Theology Matters . . . It Always Matters

And typically, your theology matters more than everyone else's, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
how about learning what the word theology means before opening your mouth,it not only encompassas christianity but other religions too.''but the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions.''

Why think WritingIP doesn't know what theology means?

Quote article: "This is especially clear when the conflict between Islam and the West comes into view".
Between Islam and the West? It is between religious nutters in the West and those in the East and has little to do with theology. Religion, nationalism and ideology are simply used by fanatics as part of their crazy reasoning. Unfortunately the Eastern lot kill reandomly and indiscriminately. Not to mention that bombing people is self-defeating.

Another quote too funny to comment on:“This conveniently, but dangerously, ignores the obvious - that the West is based upon a certain understanding of order, rationality, human dignity, and human responsibility that emerged out of the Christian worldview, informed by both the Old and New Testaments”.

The writing is good, but it fails to take into account the relationship between religion and culture. Christianity, as well as Islam, have evolved in different areas in different ways relative to the surrounding culture.

Take for example Indonesia and Turkey. In both cases, Islam does not have a stranglehold on the culture. In both cases the prevailing culture relegated Islam to a less than central feature. There is still fighting between the two, but Islam is not the dominant feature of the country.

Same goes for Christianity. Throughout history, Christianity was forced to reform by the prevailing culture it was in. Hence the Reformation, Renassaince, Enlightenment, Awakenings, plus all the denominations.

You cannot examine religion in a vaccuum. The socio-cultural context of that religion also needs to be considered.

how can there be reasonable discourse on mythologic subjects?

Why do we give theology a free-pass into academia?

belkins wrote:

how can there be reasonable discourse on mythologic subjects?
Why do we give theology a free-pass into academia?

Because you cannot discuss history, sociology, psychology, or most liberal arts without first considering the affect of religion. For either good or ill.

I teach history. It would be irresponsible to teach history without discussing the role of religion in it.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
..I teach history. It would be irresponsible to teach history without discussing the role of religion in it.

What if you teach history and see religions as superstitions? The best history programme I have seen was about Wales. There was a unionist and a nationalist presenter. This ensured that ‘both‘ points of view were illustrated. It is vital to know who writes a history book as the winners tend to be right! Religion wasn’t mentioned per se, but it was clear that religionists were the norm as the need for religion was clear in the periods (prior to 1700) discussed.

I agree that religious beliefs influence culture. Was Christianity ‘forced’ to reform? Some resisted change, as they do now. I disagree (with Chris) that ‘the writing is good’. The suit and haircut are good. The writing is poor. The opposite of almost all he argues is equally valid. He infers Christianity is better than Islam? Not from what I have read of ‘true’ Islam.(I was raised a Christian). Muslims and Christians seem to allocate similar human values to their respective religions.

There are assumptions, such as G Weigel’s:“If we have not learned this over the past five years, one wonders if we have learned anything”. All that he refers to as ‘this’ is looked at from a relitionists viewpoint. Non-religionists see the perceived ‘just society‘ as being fitted to the religion. What about those with the ‘wrong’ religion? They made less just societies?

Mohler doesn’t even distinguish between the West and relgionists in the west. So he lumps people like me in with the USA population. He argues as though all in the USA are in conflict with Islam too. Is this true? Is it true of all US Christians? Any one of us might be victims of extremist acts by Muslims, but aren’t more Muslims killed due to these people? Does he include antipodeans, Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese and Indians in ‘the west’? How about Europeans or Canadians? Arguably, all these peoples are included in some people’s reference to ‘western’ culture where they are talking about western democracy. There are many Christians in some of those lands. He seems to mean by ‘the West’ the USA? He doesn’t distinguish between fundamentalists and more ‘liberal’ Muslims, or are all Muslims fundamentalist?

george anderson jr wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T heology
how about learning what the word theology means before opening your mouth,it not only encompassas christianity but other religions too.''but the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions.''

I understand "theology" just fine. He's talking about christian theology specifically.

Writing in Paradise wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand "theology" just fine. He's talking about christian theology specifically.

while that maybe true,judging from your very first comment you made it sound like christian theology was the only theology and its not,that was my point.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Because you cannot discuss history, sociology, psychology, or most liberal arts without first considering the affect of religion. For either good or ill.
I teach history. It would be irresponsible to teach history without discussing the role of religion in it.

I should have expanded on my remark...why do we give theology studies the pass on being fact based like we do other academic pursuits?

I agree, you cant teach history without including the influence of religion, but one problem is that christianity, judaism and islam are given a free-pass of being non-mythical, while all the others are denounced as losing the diety fights and being purely mythical.

