2007-03-08 18:20:06 · 6 answers · asked by STFU Dude 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well, other than being polar opposites, maybe not much.
Tradition for tradition's sake believes that anything that's been done twice is eternal and inviolable. Post-modernism assumes everything is made-up pretense, so we can still do things as long as we all realize it's always been a great put-on. The main difference is attitude.
2007-03-08 18:31:34 · answer #1 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the sabbath law... would be tradition along with chewers of the cud, hoofed and unhoofed animals.. In this day and age, we are under the new testament. So they aren't applicable. Yet, some old fast to the old testament and still hold Friday night at 6 till Sat at 6 am as literal Sabbath and don't touch pork. While most see Friday night as an opportunity to watch a basketball game with friends while having pork BBQ ribs. So go figure...
2007-03-08 18:26:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well what does a liberation theologian have to say?
To remain anchored in a nonevolving traditionalism, weather out of ignorance or selflishness, is to close one's eyes to what is meant by authentic Christian tradition. For the tradition that Christ entrusted to his church is not a museum of souvenirs to be protected.
-Arcbishop Oscar Romero
2007-03-08 18:50:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
postmodern thinks its ok to selectively ignore passages in bible that are *inconvenient
tradition's sake is be a looney about it
2007-03-08 18:23:04 · answer #4 · answered by q6656303 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One is really good but has been used for bad purposes.
The other is really bad, but can be used for good.
The majority of the time the first is good, and the second is bad.
Peace.
2007-03-08 18:23:50 · answer #5 · answered by husam 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i believe in the theology of God
2007-03-08 18:22:19 · answer #6 · answered by spanky 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