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

[EgoDeath]

The problem is I don't have the time in the world to read about everything I enjoy and ultimately studying theology is meaningless to me beyond the joy of studying. The theologian's God is at best superfluous and, because of limited lifespan, would rather spend the time studying things that make me more and more knowledgeable about the way the world works or about important events that have occurred in the history of this universe.

I am inclined to agree. The time I could spend studying theology could also be spent studying a language which I could actually go use if I travel somewhere where the language is spoken. Or I could learn how to make a new dish, or read a good book. If I truly have some free time that I could throw away I'd like to maybe take an online course, for curiosity's sake. Beyond that, I agree, there are much more useful things one can study.

Theology is not a thing to study in itself.
Ist more a mix of history, philosophy and psychology.

Interesting take.

So one might be better served to study the history of the world in biblical times? Or what?

If you're going to talk about Christianity on the Internet, it makes sense to know what you're talking about.

Studying theology would prevent silly errors like "all Christians believe in an angry man in the sky."

If you don't want to discuss Christianity on the Internet, and don't care about the subject, there's not much reason to study it.

I don't think I've seen one person on this website make the aforementioned claim about what Christians believe.

That being said, as others have mentioned, one doesn't have to have a theology degree to know what a belief in Christianity entails.

Once again, Bel, you've typed a bit of text without actually saying a whole lot. Seems to be a talent of yours.

If you want to understand, one of the prevalent and perhaps bizarre features of human existence, religion, beliefs in the sacred, that understanding the nature of the thoughts that go into religion would be pretty important to grasping it.

The alternative is silly conclusions like religions were just quasi science. Or that people in the past were some kind of mutants, with very little relationship to us now.

So, you're saying, definitively, that religion was not used as a way to understand the world around them, in a scientific way? I'd really like to see what you have to back that up.

Also, I've never heard someone claim that people in "the past were some kind of mutants, with very little relationship to us now."

Science for the most part probably will give you  decent perspective of how reality is outside of yourself, theology will cast the mirror unto yourself, a peering inward.

It’s a study in humanness, the meaning of men becoming divine, perfected, made whole, and incomplete.

If one wanted to "peer inward," why not study psychology? How do you figure that theology is a more effective way to peer inward?

And what men have become divine? What evidence do you have for such divinity?

[Acrobat]

So, you're saying, definitively, that religion was not used as a way to understand the world around them, in a scientific way? I'd really like to see what you have to back that up.

Because there's nothing akin to a scientific way of thinking or understanding of the world found in religious myths, and books, etc... Science is a way of looking at the world in some sort objective mechanical fashion, it churns a certain kind of thinking or systematic reasoning through certain elements of the world. 

Religious writing don't look, sound, or talk, the way we do when we talk about science, or sciencey things (AIG and others aside). They resembles whats more akin to novelists perception of reality, than a scientist.

The value we place on science, is primarily on the sort of reasoning and type of thinking it fosters, any particular truth discerned by it, only as valuable as its use. We don't teach children evolution, just for the sake of holding it as true, but rather to understand the sort of reasoning, and thinking that drove such conclusions, so that they can adopt it and apply it to other areas of life.

Truth in religious world, a telelogical view of reality, is seen as containing a purpose in and of itself, reveals how we ought to live, etc.. Where as truth in a scientic sense has no purpose, individuals human subscribe or use it for some purpose or the other, but in and of itself is purposeless meaningless. The truth of evolution no more meaningful than the truth of a rock rolling down a hill.

Also, I've never heard someone claim that people in "the past were some kind of mutants, with very little relationship to us now."

People just other them, what do some illiterate goat herders have to tell us about ourselves?

[LastPoet]

Theology, astrology, just about the same for me. No evidence, just conjecture. I have a good imagination, i don't see the need to have it sparked by others.

[EgoDeath]

Because there's nothing akin to a scientific way of thinking or understanding of the world found in religious myths, and books, etc... Science is a way of looking at the world in some sort objective mechanical fashion, it churns a certain kind of thinking or systematic reasoning through certain elements of the world. 

Religious writing don't look, sound, or talk, the way we do when we talk about science, or sciencey things (AIG and others aside). They resembles whats more akin to novelists perception of reality, than a scientist.

You're missing the point. Of course there was no "scientific" way of thinking in the bronze ages; modern science didn't even being to develop until the 16th century.

That doesn't mean, however, that religious texts, stories and/or myths weren't an honest attempt at understanding the world around them.

How are you so sure that, for example, the concept of the Sun God Ra sailing across wasn't taken literally in ancient Egypt? Taking this concept for what it is, we can believe that they literally thought this with at least some amount of confidence. Is it also possible that they took it as a metaphor and were simply content with saying, "We don't actually know what the sun is or why it behaves that way?" Probably not. Humans like to know what is happening in the world around them. We're rarely content with simply saying, "I don't know." That's where your idea doesn't hold up.

People just other them, what do some illiterate goat herders have to tell us about ourselves?

Once again, I never heard anyone say that until you did just now. You seem to be attributing this view to atheists in particular. That's how it's coming across at least. The problem is, I've never actually heard an atheist express this sentiment. This seems to be your projection alone.

[The Valkyrie]

About 20 cents.

But I expect change.

[Acrobat]

You're missing the point. Of course there was no "scientific" way of thinking in the bronze ages; modern science didn't even being to develop until the 16th century.

That doesn't mean, however, that religious texts, stories and/or myths weren't an honest attempt at understanding the world around them.

The world around them, was viewed like a story book. Telelogical. People viewed themselves as part of some grand narrative, in which they were characters of. So the purpose of trying to understand elements of the world around them, was for the sake of understanding the purpose and intent of an author, in recognizing what roles they play in it's work. It why their religious writing often rely on conveying this understanding through stories themselves. They read these stories just like most people read stories, or great novels, they just read them, and contemplate them within the confines of them. The writers weren't pretending to have special knowledge of how the world was formed, they were just telling a story, to convey whatever meaning they saw life possessing. They weren't inviting you to ask whether these stories were literal or not, but just to read them for what they are.

When we were kids, the teacher told us the story of three little pigs. She didn't have to tell us beforehand whether the story was literal or not. We just heard the story, and tried to decipher the meaning in its own terms. Now imagine if the teacher told us, this is also literal history. It's easy to see that our minds rather than thinking about the meaning of the story, would probably start wondering about the nature of talking pigs, that could build houses etc... But no such thinking really arose around scripture. Literalism is not something the readers are particularly thinking about, nor are their communities, or writers pushing them to think about it. The sort of development in religion of fundie literalist, doctrines of Innerrancy, AIG, etc... were all recent phenomena's with no real parallels to the past.


The very nature of the Truth in the ancient world, is also quite distinct from how truth is often understood in our age, especially by atheists. We only think of truth primarily in scientific and historic terms, and that there is no such thing as Truth outside of that. We can easily see how different that is from the past, by looking at such sentiments like " I am the way the Truth and the life", "The Truth shall set you free", that Truth doesn't mean like what we mean by truth in a scientific or historic sense.

Humans like to know what is happening in the world around them. We're rarely content with simply saying, "I don't know." That's where your idea doesn't hold up.

Of course we are. We're perfectly fine saying we don't know about the things we don't care about. You ask me what's the weather like in China, I'll tell you I don't know. If you ask me to explain to you how clouds are formed, astrophysics, the makeup of stars, or who won the football game etc... you'll get the same response.

Science classes for most people were probably pretty boring, and not because they didn't think that whatever was being taught in them wasn't true, just not interesting for them to care enough to retain.

Even when it comes to science, hardly anyone supports the resources poured into it teaching children science, purely to acquire idle knowledge about the world around them, but rather because of prospects of usefulness, it good to learn to think like a scientist, its good to possess knowledge that could be used in your profession, or in some other way, maybe to look less dumb in social circles, etc.. 

The sort of knowledge we share, want others to have, is because we see it as useful, or potential to be useful, or for contemplative purposes.

Don't waste my tax money teaching my children useless knowledge about the world, even if it is true.

[EgoDeath]

The world around them, was viewed like a story book.

Okay, stop. How do you know this?

Of course we are.

And yet, we aren't. Humans are constantly pretending to have knowledge about things that they have know idea about. The existence of god, for example.

[Acrobat]

The world around them, was viewed like a story book.

Okay, stop. How do you know this?

For starters because I’m religious and share a this religious view of reality with them, just like pretty much every other religious person. And such thinking is as old as humanity itself. Secondly religion encapsulates the art of story telling, incorporates it, rather than treat it a distinct genre. When the term Truth is used in religious writing and scripture, its almost always in context of some purpose, goal, like being the way, a source of liberation, the opposite of evil, etc...

Thirdly teleological thinking comes pretty intuitively to us, observed even in children of those raised in non religious homes.

[EgoDeath]

For starters because I’m religious and share a this religious view of reality with them, just like pretty much every other religious person.

Once again, stop. How do you know that you share the same point of view as people who existed thousands of years ago?

And such thinking is as old as humanity itself.

Any proof to back up this claim?

Secondly religion encapsulates the art of story telling, incorporates it, rather than treat it a distinct genre.

What exactly is the difference between encapsulating story-telling and recognizing it as a distinct genre?

When the term Truth is used in religious writing and scripture, its almost always in context of some purpose, goal, like being the way, a source of liberation, the opposite of evil, etc...

Once again, how do you know this?

Thirdly  teleological thinking comes pretty intuitively to us, observed even in children of those raised in non religious homes.

What precisely is "teleogical thinking?"

You see, Acrobat, you try to say a bunch of vague things, back to back, in some round-a-bout wishy-washy attempt to explain yourself, but I want you to get down to brass tacks here. Be precise and concise, for my sake.

[Belacqua]

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

No doubt some Christians think of Jesus as a scapegoat. And it may well be stupid, but, as you say, that's a different story. 

I'm glad Acrobat brought up René Girard's work here because it's a great example of how religious stories work. How the tradition continues to enrich itself. 

Girard took a number of very old concepts -- the scapegoat, Jesus, etc. -- and recombined them, and reread them, in a way that adds to our thinking about the world. It's significant that he used these old symbols because they are so rich with connotation -- any thinking person who thinks of Jesus doesn't just think of one historical guy, but of the full range of meanings and associations that have been derived from him. 

There is no way to test Girard's ideas with an MRI machine, and no units available to quantify the truth of what he says. This is not literal in any scientific way. 

And it may well be a set of ideas that couldn't have occurred to any of the early Christians. They didn't have the background yet, or the time to develop it. If someone wants to state arbitrarily (as has been stated on this forum) that the REAL meaning of religious stories is the meaning the original author intended, then Girard's reading isn't REAL. 

Having the book in mind, though, gives us a new interpretive framework that, when we look at events in the world, adds to what we can think and judge about the world. This is what poetry and scripture do, in my opinion. Enrich our thinking.