true (and not merely a claim to power), then those people claiming it to be true should possess lives transformed (in some measure) according to its truth claims.

in HIS love,
nick

Why yes…. Yes it does.

http://rhetoricsanspareil.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/the-model-for-the-enlightened-cognition-of-compassion/

It is from innate human compassion that all morality flows - not God.

I know I come over as very adverserial; I just don’t shy from a strong position. I welcome - nay, I insist upon - your critical analysis and discussion.

Have a nice day!

1.) I think the Renaissance is a prime example of that, yes.
2.) That, friend, is the question of the hour. How indeed? I think you see pockets of this sort of engagement here and there (for instance, I think of Mars Hill Church with the Paradox, which apparently had become a legit musical venue in the Seattle scene). The answer may not be the same across the board, in a methodological sense. I know how you don’t become a driving force, though: disengage.

I had a question. It seemed most of the art coming from the European Renaissance was highly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. Was this the driving force you were talking about when you said the Church (I’m still confused with capital and lower case C’s….) drove art and culture?

Actually, let’s make that two questions. How can the church get back to being a driving force for art/culture?