IN ASKING ABOUT THE REALITY OF FAITH in the 21st century, the following questions arise: What is the meaning of faith? And what makes faith a reality? More importantly, however, to the question of the reality of faith is the reality of God, and it is this question of God that is under discussion in the present essay. For instance, if the Father-God of Christian tradition belongs to history, that, of course, has far-reaching implications for one's thinking about the reality of faith. In this essay I want to examine the work of H. M. Kuitert and Alain Badiou to show that a choice has to be made about this. It will be my argument that true faith can better be imagined without than with God.
Neven, Gerrit. ‚Doing Theology without God? About The Reality of Faith in the 21st century‚
Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory vol. 6 no. 3 (Fall 2005): 30-42.
PURL: http://www.jcrt.org/archives/06.3/neven.pdf
So, let's see, if that's how postmoderns are thinking, lets see where this trend in thinking will take us, with some remixing of the last phrase of that paragraph.
It will be my argument that true parenthood can better be imagined without than with children.
It will be my argument that true eating can better be imagined without than with food.
It will be my argument that true marriage can better be imagined without than with having a husband or wife.
It will be my argument that true reading can better be imagined without than with the written word.
It will be my argument that true swimming can better be imagined without than with water.
It will be my argument that true golf can better be imagined without than with golf clubs and golf balls.
It will be my argument that true driving can better be imagined without than with vehicles.
It will be my argument that true art can better be imagined without than with paintings or sculptures or any other art form.
It will be my argument that true internet surfing can better be imagined without than with the computer.
It will be my argument that true seeing can better be imagined without than with eyes.
It will be my argument that true hearing can better be imagined without than with ears.
It will be my argument that true living can better be imagined without than with life.
1 comment:
Good response to this utter silliness.
Post a Comment