20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

I love people. I love religious people by default. But I cannot stand it when some (not all, not most, but some) religious people adopt a "presumptive righteousness" about their beliefs, as if anyone withing earshot would obviously agree. After all, they're right, right?

That's my beef about Secretary Paige's remarks. Not that he has those feelings; he's certainly entitled. But that he feels no restraint at all about espousing them while serving in a position that requires that he keep them to himself.

Some people on Degreeinfo feel compelled to talk about their religious convictions. But when someone else disagrees (and says so), he's thought of as having a phobic reaction. Oh, great. So I either see these obvious truths or I've somehow been damaged in some way that prevents me--and causes me to lash out. How convenient.

What really cracks me up is that I was married 7 years ago in the Episcopal church, and have attended mass many times over the years. I'm not a Christian, but I really get along on their home court. But here I'm "phobic." What an idiotic statement.

 

Re: Re: Ordination Mills

Note that the ULC makes no claim to be Christian so the rules you quote do not apply. Alternatively, it makes no claim not to be Christian. I believe their one and only theological statement is that you can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

As has been repeated here, does anyone really want a civil servant or judge to decide what is a legitimate religion or not?

Given their beliefs, maybe it could be decided that no Baptist is fit for ordination and that teaching Baptist doctrine has no worth academically.

Slippery slope.

 

Re: Re: Re: Ordination Mills

 

Re: Re: Re: Ordination Mills

Hi Dennis!

The phrase "you can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others" reminds me of the Wiccan creed "if it harms none do what thou wilt." Wicca was a religion I looked into as I was seeking God and truth in my younger years. It's more known as the New Age Movement I believe. It's not new though. You're right that if that's the case then they're neither Christian and yet incorporate some Christian doctrine. In wicca you can basicly name your god or goddess whatever you feel you want to. They deny that there is one supreme God and/or Satan. They are very into spiritism though. They have similarities with Hinduism and Native American Spiritism. What do you think? Are they New Age and/or Wiccan? Many in the NAM(new age movement) even read the Bible. They basicly try to mesh it all together with all the other religions. It is very confusing trying to do this. This, I feel, has some serious problems given the claims of Christ, as well as Mohamad, etc... Nevertheless I'm not writing this to debate Wicca.

Take care!

Kevin

 

Having hung around atheists for years, I can say with what I consider reasonable confidence that there is no substantial difference between the ethics of an average atheist and the ethics of an average liberal Christian. (And this is exactly what the New Testament says I should expect; see 1 John.) Most atheists keep to a humane ethic for the same reason most of the rest of us do: They choose to. Determining what the right thing is isn't always clear-cut, but it's a concern that every genuine humanist has.

And most atheists I've met would put your shoe on the other foot--if Jesus forgives all and God is complete control of the universe, why behave in a moral way? They would argue that it's the primal vulnerability of the human race, and the lack of heavens and hells, that put the onus on us to behave in a moral and just way, because there will be no God to make it all okay if we don't. (That's why so many atheists were involved in the anti-nuclear movement; if we blow ourselves up, there would be no God to save anything we know. It would be as if no human being ever existed.)

In any case, all of this is beside the point; Rich is an agnostic, not an atheist, so he is not asserting--nor should he be asked to defend--the idea that there is no God. The burden is on you (if you really want to convince him) to demonstrate that there is one.


Cheers,

 

Bill G.: "I am of the hope that I can remain on friendly terms on this site with those who have other religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all. And that includes you, Rich! I will respect your opinion when it disagree with mine regardless of whether the topic is religion or education!"

Rich D.: Exactly! I'm not interested in the least in changing anyone's point of view on religion. But I'm entitled to mine. And I'm just as entitled to speak of it as anyone else. But I only do it in response to what I perceive to be really "pushy" situations, or what I called earlier, "presumptive righteousness."

 

Tom: "In any case, all of this is beside the point; Rich is an agnostic, not an atheist, so he is not asserting--nor should he be asked to defend--the idea that there is no God. The burden is on you (if you really want to convince him) to demonstrate that there is one."

