A Critique of Walston on Bethany of Dothan: More Whining!

I'll try to be collegial on this one, Jank. Tony is a Mormon. Therefore, I think it's quite reasonable to assume that he would have a problem with Martin's Kingdom of the Cults.

We'll assume, for diplomacy's sake, that you were not previously aware of Tony's LDS affiliation. Should you decide to debate him on whether Mormonism is a cult in this venue (degreeinfo.com), you will, of course, have justified the need for a separate religion forum. It's enough that we have to bear with Bill's theological pontifications in this thread.

 

Actually, I was aware that Tony is LDS. I have no intention of debating him. Why would you think that?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whine On Guys! The fact remains that....

..........................

Steve:

Why was my list of questions not relevant to this thread?

You said in a post above that Bethany does not demand the quality of work required by legitamately accredited schools. How would you prove it? I opened this thread with a comment on this school's doctorate in Theological Studies. How would you determine the effects of the Bethany regimen without measuring the capabilties of the graduates of that program? How do you know Bethany's theology program is deficit?

My 20 questions, outcome education oriented, do, I warrant, represent what a graduate of the Western MDiv/ThM program can do without much difficulty. It is simple exegesis with a dash of application to the development of dogma. As a now nearly retired school teacher I am used to demonstrating student achievement by subjective examination. I do not just say, well they do good work because this school is accredited or the work must be below par because the school is not accredited!

Those 20 questions are modest theological/exegetical exercises of the type regularly done for term papers at the graduate level in RA theology/Biblical programs. My premise is that the afore mentioned Bethany doctoral program will not prepare one to do such, and that is how I would measure the Bethany rigor.

If that magnum opus is not relevant, then how would you as the resident expert of DL theological training evince your statement re Bethany's slender requirements?

Please answer Steve,

 

.......................

Me? I am guilty of pontificating? Who is it that insists on quoting his unsupported, opinionated conclusions from his own outdated DL book?

 

Hmm....I definitely think mormonism is a cult on degreeinfo.com. I suppose we can add it to the list.

Tony

 

MEET YOU ON OFF TOPIC?

Tony

I would like to meet you on off topic to have you explain a few points I elicit from Theological Mormon writers . I'd consider it a help and a favor to have your opinion. I cannot do it tonight, but will in a day or two submit my questions off topic under: HEY TONY.

Thanks friend,

 

I don't care for anybody telling me with whom I am supposed to argue.

 

The Yin and Yang of religious discussion. Without the latter the former doesn't exist. Since religion ultimately comes down to faith, I have a hard time seeing the point.

Tony

 

Re: MEET YOU ON OFF TOPIC?

Bill,

I would be more than happy to meet with you (or anyone else) to discuss. I also look forward to learning from you about your beliefs. While I certainly do not speak for the entire LDS Church, I do consider myself an expert on what I believe (for whatever that's worth). I also know the difference between official church doctrine and unofficial speculations by Mormon writers (and there are a ton of them).

Your friend,

Tony

 

Hi Tony,

I understand your point and agree totally that religion ultimately comes down to faith (especially when the same scriptural verses can be interpreted differently by various religious groups).

However, would you not agree that there is a difference between the following two activities?

1. Publishing a book showing ancient literary forms present in the Book of Mormon that were unknown in 1829 (when the book was first published)

2. Setting up an anti-Evangelical ministry which includes picketing meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention, publishing works with titles like "why Calvinism is a non-Christian cult," attempting to block construction of evangelical churches and the distribution of "religious discussion," such as Blomberg & Robinson's book "How Wide the Divide"?

The Other Tony

 

Amen. I prefer collegial discussion and exchange.

Tony

 

Re: Re: MEET YOU ON OFF TOPIC?

I thought Steve Levicoff was the only one who held this position.

 

But there are different varieties of faith. Faith can be blind on one end of the spectrum and based on substantial evidence on the other. As long as some folks base their beliefs on what they consider to be the best available evidence, religious dialog and debate will continue. In the eyes of many, there is a point to such madness.

