Non sequitur. Just because Jesus speaks of Hell doesn't make it 'real', as upposed to 'unreal'. And just what do you mean by 'real'? Do you mean it 'exists'? If so, what do you mean by 'exists'. These are terms grounded in empiricism, remember?
Theology is science, Scripture is not
- Thread starter Lawdog
- Start date
Non sequitur. Just because Jesus speaks of Hell doesn't make it 'real', as upposed to 'unreal'. And just what do you mean by 'real'? Do you mean it 'exists'? If so, what do you mean by 'exists'. These are terms grounded in empiricism, remember?
Fallacy no. 1: Aquinas said "theology is a science". Of course he said no such thing. He said something in Latin which has been translated as "science". But the modern meaning of science is remarkably modern. So the argument here is of people defending the modern definition of science against a 1,000 year old theologian.Lawdog said:
Fallacy no. 2: Aquinas being the greatest theologian in Christianity does not mean that everybody, even in Christianity, agreed with every word he said.
As a matter of fact, I agree with Lawdog's original point. Religion is not adequately defended by scripture. And my principal objection to a lot of the supposed "Christian Right" and other breeds of Fundamentalism in the United States is that they simply don't have any theology. Over on water's thread regarding the acceptability of beating off a rapist versus turning the other cheek, I seem to remember Adstar being quite inflexible and dogmatic about following what Jesus said to the letter. My suggestion that he discuss it with his pastor was met with a declaration that all he needed was the holy word of Scripture. My feeling is that a priest would never countenance not fighting back against a sexual attacker for a woman. Or at least the vast majority would not.
You still are not hearing me: There are many Sciences, (Latin=scientia) its just that Modern Science has taken the main title because of its remarkable improvements in daily life (technology). However other sciences are just as valid and use DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY. They are still sciences.
Evidently you didn't hear me .... that's what I said - that we're arguing over semantics about something a guy referred to as "science" when the word simply did not have the same meaning back then, eight hundred years ago. (Science as we now know it didn't really exist yet, beyond the mathematical and geometric discoveries of the ancient Greeks.)
For non-empirical "science" such as theology and other relevant disciplines such as history and papyrology, I prefer to use the term "scholarship". Scholarship uses evidence but is more subject to interpretation of the evidence and reliant on an overall consensus. Different theories have to rely on argument and debate a little more than most mainstream science (though science is not without exactly the same kind of differences and arguments, of course). That does not preclude theology being based upon some kind of rationalism.
For non-empirical "science" such as theology and other relevant disciplines such as history and papyrology, I prefer to use the term "scholarship". Scholarship uses evidence but is more subject to interpretation of the evidence and reliant on an overall consensus. Different theories have to rely on argument and debate a little more than most mainstream science (though science is not without exactly the same kind of differences and arguments, of course). That does not preclude theology being based upon some kind of rationalism.
I just wanted to add something to the effect of, please don't read anything into Barbara Thiering's work. That she has an accredited post as Professor of Theology at an Australian University absolutely astounds me. Her theories are based on interpreting the entire New Testament as a pesher of supposedly post-Crucifixion events in the early Christian church, and have absolutely no merit. I have attempted to read her second book Jesus of the Apocalypse and she believes that hidden in the text of Revelation is a day by day account (fully dated and sometimes timed) of the doings of the Essene sect. At least with Revelation, you could certainly claim that it is a pesher (or code) of some kind. But her theory began from the concept that the Gospels were pesher. And pesher through and through - not one word is supposed to be literal, it's all symbolic! This is arrant nonsense.
A well argued critique of Thiering's work can be found here.
A well argued critique of Thiering's work can be found here.
THE best work you can find on The Book of The Apocalypse was written some fifty years ago by a catholic priest named Kramer. The book is titled THE BOOK OF DESTINY by TAN publications.
I say its the best, for those who believe in real prophecy. He really convincingly demonstrates great knowledge of the symbology.
I dont think the word scholarship really fits what Aquinas was describing, especially today with so much psuedoscholarship. I think that for him, the theological science is advanced by study as much as by contemplation.
Anyway, I suppose my original point will not convince anyone of anything because theology became so wacky in the last century anyway. I think the Church should have silenced certain theologians, and well she did, but after the sixties it seemed not to matter.
I say its the best, for those who believe in real prophecy. He really convincingly demonstrates great knowledge of the symbology.
I dont think the word scholarship really fits what Aquinas was describing, especially today with so much psuedoscholarship. I think that for him, the theological science is advanced by study as much as by contemplation.
Anyway, I suppose my original point will not convince anyone of anything because theology became so wacky in the last century anyway. I think the Church should have silenced certain theologians, and well she did, but after the sixties it seemed not to matter.
