tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post2376793650321395986..comments2023-07-26T04:20:20.358-07:00Comments on Saint Cynic: A Glass House and a Rock to ThrowAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17771674447306246398noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-23315596132056783622008-08-10T18:42:00.000-07:002008-08-10T18:42:00.000-07:00Well, obviously. But my point is, this 'first-rat...Well, obviously. But my point is, this 'first-rate scholar' is not only wrong regarding Christianity, but even the religious beliefs of the religions to which he compares it. Who gave him all those letters behind his name, anyway?Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-20569405311743628922008-08-09T19:52:00.000-07:002008-08-09T19:52:00.000-07:00If Hick can thus be wrong about the history and be...<B>If Hick can thus be wrong about the history and beliefs of not just one, but two, major world religions, just how far can his reasoning be taken on the subject of religion whatsoever?</B><BR/><BR/>Hick is a first-rank scholar, to be sure. However, because he has argued himself into a pluralistic framework, and thereby out of a Christian framework, his attempts to universalize religion only mean discluding Christianity. At that point -- and this may sound illogical -- whatever he has to say about Christianity is automatically suspect to me.Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-619361227185513992008-08-09T19:02:00.000-07:002008-08-09T19:02:00.000-07:00Moreover, Hick seems to draw a faulty analogy. Si...Moreover, Hick seems to draw a faulty analogy. Sidhartha Gautama, the Buddha, neither claimed to be divine (in fact, he denied that he was divine) nor is claimed to be divine by Buddhists.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary, Jesus claimed to be divine both in subtle, and not-so-subtle ways. He affirmed this claim when it was made into an accusation against Him, which ultimately led to His Crucifixion. And, right from the get-go, His earliest followers claimed and affirmed His divine status. Even Hick's parallel case is rather perpendicular.<BR/><BR/>If Hick can thus be wrong about the history and beliefs of not just one, but two, major world religions, just how far can his reasoning be taken on the subject of religion whatsoever?Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982931507445593579noreply@blogger.com