We all thought just alike, sort of

Working to establish a definition of community, we move from looking at the building blocks of its structure as physcal entities within an entity, and the general patterned appearance of that super-entity, to describing how mentality works as an individual moves toward community, and then, how a group-mentality works within community. This platform, as a subsidiary of the array being uncovered here, gives us the vantage of turning from the dominating focus on physicality, toward that more nebulous effect of living we call thought process. For the purposes of this sub-section we will separate inspiration as spirit for the next essay and deal, as exclusively as the subject will allow, with the effect of the physical upon the bio-chemistry regimen of thought. Not to be overly technical then, bio-chemistry will be described as it can be observed from accomplishments along a continuum from inception to nexus for manifestation of community accouterment(s).
Awareness, trying not to be deceptive when I say "Simply put", is a necessary prequel to all other thinking. The degree and scope of our awareness is always a result of the effect of stimuli involving the senses and it is often factored through discipline. Discipline, by definition, indicates a dependance upon tradition. Tradition must, wrongly or rightly, arrange ideas or objects according to their potential appropriateness and detriment to success. Success being reliant upon spirit will be investigated at a later writing. Here, suffice to say that success must evidence itself in birth, growth, and regeneration.
In a social entity, the tradition of communication is one of the ways in which awareness moves toward ubiquity. The tradition of communication manifests itself as a language which is dependent upon voice, common morphology, geography and experience and observed but uniquely endowed, desirable or undesirable, conditions upon individuals or groups within the group with needs. This grouping of increasingly diverse constituents, partly through language, then develops, via consensus and time, a system of responses to stimuli which, as a broadly accepted practice, becomes culture(succession) or extinct(failure).
Consensus springs from authoritative agreements that something either belongs or does not belong as a part of the formulation of the community. Consensus is then a political tool whereby a community with wants moves through awareness, communication, and agreement toward regeneration.

Biblical Authority

Cruising the pages of blogdom I found an interesting discussion on Biblibcal authority and truth at
Here
So being enamored of the truth I could not help but resond as follows:

Bill

I think what I am reading you to say is that things, for example, such as how the world was created fall into an abstract truth because I am unable to see the truth other than as a statement that God spoke it into being. On the other hand, how and that God provided for my realization of His supremacy and love is an absolute and singularly detailed for me. But it was a personal encounter such that as many thousands upon millions have experienced the Epiphany in their own personal ways, then as a corporate understanding it, God's revelation, becomes abstract truth. So that when I say an elephant looks and feels like a tree trunk and you may say a shower, we both are true and wrong.

Jacob/Esau/Rebekka/Isaac, on the other hand demonstrate that God will make good on His promises whatever deceitful deal we have worked


RobeFRe

Theoblogian excerpts and comments

I have elected to comment here on my site as opposed to the original,
>theoblogy,
because the discussion there is of a very technical nature, where, rather than big words being used and misused it is the names of authors, ancient and modern, being flaunted about as if they were common household cleansers, so I will finish what I began earlier, to whit:

What can I say that better serves to confuse the issue than these excerpts from the poster and commenters

I. Tony Jones states: options available to Christians in a globalized/pluralistic/postmodern society: liberal accomodationism, conservative retreatism, Hauerwasian sectarianism, and the newcomer: Milbankian (Radical Orthodoxy) withdrawal into the liturgy.

These all seem at once the same option, and as if I am a bit and piece of each one of the differences attempted. Yet again the redundancy!

II. Again Tony Jones: the ability to maintain a "robust doctrine of God" (Steve's words) and a robust understanding of pluralism...is there a way to negotiate a healthy, dialectical relationship with culture and maintain an orthodox doctrine of God?
!st Peter indicates that there is a correct way, but perhaps the best way to consider health is in eternal terms, though striving to maintain the best lifestyle as we can, re Daniel in Babylon.

III. And Tony Jones again: Among practical theologians, there have been a couple major avenues for navigating these waters. Among the University of Chicago theologians (Tillich, Tracy, Browning), there has been an evolving "correlational" model in which theology and culture stand in a dialectical relationship. Tillich said that culture asks the questions and theology provides the answers; Tracy and Browning amended this by saying that each asks questions and each provides answers -- i.e., theology and culture stand in a mutually critical relationship.

I know that I may be a bit sophomoric or worse here but people ask questions and apply disciplines and populate culture. I especailly love it when people ask ‘what is your point?’, to what degree are theology and religion interchangeable?


IV. Tony Jones then states: theology trumps all other disciplines when it comes to issues on which theology is uniquely articulate.

Sorry Tony, and I don’t think that this changes much of the rest of your essay, but idiocy trumps all other disciplines when it is uniquely articulate.

V. Steve B. posits a spirit of fallibilism as necessary to a relationship with others when corresponding upon a subject, in case his box has been incorrectly built by himself.
As humans we will have blind spots and weaknesses but God’s revelation needs only our flexibility in view of others hardness of conviction in order to draw as God himself did the outsiders in through compassion. Flexibility more than fallibility would seem to be a better ideal for me now if it is yo perhaps you are right in using the word fallible. Wink wink nod nod


VI. And Steve b. again: I know what is at stake when I surrender (explicitly or implicitly) my theological convictions on ultimate matters to another discipline
Sounds like you think you have peered through the gates of Hell into the Dark abyss of an unHoly Ghost!

VII. Dlw writes: do both biblical and practical theology.

If it is not Biblical how can it have anything but temporal practicality, and thus no real pracicality?

VIII. An anonymous commenter, Tim Keller, I believe said: the way to a post-modern, post-secular theology

unless any ole who ‘ll do ya, isn’t that through Jesus Christ?

IX. Steve B then wites: The believer, in evaluating state and society, employs a standard of common grace to which she holds others...accountable

This works to place man in control of God’s gift to others, which grace as with any grace elicits only one of two reactions that being acceptance or refusal. God made grace common.