20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

I don't understand that.

The Degreeinfo Christians make multiple posts every day that contradict atheism and indicate their disagreement with what atheists believe. But if an atheist responds by making a post expressing disbelief in religion, then he's intolerant.

Why is Christian refusal to believe atheism admirable, but atheist refusal to believe Christianity a symptom of something wrong with the atheist?

You had made what I considered a slightly insulting remark about non-Christians avoiding "logic and reason". I responded by engaging you on that point, and suggested that if somebody wants to convince somebody else of something, then the burden of proof is on the person doing the asserting. That means that if a Christian expects to convince a non-Christian, the Christian is going to have to expend a little effort in presenting a credible case.

I also presented the bare outline of an argument concerning the difficulties of knowing transcendent things that would seem to provide strong support for the skeptic's position and clearly rebut your charge that they avoid logic and reason.

I have stated some of the problems that I see in justifying religious knowledge claims. I have given you some reasons why I think that those problems are both real and relevant.

Ed K. implied that he had authoritative and slam-dunk replies to concerns that I'd raised. Unfortunately he refused to reveal what any of those arguments were. Instead he gave me a reading assignment and told me in so many words to go away and get lost.

Well, here I am, perfectly willing and in fact quite eager to discuss any idea proposed by any author with anyone.

I've said what I think and given reasons. I don't think any of the papers in 'In Defense of Miracles' (the book Ed K. offered to send me) successfully addresses my concerns. If anyone thinks that I'm mistaken, feel free to explain why.

The massive manuscript evidence is due to the fact that early medieval monks spent much of their time copying it. Hence many manuscripts and manuscript fragments are extant. I have no doubt that textual studies have permitted a fairly accurate early text to be reconstructed. That doesn't address the question of its divine inspiration.

The fact that the Bible gives us information on ancient kings and cities make it a tremendously valuable historical source, but that doesn't address the question of its divine inspiration.

I'm not really moved by prophecies since I suspect that many later passages were written expressly to illustrate earlier prophecies being fulfilled. That's how religious figures and/or their champions demonstrated their bona fides.

If these events are as astronomically unlikely as you suggest, then I'd be inclined to seek an alternative explanation that seems more likely. That certainly doesn't disprove the Biblical version, but it does suggest that it might not be as probitive as hoped.

That's precisely where the problem lies. How does one go about demonstrating divinity? How is such a demonstration possible, even in principle?

Let's accept, simply for the sake of argument, that the Bible itself or the events related in it have extraordinary, inexplicable and mind-boggling qualities. How do we get from mind-boggling to divine truth? What would prevent the Bible from being magical, daemonic, demonic or infernal? Or, more seriously, something else that man has no concept of? The category of the unexplained is open-ended, and transcendence comes in many grades, not all of them divine.

The problem is only compounded when we extend the discussion beyond Christianity to the full range of reported miracles and wonders.

 

Hi Bill!

Just wanted to point out a few observations. First is that the Bible isn't a book. It's sixty six books with various authors. If it was only one book it would definately be much more suspect given the nature of the things written in it.

While some prophesies are subject to debate some are quite hard to explain away. Jesus' crucifiction was declared in the OT many hundreds of years beforehand, as well as many other things about His life which no human would have power over to "make happen." What if he had been stoned instead? Then we could say, ah ha! How could he choose His own lineage, or the town He would be born in, or that His earthly parents would flee to Egypt while He was just a new born baby. These prophesies weren't written afterwards. They were ancient before His comming. Concerning the resurrection, understand that the tomb was sealed and guarded by Roman soldiers. If anyone tried to mess with it thet would've been dead. These guards were occupying forces who were not friendly with the locals, if you know what I mean. To break that seal was death, period. If those soldiers even let it happen then their life would be forefit. The OT reveals empires that would rise up in the future, even the distant future. The greeks, persians, and the romans were mentioned some many hundreds of years beforehand. Rome was a small city under Greek local power, and Greece was just a bunch of city-states when these prophesies were written. Rome was a power that rose much later long after the OT was completed. So it wasn't "added later." If someone tried then the thousands of Hebrew teachers would have contended it and therefore there would've been records indicating such. It would've been an outrage! There are also, extra-Biblical sources as well. The Jewish Historian Flavious Josepus talks of Christ and the followers of, "The Way." He was Jewish, and a friend of Rome during the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. He was an adviser of some sorts to the Roman Emperors. So his record is important as he wasn't a Christian.

