So — you’re not criticizing the beliefs, because you don’t know the beliefs. You’re just criticizing the “system of beliefs.” Still semantics.
I think that is a faulty definition of Theology, and Wikipedia agrees with me. Now, I try to shy away from Wikipedia as a source, but in defining the common meanings of terms, it is helpful.
The Wikipedia entry states that Theology is reasoned discourse about religion. Essentially, it is the justification of one's religious beliefs. The justification of some branches of Protestantism's beliefs have more to do with fuzzy feelings than reason, Scripture, logic, etc. Thus, it is shallow.
Regarding Rick Warren, I picked his book mostly because it is prominent and known to most people. I never said that it is representative of the whole of Protestant theology - please stop accusing me of such. Go back and read my post 12. I never claimed all of Protestantism is encompassed by Rick Warren, nor did I say all Protestant theology is shallow.
>> Go back and read my post 12.
I’ve read it. Thanks. I stand by my posts.
>> I never claimed all of Protestantism is encompassed by Rick Warren, nor did I say all Protestant theology is shallow.
I never said you said “all” Protestant theology is shallow. I’m arguing with the assertion that ANY Protestant theology, or any fraction of the set of beliefs generally subscribed to by Protestants, is shallow.
Rick Warren is the only example you’ve given of this shallow Protestant theology. I assert that Rick Warren does not encompass the entirety of Protestant theology (the entire system of belief), but only a small sliver of Protestant theology.
Perhaps his book is shallow, again, I don’t know. The fact is, his book is not “Protestant Theology” — its a book. It is a mere single message within a HUGE complex theology. If he has a simplistic message, fine by me. Whatever. To extrapolate his singular message to define any segment of Protestantism is simply ridiculous.
H