But not all interpretations are created equal. While many interpretations are indeed possible, our aim as pursuers of truth should be, as far as we are able, to arrive at that which is most probable. So long as people weigh interpretations, religious discussion will persist.

Such discussion is healthy so long as shots are fired at ideas and not individuals. While I strive to tolerate all individuals, I cannot tolerate all ideas. Unfortunately, the line between critiquing ideas and attacking individuals is too often blurred, and all of us have been guilty of toeing that line at one time or another. However, the solution is not to discard debate altogether, but to guard its spirit.

 

There are many (including many academics in many disciplines) who would question just how substantial this evidence is and would put forth their own best available evidence that all faith in god is blind. In the eye of the beholder, the evidence they believe to be accurate is most substantial of all.

Once again, viewed from one's vantage point their current choice is most probable. Otherwise they wouldn't have chosen that path.

I agree with most of this last quote. I also agree that not all ideas should be tolerated. This is illustrated best when taken to extremes. The problem with this statement is that no one, with the exception of god (pre-supposing god's existence), has perfect knowledge. Also, the statement of not tolerating all ideas could mean several things. Should we not tolerate the strange idea that people believe in some supernatural being?

This is all somewhat like that tolerant liberalism I hear so much about but never seem to be able to locate. (or, if you wish, replace liberalism with conservatism)

Tony

 

I agree that evidence alone will never go all the way in proving a particular religious conviction, but I know of no reputable, responsible scholar in an appropriate field who believes no evidence whatsoever exists for something like, say, the bodily resurrection of Christ. There are, of course, discussions surrounding just how far such evidence goes, but the fact that it exists in some measure is proven by wide interaction with commonly identified data by those on both sides of the fence. If such evidence was wholly lacking, then the majority of non-believing academics would be wasting their time with straw men. They obviously believe there's more substance to things than that. Thus, not all matters of faith can be labeled "blind."

This is not entirely true. In fact, I know many people (including academicians) who readily admit their current beliefs are not based upon what they consider to be a probable interpretation of given data, but rather comfort, family tradition, image, fear of change, personal gain, etc. Many external factors can motivate a person to eschew evidence in favor of personal prejudice. Thus, I would challenge the notion that people always choose paths based upon evidential probability.

I readily agree that no human has complete knowledge. But this does not preclude the ability or even responsibility to judge ideas. Though we may never attain intellectual perfection, sound thinking in an atmosphere of accountability can propel us in the right direction.

As for the meaning of cognitive toleration, I simply mean that not all ideas must be affirmed as true. It is common in our postmodern culture to equate the affirmation of an idea with the affirmation of the person possessing the idea, but I believe that to be a faulty perspective. I need not admit that your ideas are intellectually equal to mine in order to acknowledge that you are personally equal to me in worth, significance, and the like.

All of this underscores, I think, the need for responsible dialog with the broader community in a given field of study. As arguments are passed back and forth in an open, humble atmosphere, ideas are refined, rejected, or reinforced. The biggest danger lies in dialoguing only with oneself, and not subjecting one's ideas to the scrutiny of others. This is one of the primary reasons that I am in favor of open religious dialog, and do not find it to be pointless.

We do seem, however, to be drifting in a direction pointless to the discussion of distance education, so I'll leave these as my concluding remarks. Please feel free to contact me privately if you wish. Thanks for taking the time to interact.

 

Thank you for explaining your position in more detail. I must admit that theology is not my arena by any stretch of the imagination. The point I was trying to make is a different religion is not necessarily wrong just because it bases it's beliefs on a different foundation than you do. You can say it is not comparable (ie not christian) if the 'body' decides it falls outside their defined frontier, but if this is so, then all religions are 'wrong' to a greater or lesser degree.

Take care,
Tony

 

What's the ECU library website

What's the website for ECU's library? It was mentioned on page one, I believe it was, of this thread.

Thanks much,

Starkman