What value do you see in studying theology in concerns to Christianity?

[Chad32]

I have no problem with studying theology. Honestly, if there was a class in school that took an objective stance on all religions, and taught kids about all the mythologies and such, they'd find that Christianity isn't all that different from other older religions. However, I realize that when Christians say they want the bible back in schools, it's with the belief that it will be taught as Holy Scripture, instead of there being lessons on "How many mythological figures have Jesus-like qualities, but are older than Christianity?"

[Belacqua]

At least some Christians believe in the angry man in the sky.
To be honest Christianity is such a catch all bag of beliefs that you pretty much have to ask individually what people believe.

Yes, absolutely! 

It's a big baggy term of family resemblance (in Wittgenstein's sense), under which individual Christians may have almost nothing in common. 

I find myself in the odd position of defending them, saying over and over -- no, not all of them believe that, that is not an intrinsic part...

[Chad32]

That's probably a big reason why people say don't talk about religion (or politics). Just because you both worship Jesus, doesn't mean you worship the same Jesus. You could be a homophobic abortion clinic bomber, or you could just be someone who judges not, lest he be judged, and loved all thy neighbors. You're both Christians, but one of you is a more constructive member of society than the other.

[Acrobat]

I have no problem with studying theology. Honestly, if there was a class in school that took an objective stance on all religions, and taught kids about all the mythologies and such, they'd find that Christianity isn't all that different from other older religions. However, I realize that when Christians say they want the bible back in schools, it's with the belief that it will be taught as Holy Scripture, instead of there being lessons on "How many mythological figures have Jesus-like qualities, but are older than Christianity?"

I’d be all for that course. I do wonder how such class would handle anthropological works like Rene Girards Violence and the Sacred, that explores sacrifice mythologies. The problem with such works is that they indicate a distinct aspects of the Christian myth that separates it from earlier mythologies. In early mythologies the guilt of the mob, and the people who put the victim to death is concealed, along with innocence of the victim, operating in the way scapegoating psychology works.

While the Christian myth flips this on its head, exposing the guilt of the mob, and the innocence of the victim, it’s an anti-scapegoating myth.

Such works, are favorable to Christianity, but I wonder how people would feel if they’re child was in a course that might inadvertently favor one particular religious view over other the other.

It’s also unlikely that teachers personal beliefs don’t leak out unto the course, if teachers hold a naturalistic view of religion that might inadvertently favor one religion over the other, or even favor religion over non-religion, and that influences non-religious children to consider being religious, I would think it could be problematic?

I think many atheists think that a naturalistic account of religion favors disbelief, but that’s only because many of them have half-backed naturalistic explanations for it, where religion is treated like a proto-science, but as I see it, the effect of sound naturalistic account undermines disbelief.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes, absolutely! 

It's a big baggy term of family resemblance (in Wittgenstein's sense), under which individual Christians may have almost nothing in common. 

I find myself in the odd position of defending them, saying over and over -- no, not all of them believe that, that is not an intrinsic part...

I think that, because it is a big bag, its easy to look to the fringes and assume you are looking at the whole of Christianity. Even entire denominations tend to have strong main points that define their church, but also weaker sideline beliefs that just stray along or emerge culturally (probably cause we all need to have an opinion on everything) but aren't essential. I think these sort of fringe beliefs emerge whenever you take individuals and try to form a collective group. You'll find random fringe beliefs in political parties, etc. Given that that's the case, its easy to pick all the fringe beliefs from every church and construct a picture of Christianity that is less than accurate. So my point is, whenever you look at a group, particularly religions, I think its necessary for the observer to seek it out in its most reasonable and persuasive form.

Addendum: I do think most average Christians have a neutral and reasonable view on God as loving but just, etc. And for those on the fringe that do believe in the angry man in the sky thats all punishment and no love, there are also those on the opposite end that believe in the happy hippie in the sky thats all love, no hell, everyone's saved, etc.

[Chad32]

I have no problem with studying theology. Honestly, if there was a class in school that took an objective stance on all religions, and taught kids about all the mythologies and such, they'd find that Christianity isn't all that different from other older religions. However, I realize that when Christians say they want the bible back in schools, it's with the belief that it will be taught as Holy Scripture, instead of there being lessons on "How many mythological figures have Jesus-like qualities, but are older than Christianity?"

I’d be all for that course. I do wonder how such class would handle anthropological works like Rene Girards Violence and the Sacred, that explores sacrifice mythologies. The problem with such works is that they indicate a distinct aspects of the Christian myth that separates it from earlier mythologies. In early mythologies the  guilt of the mob, and the people who put the victim to death is concealed, along with innocence of the victim, operating in the way scapegoating psychology works.

While the Christian myth flips this on its head, exposing the guilt of the mob, and the innocence of the victim, it’s an anti-scapegoating myth.

Such works, are favorable to Christianity, but I wonder how people would feel if they’re child was in a course that might inadvertently favor one particular religious view over other the other.

It’s also unlikely that teachers personal beliefs don’t leak out unto the course, if teachers hold a naturalistic view of religion that might inadvertently favor one religion over the other, or even favor religion over non-religion, and that influences non-religious children to consider being religious, I would think it could be problematic?

I think  many atheists think that a naturalistic account of religion favors disbelief, but that’s only because many of them have half-backed naturalistic explanations for it, where religion is treated like a proto-science, but as I see it, the effect of sound naturalistic account undermines disbelief.

I'm not sure how Jesus' sacrifice is anti scapegoating. The crimes of the guilty are passed onto an innocent sacrifice, because people think murdering the innocent will absolve them of sins. I thought that was the whole point of scapegoating.

[Acrobat]

I’d be all for that course. I do wonder how such class would handle anthropological works like Rene Girards Violence and the Sacred, that explores sacrifice mythologies. The problem with such works is that they indicate a distinct aspects of the Christian myth that separates it from earlier mythologies. In early mythologies the  guilt of the mob, and the people who put the victim to death is concealed, along with innocence of the victim, operating in the way scapegoating psychology works.

While the Christian myth flips this on its head, exposing the guilt of the mob, and the innocence of the victim, it’s an anti-scapegoating myth.

Such works, are favorable to Christianity, but I wonder how people would feel if they’re child was in a course that might inadvertently favor one particular religious view over other the other.

It’s also unlikely that teachers personal beliefs don’t leak out unto the course, if teachers hold a naturalistic view of religion that might inadvertently favor one religion over the other, or even favor religion over non-religion, and that influences non-religious children to consider being religious, I would think it could be problematic?

I think  many atheists think that a naturalistic account of religion favors disbelief, but that’s only because many of them have half-backed naturalistic explanations for it, where religion is treated like a proto-science, but as I see it, the effect of sound naturalistic account undermines disbelief.

I'm not sure how Jesus' sacrifice is anti scapegoating. The crimes of the guilty are passed onto an innocent sacrifice, because people think murdering the innocent will absolve them of sins. I thought that was the whole point of scapegoating.

Because the myth requires a recognition of collective guilt. It's because of our sins that Jesus an Innocent man died, the myth goes. 

Scapegoating as a psychological phenomena, that the early myths exemplify, is the concealing of guilt, the concealing of sin, the concealing of the wrongness of people scapegoating. The Jesus myth is declaration of that guilt that was concealed. 

The jesus myth, is like an anti-lynching tree. From the perspective of whites, the black victim of the lynching tree deserved it, they were justified in killing him. The black man is a classic scapegoat victim. In which they wipe their hands clean of the act. 

While the Jesus myth declares the blood on their hands, that the mob is guilty, and the victim is innocent.It's an inversion of a predominant mythology.

[Chad32]

I guess I'll try to stop calling Jesus a scapegoat, then. still kind of a stupid idea, but that's another topic/

[Acrobat]

I guess I'll try to stop calling Jesus a scapegoat, then. still kind of a stupid idea, but that's another topic/

Part of the reason for the inversion, is that most religious mythologies are written by the dominant powers, from the lens of those in power, while Christianity was composed from the lens of powerless. It's why Nietzche views Christianity as slave revolt in values. An age in which we praise the values of the powerful, to an elevation of the values of the powerless. Much of our liberal moral frames, are descendants of this revolt.

It also why black slaves were able to find some self-identification with Christ on the cross, in ways the dominant white culture couldn't.

[Drich]

Serious question. How many of us actually care to study theology? Theology can be defined as the study of religious belief; though it's said to be the study of the nature of the divine, among other things.

So do you have or have you ever had an interest in theology? Why or why not?

Personally, I find it to be an interesting topic, but more from a historical point of view. To me, it's interesting to think about how religion has shaped the world. Outside of that, I couldn't care less. And I think, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Science is superior to religion in terms of attempting to explain the world around us, if that is what religion is attempting to do.

I certainly wouldn't devote an entire college education to it. But would maybe read a few books on theology... specifically written from a secular perspective? Sure.

What do you guys think?

how important is it to study or to at least be informed of the things you do not currently believe but influence the world at large? Let's say you believe the world is flat (being in the atheist minority you are in the minority in this senerio) 

Now being a world if flat kind of guy, you have two options. To assume the world is flat because that is what the education system you grew up with taught you to think, or you can see out and study what the other side has to say. Then using your own mind decide for yourself.

When you refuse to study your oppositions position, you are closing your mind to everything you do not already know, or everything that does not come predigest for you down a certain prescribed channel.

So if you fancy yourself a thinker... then why would you every deny yourself more information unless your mind was and always has been closed?

I've studied buddhism, islam, judaism and even looked into spiritualism and hinduism, and I've taken years to study Misotheism (what most of you misidentify as atheism) which is why there is not an question concerning God and or the bible you can ask that I can not answer.

Again because I know who what and the why I am speaking to most of you.