ArOnIL

recommend you these books:
1. The Case For Christ
2. The Case For Faith
by Lee Strobel.

Hope it helps to strengthen your Faith :)

-enn@j

These postmodern ppl sometimes are unbearable. And esp so for those who accept postmodernism uncritically. What's wrong with trusting history? They say it's bias. But they do believe in history, only their reconstructed history. The question here is "Is there such thing as Dispassionate History?". If there such thing as objectivity when preceiving events in time? To me, the fly-on-the-wall is a myth, it's an attempt to look at things from, to quote NT Wright, "almost a God's-eyeview".

"The fact is (!) that you can't write about anything from a 'neutral' point of view. There is no such thing. Every telling of every event involves selection; and when you select you interpret." (Who Was Jesus, NT Wright)

Peter

In fact you are right to say that some historical narrations are only ONE story. The bible was not meant to tell us so many things that happened in the time in which the events in the biblical narrations occured. But if you mean to say that biblical accounts contradict historical facts, that's another "story" :). If we ever meet, we'll discuss on how to engage history properly, without the bias of postmodernism or the fanaticism of religous-fundamentalism.

Peter the Magnificent

Well, simply put, postmodernists believe that there's always two sides to every story (which has its merits). It doesn't question the Bible (or the Qur'an, or the Torah, or other religious texts) per se, but I suppose in principle you can make it so.

In my case, I take a balanced approach. I can be post-modernist in some aspects (I acknowledge that history can be and usually is written by victors), but as far as God goes...well, I truly believe in Islam and most of its principles (that's another story :>). You don't have to be completely one or the other, for fanaticism is self-defeating.

Hope this helps.

fikri,

Acknowledging that history was written by victors does not necessarily makes one a Postmodernist (PoMo). Any sincere historian will inevitably believe that often time than not, the affairs of time were put down to paper to the compliment of triumphant rulers/nations/parties.

Your so-called "balanced approach" however is PoMo. If the you believed in the "death of the author" of the PoMo, the Quran, then cannot make much sense to you literally. You'll have to read between the lines and possibly believe that Muhammad s.a.w (or, horror of horrors, the angel of God)did not consciously meant what was written, but there were subconsciously other meanings which the modern (or postmoder..hehehehe) readers have to dig up for themselves. Is that consistent with Islamic theology? It may not be, but embracing BOTH contradicting philosophies is definitely consistent with PoModernism.

While on the other hand, I agree that there are certain ideas in PoModernism that can be very attractive and I do absorb some of these, I am very careful not too fall into the pit of PoModernism, one vital one being their disillusionment of modernism and thereafter their radical response against it.

Peter