Rich: I think that makes me an atheist. What I am not is an activist. I don't want to change anyone's mind. I would, however, like to keep religion out of the schools and the government. But I would also say that anyone "preaching" to others, trying to get them to abandon their religious beliefs, would be just as in appropriate--and unconstitutional.

The Founding Fathers, many of whom had strong religious convictions, saw the folly of church mingled with state. Europe was torn by religious wars for centuries. If only those wars had been debates instead.

 

Which can make for a darned good argument from reason in the long run, I think. From a postmodernist perspective, every system of thought is ultimately a book in need of a good hermeneutic; the guy I'm studying for my Ph.D., Max Kadushin, argued that systems of thought can be broken down into partly expressible and partly inexpressible value-concepts. To get at the latter, working within the relevant texts is a wonderful idea because it puts you in a situation where you get to entertain the relevant framework and see how well it fits with the rest of the universe on its own terms--sort of like seeing if a suit fits by actually trying it on, rather than reading the label. So from that vantage point (and I'm beginning to find it more and more convincing), you're a much better philosopher than you let on!


Cheers,

 

I'm not sure I agree; I find it kind of comforting when public officials confess a diverse range of controversial opinions. It's a good reminder to me that, in the final analysis, they're just individual human beings like me.

Besides, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."; personal opinions do not rise to the level of law, and if the idea that they do ever becomes part of the judicial review process, we'll all be in trouble.


Cheers,

 

Hi!

My point wasn't to debate versus evolution. I said all that to debate the issue of seperation of church and state and freedon from religion that I was discussing with Rich which stemmed from the ULC ordinations not being trampled on by the government, as well as comments Rich said using the phrase "freedom FROM religion. I shared my discontent with the "system" giving reasons why. If there is truly a seperation then why must I or my family be forced to "learn" things we view as false. My argument is that evolution is a religion and that we should stick to hard science like physics, chemistry and such in science class without hypothosis as to their comming to be, and teach evolution in another forum like religion, philosophy, or ethics. I didn't mean to coin him as anything and am sorry if I did that. I was just setting up a straw man and presenting my case. I laid out my problems with the theory to bring up points of contention that are not reconcilable with matters of faith based (bad word!) origins. I stated that since most have at least some belief system that to teach thus violates the rights of students who are made to participate. My conclusion was to point out that if government can't tell ULC what to do then why can the reverse be allowed. Why can people tell me, in public schools, that they have truth and my faith is just empty retoric.

I noted to Rich that some of the things I said were just to joke around with him in good humor as well. I wasn't trying to attack him. I rather like Rich and value his opinion and yours as well....even if I may not agree with it. Again, sorry if I muddied the waters.



Kevin

 

---


Tom


I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you are saying something like individual beliefs should fit into an over all system (hope I got that right).

That, of course, is the perspective of Systematic Theology. By systematic is meant that each doctrine must mesh with the whole system or else either the whole system or the individual tenet is incorrect. My thesis with Unizul is taking a particular belief and measuring it against "the whole."

Some might suppose that one as I with such self imposed limitations as the authority of Scripture (TO ME, THAT IS) have an easy time of it . I don't have to deal with all "Reality" and reason. But it is not as simple as one might think to arrive at the meaning of even a single verse.

You referenced 1 John and "Christian morality." So consider 1 John 5:18 a,b, "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself." (KJV). Simple? But: as there is a difference among the witnesses to the text (copies) , should the accepted reading be "him" or "himself" because that determines the object of the begetting as to whether it refers to the Christian or to Christ. And what is the effect of the present tense "sins not"? And what does sin even mean, only a willing transgression of a known law as some holiness groups interpret? And is 'begotten' a gnomic, timeless, aorist which would support the eternal generation doctrine of the Nicene Creed were Christ the object as Bultmann maintains He is? . Or are there any gnomic aorists in the NT at all? and so forth. On I blather!

But there really is a lot to do even in my "little" self restricted world of trying to discover the meaning of Scripture. So, I dig into one small text, elicit a proposed meaning, as see if it fits with the whole.

 

"Religion is for people who have not yet had a spiritual experience."
—Aldous Huxley

 

Here's a quote from another of the Huxleys, Thomas Huxley:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in "Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics", 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]

 

Rich, I found your complaints about "presumptive Righteousness" a little amusing as far as congruency goes considering your intolerance in the following statements in this thread (please understand I respect your right to hold these views):

" Religion is bunk"

"Oh as long as I can laugh it"

"...Jerry Falwell & a ULC Minister. One of them is indentifiably
evil".