Last edited:
Lawdog, as you might or might not have gathered, I'm quite interested in discussing theology as a subject in itself, but maybe I'm less well informed than you are. I would be grateful if you could post a short summary of the various "wacky" theologies of the last century of which you speak. I personally do not consider different sects to be based on theology - mormonism, adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't "wacky" theology, they're totally false and invalid theology.
Well, let's return to all but one sentence of your original post:Lawdog said:
I totally agree with every word!Lawdog said:
It seems to me that the only methodology involved is an argument from authority.Lawdog said:
As you stated, "Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church."
What methodology is involved then besides checking with the authority? What if you have multiple sources claiming authority? What if the authority changes its opinion? What if the authority issues conflicting statements? How are these things resolved?
~Raithere
Well there's were we run into problems. So Theology either has only one authority by which it can check its findings, or it is useless.
As a science, if you will call it that in the broad sense of the term, it treats of the supernatural, and of things not provable or testable by sensation.
Therefore if there is indeed any valid theology, its findings can only be understood in light of a supernatural authority.
As a science, if you will call it that in the broad sense of the term, it treats of the supernatural, and of things not provable or testable by sensation.
Therefore if there is indeed any valid theology, its findings can only be understood in light of a supernatural authority.
Silas said:
Those religions which you mentioned are problematic in their core belief systems. Their theology is entirely different, and their theology does not consider it self a science.
Anyway, there are also some theologies which arose in the 20th century which claim to be christian, even catholic, but which are not, and go contrary to long established traditions of christianity. Of course that does not make them false in the eyes of most people, but rather, inherent contradictions and truisms do.
Some names? Well, I could tell you some names but I will not, because I only know their writings by second hand accounts Ive read. My own knowledge of them is not certain enough. However, much of what passes as contemporary theology is really biblical scholarship based on an idea of a historical Jesus. It has nothing to do with systematic or moral theology.
Which is, of course, palpable nonsense, Lawdog. Theology is the work to understand what was written in the Bible in an attempt to figure out an actual doctrine. Most of it was done and dusted centuries ago, but continued discussion of points even if they've already been doctrinally settled, is still a worthwhile activity. Where it falls down is where the "supernatural authority" is supposed to have come from (meaning how was it expressed?). Dogma states that all doctrine, whether determined upon by council or committee, or promulgated by one man (papal infallibility) is inspired by the Holy Spirit. But really it consists of people arguing back and forth and either a consensus being reached, or someone making a decision.
Still waiting on that paragraph on what crackpot theology you were talking about in your previous post.
Still waiting on that paragraph on what crackpot theology you were talking about in your previous post.
Your view is overly sceptical, and your last sentence betrays a mistrust of any divine authority established on earth for the good of Man.
Also, Theology is not just for understanding the bible, one practical aim it has is to establish truths not always evident in reading scripture, such as the Trinity or Purgatory. Human logic is the gift of the Creator with the intention that it be employed for such endeavors.
There is much room left for further exploration of the divine mysteries, provided that the theologic method is used and the conclusions do not go against the magisterium
Also, Theology is not just for understanding the bible, one practical aim it has is to establish truths not always evident in reading scripture, such as the Trinity or Purgatory. Human logic is the gift of the Creator with the intention that it be employed for such endeavors.
There is much room left for further exploration of the divine mysteries, provided that the theologic method is used and the conclusions do not go against the magisterium
In my view there is no such thing as an "overly" sceptical view!Lawdog said:
I mistrust so-called Divine Authority because it emanates solely from Men.In case I've misrepresented myself, I am a non-believer who nevertheless is very interested in religion and theology - what religion says about itself, rather than what individual Christians and Muslims who come on the boards say about their religion (which tends to differ from person to person). So lets have a serious talk about theology, you and I!
Your interest in the field is admirible and your scepticism not unmerited. I recommend perusing Aquinas' Summa. A copy is availiable as an ebook on my site www.lulu.com/MythicTome.Silas said:In my view there is no such thing as an "overly" sceptical view!
In case I've misrepresented myself, I am a non-believer who nevertheless is very interested in religion and theology - what religion says about itself, rather than what individual Christians and Muslims who come on the boards say about their religion (which tends to differ from person to person). So lets have a serious talk about theology, you and I!
Since there are no other sources to understand and read or discuss theology and such other than from men, (and women), then you will just need to accept that limitation.
Religion exists. The Bible exists. Theology exists.
EDIT, since I missed your second post.
I do accept that limitation. It seemed like you were the one who didn't. Thanks for the link to the Summa, I'll try to check out parts of it as and when I can.
Here's a direct link to a free copy: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html
EDIT, since I missed your second post.
I do accept that limitation. It seemed like you were the one who didn't. Thanks for the link to the Summa, I'll try to check out parts of it as and when I can.
Here's a direct link to a free copy: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html
Last edited: