> No conversation or discussion can get anywhere so long as one party refuses to stand on any ground more solid than his own will. Such discussions are inevitably plagued by changes of topic, in which one side replies to critique only by tossing out another assertion, not necessarily related to the first. A professor of mine once quipped that the postmodernist doesn't have to argue a topic; he just changes the subject. The professor was joking, but the joke accurately describes many a religious discussion, especially on the Internet.

Hehee. Sounds like almost any discussion with my roommate. :-} Though I certainly cannot and will not claim to be innocent of this... however, the difference generally lies in that I will begin arguing like that when I'm getting tired of the argument and the other parties seem disinterested in giving it up; it's kind of a "drive-them-off" tactic. He, on the other hand, feels that that is a solid and effective method of argument. :-}

> At that point I can marshal support for my claims about God, such as God's historical activities in the world of humankind. After all, I'm not arguing for a myth; I'm talking about a real being, a person who has revealed himself in tangible ways. And those reasons would be given the respect of due consideration, rather than brushed aside with the easy remark: "Well, that's what you believe, but that's not what I believe." Even admittedly personal and subjective arguments such as the effect that salvation through Christ has had on my life would, in a real discussion, be respected as having an authoritative basis other than my imagination. But let that mutual acknowlegment of and seeking after authority lapse, and you've pulled the rug out from under the whole conversation.
>
> I love to talk about God: who He is, what He's like, how He allows me to know Him and how He wants others to know Him too. I love to debate theology and to repeat the simple gospel story over again. But there's no real savor in talking just to hear myself talk (although my own pride is sometimes still gratified by it). The enjoyment is in finding someone who is interested in hearing, and has something to say on his part as well. It is no respect towards me if someone allows me the freedom to hold my own opinions while remaining insulated from them, invulnerable within a fortress of subjectivism. Respect is given when someone recognizes that what I am saying touches him as well through our common acceptance of authority. In that way I am given power through my words, to threaten the other person or to serve him, and he to edify or endanger me as well.

I love listening to your stuff (I know that seems somewhat disrespectful, but that is not my intent - I honestly cannot think of any other word to use) because you are so articulate and have a very clear and honest viewpoint that runs completely against the common grain of jaded self-importance. (Also, I must confess, I'm playing a game of "guess-the-denomination;" knowing that you're a minister, I'm attempting to determine which denomination of the faith you follow. And don't tell me; that's no fun. :-})

I'm also, as I've said before, a student of religion. As such, I can assure you that another reason this discussion is making no meaningful progress is because we are evaluating through a Christian framework an idea that just doesn't fit into that framework. If I may quote Saint Anselm at you: "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." That is the basic Christian conception of God; God is the greatest, and nothing can be greater than God (arguments from Kant, Tillich and such that adjectives [such as "great" and "greater"] don't apply to God notwithstanding; that's a whole different can of worms that leads to the same result folowing a different path). Therefore, in a Christian theology, man cannot become God or become God's equal or better. That just doesn't apply. There is some variation about the complete otherness of God within Christian thought, however; Karl Barth would place God as completely other than man and say that the only interaction between man and God is that of God acting through grace and upon man, while Paul Tillich (I believe; correct me if I have the wrong theologian) would say that man and God interact in a Buberian I-Thou sense, and God changes through this interaction as well. But, throughout this entire spectrum of "Godlinesses," God is still other and greater than man. Such is the nature of Christian thought and theology.

Anyone advancing the notion that man could or will become God's equal someday is not starting from a position in Christian theology, and that must be recognized in order for the discussion to go anywhere. Debate all you will; if one party is arguing from a Christian standpoint and the other from outside of that, the argument will simply become "is-not--is-so."

> We can agree to disagree, but let's not imagine that the disagreement is not meaningful, not rooted in facts about which we are either correct or mistaken.

I have an interesting statement to make in response to this, drawing from Karl Rahner and suchlike funstuff, but I'm not prepared for that just yet. Remind me later. ;-}

> Issachar
>
> .....is back. Just accept it. :-)

Well... I dunno. That might be kinda tricky. Maybe if you sent some money, it would help me reconcile to the harsh reality of your sudden return. ;-}

Seriously, though, it's good to have you back. I was getting lonely without my evil other half around. :-} Lotsa stuff has changed since you left... we're slotting a couple hundred posts a day nowadays, for one thing. Remember when we got a dozen on a really active day? ;-}

Sorry, folks. Us old-timers gotta reminisce. :-}

Darien

... Is a dork. Just accept it. :-}