"{religion} is superstitious jive"

Paige (Education Secretary) is a "demagogue"


Maybe before getting hostile and calling people's statements 'idiotic' you ought to look at some of your own rather intolerant remarks that appeal to people's prejudices.

BillDayson, I was going to post concerning your good question about reason. If I remember correctly (I may not) in another thread you were given lists of resources and did Ed K...ski (grad of DTS) not offer to lend you resources to which he got no response (I could be wrong). The bible is certainly unique in terms of manuscript evidence, accurate Archeological information (in spite of many times being called wrong only to have secular sources go ...ooops), and prophecy in the bible which has absolutely astronomical odds of coming true and yet came true. For these reasons and others Hank Hanegraaff argues the bible is demonstrably divine in origin. Certainly we cannot measure God although evidence abounds. People will deny God even in the face of evidence and there are many reasons and explanations including Arminian/Calvinistic.

Lastly, I too believe in tolerance. Tolerance is not everyone believing that everything is equally true. It is you believing that you are correct and others are incorrect but also comfortable with others believing that they are correct. I may believe Mormonism is not correct but I have no problem with Tony believing it is the true faith and that I am incorrect. I also enjoy (greatly) researching Mormon Apologetics and seeing their side of an argument. Through this I have gained more respect for their faith (whether or not I believe it is true). Same thing with Peter Gomes (The Good Book). He is an African American professor/clergyman at one of the Ivy League schools. His is gay, very bright and in this book argues that homosexuality is not a sin. I may find his arguments weak but I absolutely respect his right to believe them and to believe with his whole heart that homosexuality & Christianity are compatible. From reading his book I sense he has a great deal of spirituality & sincerity. Again, I am comfortable agreeing to respectfully disagree and let God handle the issue.

North

 

"If one is willing to make adjustments in the historical claims of the Bible, they can be correlated with the archaeological evidence if one is willing to take some liberties with the archaeological evidence." [emphasis added]
—J. Maxwell Miller, Biblical archaeologist

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
—H.L. Mencken, [Minority Report, 1956]

 

J. Maxwell Miller is inaccurate. But that is why we have debates. In Peter Jenning's Search for Jesus he used mainly (totally?) liberal scholars and skewed his presentation to shore up those liberal assertions as if they were factual (which they were from the point of view of the scholars he chose). Hank Hanegraaf came along and answered some of those assertions with conservative views (available for download on http://www.equip.org). One should not be uncritical and that is the problem on both sides. My wife was watching the special and was surprised by some of the liberal theological assertions (presented as if they were absolute truth) and I told her that for everything asserted by liberal scholars there were solid counter assertions by conservative scholars.

Mencken is not far off the mark. Respect does not mean we agree. I respect the right of Muslims to believe as they do and I acknowledge there are positive aspects to their religion. I in no way believe there religion is accurate or that they worship the same God I do. I would never ban their belief or right to worship.

Incidentally, I remember watching a Donahue program with the President of Southern Baptist Seminary (Mohler), Rabbi Boteach and some others. Mohler a Calvinist was probably the most tolerant although firm in his assertions that Christ was the only way. He took no perverse pleasure in the fact that others were on the wrong path and was very calm, polite and articulate. The most intolerant on the panel were those opposed to Mohler's beliefs like Boteach (and as I recall a liberal Christian) who were very angry (yelling hyperbole) and belligerent and seemed not even to want to allow Mohler to believe the way he did.


North

 

Good Friday

To my Christian friends I offer my well wishes during this time of celebrating Jesus' sacrifice and the miracle of His resurrection. May you all be well.

 

North:

Yes, I make statements critical (even ridiculing) religion. But where can you indicate I've ever been intolerant (your word)?

When the point comes up, I sometimes have something to say about it. But I've never been any less than "tolerant." (I hate that word, it implies a condescending attitude I do not have. "Co-exist" works better for me.)

 

Re: Good Friday

Thank you, Rich!



Kevin