Re Re: new to S. K. group too
>It would seem to me that there is strain of thought afoot, which may or may not take on an ideological hue, or stench, but it is not really a strain of thought so much as a contingent the of collective consciousness that is informed by science even at the he level of the masses. In it's ideological form it is hostile to Christianity, but in its non-ideological form it is as ignorant of what Christianity is as it is of the science by which it is informed. Like Christianity it does not know; it believes,and its "truth" is "science." Were it an actual thinking consciousness, and not just the lackluster outer shell of scientific thought, it would be post-modernism. But this is just my take on it, my opinion. I have no authority to back it up, in fact, this is the vary air I breath,the milieu I reside in, and try, at least, to think in.
--- In email@example.com, "jimstuart46" <jjimstuart@...> wrote:
> Ms Woody,
> What do you mean by the "modern or post-modern consciousness"?
> Are these two distinct types of consciousness? If so, how would you characterize each one?
> Jim S
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ms.woody956" <ms.woody956@> wrote:
> > Regardless, it seems to me at least, that the real question is not whether we can believe in a god, subjective or otherwise, but whether we can in the God of the bible, can we re-taylor ancient creeds to better accomidate the modern or post-modern consciousness and still be Christians?
- Don -- I'll visit the group page and try to hunt down previous
responses that I thought addressed your concerns. I receive/respond
to this list via email rather than the group page, so it's unnatural
for me to include references to post numbers.