06-14-2016, 04:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2016, 05:27 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-14-2016, 04:48 PM)radind Wrote: I do like a dialogue, but there needs to be an exchange as Bohm defined it.
Quote:https://www2.clarku.edu/difficultdialogu.../index.cfm
..."The object of a dialogue is not to analyze things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions and to look at the opinions—to listen to everybody's opinions, to suspend them, and to see what all that means.... We can just simply share the appreciation of the meanings, and out of this whole thing, truth emerges unannounced—not that we have chosen it.
Everything can move between us. Each person is participating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it. We can call that a true dialogue.
Dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgments and assumptions"
That's good. But it's a bit like hedging your bets. If you are going to call something "Christian" that SOME Christians believe in, and say it's Bible-based, but then call for a "holistic approach," aren't you begging the question? What is "easy Christianity" that "lacks true faith," and what isn't? What is really LEGIT Christianity, and WHO SAYS SO?
Don't you have to, in a "holistic" approach, be more open to other interpretations made by other Christian philosophers? Like Paul Tillich, for example. Or existentialists. Or New Thought? Or Christian mystics? How can your approach be the "true faith" and "Bible based," but not "engineered" from the Bible itself?
A "Biblical worldview" must be based on The Bible, by definition. You must depend on the source. If you say a Biblical worldview must support specific state policies, then I would suggest it must be stated chapter and verse exactly. Otherwise, there is difference of opinion on what the Bible says about them.