John Hick

by logansrun 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  Logan,

  Please don't take this as anything other than trying to figure out why this person is of importance.

  Now you read the book and you obviously attribute some type of importance to Mr. Hick. All I want to know is why. I don't think it's that hard.

  As far as reading him. I read one of his lectures (from his website) and found it tediously boring. I also found him to be pluralistic. Though he appeared to beat about the bush on that subject.

  Regarding my garage/church analogy. I thought it was pretty plain. However, I'll explain it to you. You can claim to be a Christian. You can have all the talk down, and still be a non-Christian.

  Lastly, you asked you did prop him up as an "authority" whether you believe it or not. But I'll give you this. Perhaps you were looking for someone to agree with you that this person is a theologian of note. I was under the impression that you attributed to Mr. Hick some type of "authority". At least that was how it came across to me.

  I don't want to turn this into a p*ssing match between us. I have read many of your posts, and though I would disagree with some of your views, I have found your arguments to be sound. All and all you have great talent at arguing (used in the classic context of persuasion).

  Peace, out.

  LABD
• 

  logansrun

  I also found him to be pluralistic

  You find that to be a bad thing? Now guess who reminds who of the WTS.
• 

  Country Girl

  LA Dawg:

  Bradley never once said he was a Christian in that post. How do you assume that? He was just presenting his thoughts on a book he was reading. He never said that he agreed with it, or not. He just said that it presented an interesting theosophy. He said Mr. Hick later became a 'conservative in the Presbyterian church', he didn't say that the guy made a stand and broke off, or even was an authority. He just merely was presenting an idea on a book he read. I found it extremely interesting.that you jumped on him in a few posts when he said at the bottom of his post that he didn't believe it or not, but just read that book and found it interesting. Geesh.. he was offering all of us a chance to comment on it.

  I find your posts extremely combative for no reason. So .. please.. back off. There is no reason to get confrontive for no reason. This is like a book club post.. Bradley read the book, offered his comments, and merely wants to elicit comments on the book and this possible theology.

  I personally think that it's very interesting and thought provoking. A very interesting thought indeed. It goes hand in hand with what my Father says "All religions are tributaries leading to the Great River."

  Country Girl
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  CG:

  Perhaps you missed this at the very top of the post.

  Has anyone ever had opportunity to study the writings and ideas of Christian theologian John Hick?

  Funny, I see "Christian" right there.

  As far as the rest of your post. All I wanted to know was whether this person belonged to a conservative or liberal branch of the Presbyterian Church.

  I did not "jump all over anyone." It seems to me that the people that get jumped on this forum are those that ask the whys, and do not simply accept what some "scholar" stated. I learned my lesson by reading what has been printed in various WTS publications, and then comparing it to to what the authors actually wrote, and what axe they had to grind.

  Then you must have missed the last part of my post, where I said to Logan:

  I don't want to turn this into a p*ssing match between us. I have read many of your posts, and though I would disagree with some of your views, I have found your arguments to be sound. All and all you have great talent at arguing (used in the classic context of persuasion).

  The hardest thing that I have found in reading posts on any discussion board is not having the benefit of tone of voice and inflection. I think, CG that you are reading way too much into my posts here.

  LABD
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  Logan:

  Yes, I do believe that a "pluralistic Christian" world view is not a good thing. However your snide remark was way out of line.

  Unlike the WTS, I believe that people are entitled to hold whatever opinion they want about pluralism, and I (among many) am entitled to hold the opinion that they are wrong.

  Does that make me intolerant? No, it makes me tolerant. Because they have that right. Simple as that.

  LABD
• 

  Country Girl

  CG:

  Perhaps you missed this at the very top of the post.

  Has anyone ever had opportunity to study the writings and ideas of Christian theologian John Hick?

  Funny, I see "Christian" right there.

  As far as the rest of your post. All I wanted to know was whether this person belonged to a conservative or liberal branch of the Presbyterian Church.

  I did not "jump all over anyone." It seems to me that the people that get jumped on this forum are those that ask the whys, and do not simply accept what some "scholar" stated. I learned my lesson by reading what has been printed in various WTS publications, and then comparing it to to what the authors actually wrote, and what axe they had to grind.

  Then you must have missed the last part of my post, where I said to Logan:

  I don't want to turn this into a p*ssing match between us. I have read many of your posts, and though I would disagree with some of your views, I have found your arguments to be sound. All and all you have great talent at arguing (used in the classic context of persuasion).

  The hardest thing that I have found in reading posts on any discussion board is not having the benefit of tone of voice and inflection. I think, CG that you are reading way too much into my posts here.

  LABD

  I think you fail to realize that we don't see the same things in Bradley's posts as you do. We do not see as him challenging our beliefs.. but we see his posts as presenting a different view. That is just it. Just comment on his first post, and don't read anything into it. I can tell you that Bradley is a good person and he just likes to analyze everhting.. and his first post was formulated as an request on what he was reading. I got that you were combative becuase you challenged his rendition of authority,,, which is wrong because he has NO authority... nor does the guy he cited. He just wanted us to comment on it.. and he didn't ask for a challenge. He just brought up a book, and asked us to comment on it which is very fair. He didn't ask for our comments on the authority of the book.. who cares? You are very combative and I am sure everyone recognizes this. Just comment on Bradley's original post.. and say what you think about his reading of the book. Examine the graph.

  CG
• 

  LittleToe

  LA:
  To be honest I didn't find Bradley's comments snide at all.
  Here, in Britain, most Presbyterian circles are fairly conservative (I know, because that is my usual attendance, since the teaching is also the best, bar none).

  Bradley:
  That sounds interesting. I've saved the link, and shall be looking out for his works.
  Maybe if you used your usual liberally scatterd "discuss" (just like my liberally scattered "IMHO") there might have been less reaction

  I hope we get some comment from people who have read his work, as it sounds most intriguing.
  Thanks.
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  I did not intend this to be an us (Country Girl & Logansrun) against you (LABD) handicap match.

  SO for the last time on this subject, let me clarify as clearly as possible, and then run on to more important matters.

  All I wanted to know was Mr. Hick's affiliation in the Presbyterian church. SInce Logan read the book, I presumed that somewhere he read that. Obviously from what has been presented Logan either didn't have access to that information, or didn't read it.

  The whole point of my making this an issue was not to be "combative." But rather to try and get a feel as to why I should read anything written by this Mr. Hick.

  Country Girl, if there was anything "combative" in my post, trust me, YOU read it into the post. Confrontational, yes. If that is combative, then I guess the next time I'll ask it in this manner, "Please, I don't want to offend you, and your tolerant attidude, but could you please identify what branch of the Presbyterian denomination Mr. Hick comes from? After all I'm only a bigoted, narrow-minded Christian that wants to be educated about why a person says what he says."

  Lastly, Country Girl, where did you get the impression that I thought Logan was not a "good person"? Perhaps you have an insight into me that only a very select few have, ie. those that have known me for a number of years? As I mentioned to Logan, I find his posts educational, and amusing, however I only mentioned that I disagreed with a number of his thoughts. I guess somewhere in your mind you equate disagreement with a persons ideas as an attack on their morality or character. For the record, I don't know anything about Logan, except for what he posts here, and I don't think him a bad person at all.

  LABD
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  Little Toe,

  I thought it was. After all, on this side of The Pond, it is a very politically incorrect to not hold to a pluralistic view of religion, ie. all roads lead to God.

  LABD
• 

  logansrun

  There was a time when I used to use occassions like this to rip people to shreds. I'd like to think those days are over.

  G'night.