Another tidbit. Moses wrote the Pentateuch(the first five books). If the plagues had been a farce then his contemporaries would've known it. Can you see it? Oh, good morning dear, while you slept God brought judgement on Egypt and we're in the desert now. How about helping me with this manna. Even the next few generations after him would know of the manna that God fed them with. Try pulling that one over on a million or two people. Son, I don't think you remember, but for the first twenty years of your life you ate manna from heaven. Now I know you don't remember that, but trust me because Moses wrote it down for us. There are way too many miracles and signs to just write them off as "there must be some logical explanation for this," or "it was added later."

Hope this at least helps and/or gives you something to digest!

Take care and have a great day/weekend


Kevin

 

You miss the point. There is nothing wrong with disagreement and I have indicated that ad nauseum. Rich began by ridiculing, name calling, hyperbole filled assertions (against Paige & Falwell that had no demonstrated basis in logic other than name calling) & then when anyone disagreed began complaining about righteous....etc. and idiotic....etc. Well............

As for your comment about Ed, I suspect he did not want to start typing pages and pages to what end. You could do your homework and research the other side and then debate it. From what I gather here you are a bright man. I do not see him asking you to read a book as evasive. If you put in the effort to read the book he recommended to answer some of your questions you might have meaningful dialogue. You may or may not really be interested in meaningful dialogue on the issue. Often people ask for proofs regarding Christianity but then are not really interested because they have their investment in their own position (yes their are Christians in that situation as well). You might enjoy some of Ravi Zacharias' stuff. He did some great lectures at Harvard.

Actually, there is something wrong with all of us and that is sin and separation from the Creator. My words are not going to convince anyone and I am not anything near a great debater. As Christians we are called to share the truth of the gospel and that is all we can do. Beyond that we have debates (Calvinist/Arminian) regarding what happens next. I may feel badly for you that you are missing something extraordinary in your life and in the world to come. I can pray and hope for you but I cannot make you believe (nor would I try). I accept your right to believe that your view point is correct which is different from believing that your point is correct.

North

 

Re: Good Friday

And you too Rich. As I recall you are putting the finishing touches on your dissertation so I look forward to your sharing the good news with us that you are 'Dr. Rich'.

North

 

Bill,


Yes, yes, yes! Ravi Zacharias is a great debater. I also strongly recommend him. He is extreemly intelligent and really deals with the philosophical side of religion both comparetively as well as the philosophical aspects. He actually goes to Universities and has debates with both students and faculties as well, I believe.
He also has a radio show called "let my people think." You could check out his web site and find the times and stations it airs in your area.


Kevin

 

That's ridiculous. Since when can somebody make a controversial assertion, and then sit back and expect his opponent to argue his case for him?

I have done my homework and that work has led me to see a problem with determining the truth or falsity of religious knowledge claims about transcendent objects.

I have presented the simplest and most obvious question imaginable. How can one know the truth in religion?

It's a question that needs to be answered before a person without a religion chooses a religious path, and before a person with a religion changes faiths.

That means that it is absolutely critical to apologetics and hence to evangelism. Or at least it would be if those were conduced on intellectual grounds.

It isn't something that a theologian can easily ignore.

 

"What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak."
George Santayana, [Reason in Religion]

 

I assuming your search is genuine, I wish you the best with it BillD (especially since it has eternal consequences).

I am rock solid in my faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that I can trust the bible for among other things reasons mentioned earlier (unique & unified book written by many authors over centuries, accurate as far as archeology; accurate on any subject it speaks taking into account syles of speech and anthropmorphisms, individual differences,etc; prophecies by many authors that come to pass much later the odds of which are completely astounding & never equalled: etc, etc, etc). There are reasonable explanations for any biblical difficulties (eg just because one author mentions an event and rounds up the number of soldiers does not make it inaccurate). No I cannot measure God but I can see evidence all around, in my own personal life, and in the lives of others. I can see the amazing force for good that Christianity has been in the world (hospital systems, wide spead education systems, Western Democracies, women's rights, etc.) Don't brother bringing up the crusades and unChristian acts by men who allegedly were Christian (we can see where they were not acting in accord with the gospel & on top of that when people claim that Christianity/Religion has killed more people that is not statistically accurate since two atheists in this last century have done more of that individually).

