Answering…
? – by Krystian PHOTOSynthesis
Okay, time to answer some of the questions asked of late. First of all, we’ll go with Scotty’s questions on why I still believe Christianity is worth believing in a postmodern world, even more specifically, why I am still a Christian given the views I have stated. I may have to refer to his actual comment to respond.
First: “Why should anyone believe anything if that is the case?” To answer this question is very simple. You cannot believe in nothing. Or well, you can, but then that becomes your belief. You are going to act according to your belief set. Even if your set of beliefs is changing, say for example, you begin to disbelieve Christianity, you are going to have some intermediate set of beliefs before you move on to something new. That said, you set of truth then becomes what you are currently accepting as truth. I’ve touched on this before in the statements along the lines of “truth is what you (and the society you are embedded within) make it out to be.”
And so why do I believe in Christianity if truth is not something concrete or absolute? For one, because I don’t think absoluteness is foundational to me thinking something is true. Somebody put it well: Certainty is not necessary in order to be convinced of something. I don’t have to be certain that the way I believe is completely correct, that it is the only way that Christianity is to be viewed, in order to be convinced that its the best thing out there in the way of answering the questions I have about creation, suffering, purpose in life, reason for existence, a future after death, etc. It makes sense to me. I like what it has to offer. It lives out well and as it says it will. Is this evidence? You can say it is if you like. You could also say it just happens to be that way. I prefer to think life lives out the way it does when lived by, what God describes as, the Christian life because it is what God intended and purposed. Is this the way it actually is? I can’t be certain, but I am convinced it is.
Can you see the difference in this? In this, I am also willing to reconsider if you can present to me a better way of life, a better set of beliefs, if you can make something sound more appealing to me. Sounds like a shaky foundation of belief, huh? The trick is, I’m pretty well convinced that no one is going to be able to show me a better way. I’ve read about other ways of belief, I’ve seen some of them lived out. I’ve seen the miserable failings of others. In this too, there is much, even in the postmodern school of thought within Christianity that I am not sure I can or ever will accept. And there is still much I have not seen. In everything I’ve looked at, though, I am yet to be convinced that there is any better way than Christianity. Maybe thats too weak a view of truth for you. I see it as how it is. There are a few other issues to be addressed in this topic, but for now, I hope that helps.
Now onto, John’s questions. Some interesting issues for sure. A few issues with your reasoning I need cleared up before I can speak accurately about it. Here is a portion from your comment:
1) Absolutes cannot exist for a being with Will.
2) There are no absolutes in a natural world except those that are defined by supernatural Will.
3) Absolutes defined for the natural law, have zero influence on the supernatural Will.
4)Therefore we, under natural law, are completely unable to define Truth. We are, however, able to understand Truth; given we understand that there IS supernatural Will.
First, from #1, I’m assuming that you mean “Absolutes cannot exist for a natural being with Will.” Otherwise, to claim the supernatural also has Will, and that he defines absolutes doesn’t make sense.
Second, from #2, there is an assumption being made, that the supernatural will is actually defining absolutes. Does he and why is this necessary? I don’t see the necessity of absolute truth being defined. Does God in fact define absolutes, or is there more an interconnected web of ways of understanding which are valid inside of God’s interpretation of truth, as it were? N.T. Wright puts it well when speaking of the question of justice and the answer to how our view of God fits into the reason for evil in the world: “…I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘the answer’, but – the matrix of thought and life within which God’s people are called to continue to grapple…” [N.T. Wright - "What it Looks Like When God Runs the World"]
Lastly, I question the idea that God, in creating the system of “natural law” would then step around it in order to provide truth. Could he? Yes. Did he? I don’t know why he would. What then is the purpose for this natural law, if it only serves to cloud and disturb God’s ability to transmit truth? Your comment, “Any truth that we define for ourselves is subject to law, therefore is no truth at all.”: Why is truth we define and is subject to “natural law” (that I think you would agree with me in believing God created) not truth? There seems to be the idea here that God cannot work with his creation of a natural order and man’s subjectivity to it in order to give man some form of truth. Is there perhaps a more wide range of beliefs within Christianity that fall underneath God’s view of truth? The question may not be: “Is not God powerful enough to transmit his truth absolutely in a fallen world?” but rather: “Is not God powerful enough to give his truth to a fallen world in a way which does not demand absolute truth or a singular point of view?” Can/does God work in our fallen understanding to allow even the fallenness of our knowledge to point to truth, even if it is not absolute? Hebrews speaks of God speaking to us through natural means, now including his Son, who came in the form of one under “natural law.” I am not arguing (as I said above) against the idea that “We have truth and are able to understand it because it comes from God.” I am arguing that one way of understanding is not the only way. This is Christian postmodernism, not that there are multiple ways to get to God, but that there is no “one absolute way” to live and believe within Christianity.
In this (this is the question I see coming from both of you), I am not arguing that there are multiple ways to get to God, say, outside of Jesus. I am arguing that what that actually means or looks like (believing in Christ Jesus) is perhaps not universal. I’ll wait to address that one until somebody asks 
Hope that makes some sense. Thanks for the questions. Definitely good ones for this discussion.
