hoghead1 wrote:
I don't think you quite understand my position, so let me clarify. I don't see myself as a Moderator or referee here, simply because I am not.
I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I was simply referencing your own proclaimed "goal" of trying to fill in "missing information" for people in general.
hoghead1 wrote:
I do see myself as a resource person. I have a Ph.D. in theology and that gives me the advantage of having a broader information base to draw upon than do many other members. That's not being conceited, that's just being honest. My goal is to bring into the discussion resource materials and additional information, if I can, that others may have overlooked and that would enrich their knowledge base.
That's fine and dandy. But first I would like to point out that a Ph.D. simply means that you have been recognized by an institution of higher learning to have fulfilled their requirements to obtain such a certification. This in no way suggests that you actually have a "broader information based" from which to draw. A person who has studied religions as nothing more than a personal interest could have just as much information, possibly even more. And they might not even have a college degree in any subject at all. Maybe they simply had no need to seek an official certification, or couldn't afford it.
hoghead1 wrote:
For example, you raised the important issue of what kind of a God. Now, I'm not going to address that question in this post, as I feel that is off the OP. However, if I were in a discussion on what kind of God, I would want to point out that while many assume there is only one model of God in Christianity, in point of fact there are two a present. I would describe what is called the "classical" or traditional model of God and then how contemporary, "neo-classical" theists, such as myself, have seen fit to revise the model and why.
Only two? I must confess that I'm surprised there are only two. It seems to me that I've heard arguments for many different "kinds" of God related to the Bible from many different theists from different denominations. I would be interested to know what your education has taught you in this regard. Also, are all theological seminaries in agreement on this point? I would also find it difficult to believe that all theological seminaries or colleges agree on much of anything.
hoghead1 wrote:
If the OP were on evidence for God, then I would want to share what I know about the classical arguments for the existence of God and then how these arguments have been revised by contemporary theologians and philosophers. My immediate concern would not be whether I am winning over followers. My immediate concern is how well others know the available material.
It could be interesting to hear how many different arguments you make for the existence of a God. I've heard quite many myself, but I've found none that I've heard to be compelling. I do have one of my own that I feel is the most compelling of all. However, my argument for the existence of a "God" would point to Eastern Mysticism, not the Abrahamic type of Authoritarian Godhead that exists separate from us.
hoghead1 wrote:
When I see blanket claims being made about theists doing this or that, my initial concern is to address the stereotyping that may be involved here. Not all theists think or act alike.
I wouldn't think a Ph.D. should be required to realize this. In fact, the same is true of non-theists as well. I will agree that there are a lot of people who make a lot of unwarranted assumptions on both sides of the theist/atheist debates. In fact, I even hate to put it in terms of "theists versus atheists", because I don't even argue that there there is no God. To the contrary, I'm totally open to the possibility of the existence of a God. What I argue against is the idea that any God could exist "as described" by the Hebrew Bible, or Christian Bible.
In fact, I can't help but wonder if you have been required to explain many of the self-contradictory claims made within the Bible in order to obtain your Ph.D. in theology? I would think that you should have been required to address all of those difficult issues. Therefore, if you were to ever debate with me on the Bible you should be able to answer all my questions (at least in terms of having thought about the specific issues I bring up)
There are many issues, but one that might be interesting to discuss with you would be the story of the Canaanites.
hoghead1 wrote:
For example, fundamentalists have tried to pass anti-evolution bans in 26 states. However, right-wing fundamentalists do not represent the whole of contemporary Christianity. Liberal Christians, such as myself, find such legislation abhorrent.
I don't debate what modern day religious fanatics might be trying to do on a political level
unless then want to debate how their agenda relates directly to some specific Biblical scripture.
I don't believe there is any mention of "
evolution" in the Bible at all. So why Christian fundamentalists would want to pass "anti-evolution bans" is beyond me.
Are they even aware that Evolution Theory doesn't even state anywhere that there is no God or Creator? So it's not like Evolution Theory is renouncing their "God".
To the contrary they appear to be upset with Evolution Theory because THEY THINK that if Evolution Theory is TRUE, then their religion must be false.
So they seem to have created their own fear-based revolt against the science of evolution that has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything written in the Bible.
In fact, where does the Bible proclaim that God didn't use evolution to create his creatures? It doesn't. So religious fundamentalists who are trying to pass legislation to ban Evolution are nothing more than religious zealots who have no theological basis for their political activism. And they obviously don't even understand Evolution Theory, because there is nothing in Evolution Theory that actually states, "There is no God".