I do not intend to discuss this any more as I do not see a point in it but rather futility. Every point you can bring up can be countered and has been countered in the past. People either believe or they do not. There is no 'knock-out punch' to convince someone who has determined not to believe, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous on my part. For every point I have that counters yours, you will counter it and so on. This can be done even if one bears more logic than another (it is endless). My father used to debate that cigarettes were really that bad for you. That is why we have debates on everything from religion to politics. That is why James White makes a living debating (and annoying) Mormons & Roman Catholics. One could get invovled in the 'Yes, but game' (see Berne) or 'Blemish' but to what end (pretending I am going to convert you???). What I can hope for with sincerity is that a seed has been planted and that the Holy Spirit will touch your life (1 Cor 2:14-16).

Wishing you the best in life (and afterward) BillD

North

 

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
—Carl Sagan

 

--


??? Bill, I don't have any trouble ignoring it. I think you said above that Christians should get off their big fat butts and prepare good arguments. Perhaps I'm just lazy, but I am content for you to go on believing whatever you wish. Please do.


Can you show me some places in the New Testament where evangelists such as Peter or Paul felt any compulsion at all to argue for their faith on purely intellectual grounds exclusive of Scriptural doctrines?

It seems to me that regardless of the quality of "proof" anyone could provide skeptics with , some still would still remain unconvinced...which is their right. If I understand John 11 correctly, there were some there who (should this record be true, and of course I think it is ) actually watched Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. But some still , who witnessed even that , were yet unconvinced! He could after all as you say do that by Satan's power!?

And then too, if Jesus appeared to you and gave you what you say you crave and presented to your analytical mind His reasoning with absolutely flawless logic and irrefutable rhetoric to "prove" the veracity of His words, well that could just be done by magic.

So, I guess the place to be is on my big fat comfy butt. You may remain unconvinced, but that doesn't upset me.

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction"
—Pascal, [Pensees (1670)]

 

Re: Re: Good Friday

Actually, the finishing touches are already on. I'm awaiting approval by the dean and recommendation for graduation.

P.S. I would like to note that your observation about my comments regarding Paige and Falwell may not have been hyperbole. That is your opionion. I might be right, and that is mine.

 

Using a host of quotes to reinforce one's position is a waste of one's research skills--Morris, [DegreeInfo (2003)]

 

Hardly. However, using absolutely nothing (except circular logic) in defense of one’s position is a waste of everyone’s time. I never stated that the quotes offered were my opinions. My only point is that these debates about religion have been going on since the time of Christ, with neither side changing the mind of the other.

You do, however, illustrate a very important point. The majority of those who profess to study religion or theology do not really do so; they simply study things that they feel will bolster their preconceived beliefs.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
—Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65 A.D.)

 

Finally, we are getting back to the original post. Thanks Gus, and I agree with your summation regarding the post. Those who would gain ordination in 3 minutes via the net have had little time to study theology.

 

I'd like to commend everyone in this thread for what has been a (basically) restrained discussion. For the record, although my beliefs are not that different from Bill D.'s--I must be the person W. Somerset Maugham referred to when he said that a Unitarian "very earnestly disbelieves in almost everything that anybody else believes, and has a very lively and sustaining faith in he doesn't quite know what"--Bill G.'s attitude is basically the one I have taken, or tried to take, on most abstract matters of religion and philosophy. I have seen too many morally unassailable and intellectually honest Christians, theists, agnostics, and atheists to suppose that any of these beliefs are flawed beyond repair. Clearly they are all capable of functioning admirably well, under the right circumstances.

As far as mass-murdering dictators go, may I suggest that the problem is not religious fanaticism, or communist fanaticism, but fanaticism in general. It is not impossible to conceive of a world where an obsessed Pepsi drinker attempts to kill everyone who prefers Coke.


Cheers,

 

I am an avid Pepsi drinker.

But of course, if others prefer Coke, I have come to several conclusions:

1) They are wrong and misinformed.
2) They have never tasted the sweet nectar of Pepsi.
3) That is their privilege.

 

---


4) They have been predestined to second best

 

1. I drink both (in Diet versions).
2. I prefer Diet Coke.
3. I understand why people prefer the sweeter Pepsi.
4. But honestly, they both taste like carbonated battery acid!

 

Why is theological instruction even expected of clergymen? What purpose does it serve?

Why can't people just simply know what they believe and intend to teach, preach, perform, administer, exemplify, channel or whatever they see their task as a clergyman to be?

More directly: Why is what the ULC doing, providing ordinations sans any shred of theology and doctrine, wrong?

If there is no means to reliably distinguish religious truth from religious error, then particular theological systems can't be shown to be true. If they can't be shown to be true, then requiring them as essential to the task of a religious practitioner would seem to be unnecessary, or at best a matter of personal taste.