Too much of the teaching of history is viewed from a judeo-christian (winning) point of view, and from the beliefs being fact based...while the cultures it helped to conquer and destroy are viewed by too many in academia as wholy false, because they are not christian, judaic, islamic.

All myths are equal, or they should be in education...theology is not a legit study except as study of myths. Not facts.

Theology perhaps falls under a philosophy study course? Shall we abandon literature and philosophy and the like from academia?

Theology has little to do with spiritual life, and seems more relatice to discussions and "mental masturbating" as most academia.

Cultural studies cannot exist, nor history classes without approaching some discourse relatice to the effects of theology and human beliefs throughout history. Whether we agree or disagree with theologies of any myth or religion, they are interwoven in the human fabric of existence.

belkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I should have expanded on my remark...why do we give theology studies the pass on being fact based like we do other academic pursuits?
I agree, you cant teach history without including the influence of religion, but one problem is that christianity, judaism and islam are given a free-pass of being non-mythical, while all the others are denounced as losing the diety fights and being purely mythical.
Too much of the teaching of history is viewed from a judeo-christian (winning) point of view, and from the beliefs being fact based...while the cultures it helped to conquer and destroy are viewed by too many in academia as wholy false, because they are not christian, judaic, islamic.
All myths are equal, or they should be in education...theology is not a legit study except as study of myths. Not facts.

I agree that history is taught from a one sided point of view. It does however, depend on which University is attended. Would you concurr?

333Trinity7 wrote:

Theology perhaps falls under a philosophy study course? Shall we abandon literature and philosophy and the like from academia?
Theology has little to do with spiritual life, and seems more relatice to discussions and "mental masturbating" as most academia.
Cultural studies cannot exist, nor history classes without approaching some discourse relatice to the effects of theology and human beliefs throughout history. Whether we agree or disagree with theologies of any myth or religion, they are interwoven in the human fabric of existence.

what IS a theologist ?..someone who is interested in and studies religion?

History is always viewed from a 1st-person perspective. Hence the Judeo-Christian bias. Also the Western Civ bias. Most of us here grew up with both and view the world from both.

However, at the junior college I teach at, multiple perspective and pluralism are on the rise. Many of my students are asking for the perspective from the other side. US History books are now painting the US as the aggressors vs. the Native Americans for example. Plus painting most of the imperial age of the 19th century in a not so flattering light. Our sins are coming out of the closet.

Theology is discussed as real because it is real to the people who believe it. It plays a central or at least major role in people's actions and ideas. And in order to understand the world from that perspective, you need to proceed with accepting their theology as valid. At least for them.

Ex: You cannot understand the Middle East without first understanding the tenants of Islam and the culture it grew up in there. There is no separating the 2.

belkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I should have expanded on my remark...why do we give theology studies the pass on being fact based like we do other academic pursuits?
I agree, you cant teach history without including the influence of religion, but one problem is that christianity, judaism and islam are given a free-pass of being non-mythical, while all the others are denounced as losing the diety fights and being purely mythical.
Too much of the teaching of history is viewed from a judeo-christian (winning) point of view, and from the beliefs being fact based...while the cultures it helped to conquer and destroy are viewed by too many in academia as wholy false, because they are not christian, judaic, islamic.
All myths are equal, or they should be in education...theology is not a legit study except as study of myths. Not facts.

Religions that are alive today cannot be considered myths academically. People believe in them. That alone makes them real.

Do not dismiss religion because you do not believe in it. The bulk of the world believes in some religion or other. And it would be foolish to dismiss that fact.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
And it would be foolish to dismiss that fact.

why?..

it wasnt long ago that people thought smallpox was a curse of god..a punishment for something the poor ill person had done...even if hat person was a small child..

im pretty certain its ok to dismiss that....and theres 1000s such examples where religion has simply been shown to be nothing more than ignorance...

religion is superstition..nothing more...

if what you meant was 'you cant dismiss superstition'..i agree...

You cannot dismiss religion because of the people who believe in it. Not because it's right, but because people look to it for guidance.

That's what makes it relevant, for good or ill.

He's right. Theology does matter.

Chris wrote:

<quoted text>
Religions that are alive today cannot be considered myths academically. People believe in them. That alone makes them real.
Do not dismiss religion because you do not believe in it. The bulk of the world believes in some religion or other. And it would be foolish to dismiss that fact.

The beliefs, or the quantity, do not in any way confirm the fantastic claims that the doctrines make...and that is the heart of the problem.

My disbelief doesnt disprove them either, but it cant be, nor should it be used against me, or the discussion. But then I'm not making fantastic claims, so my position is less tenuous.

There is a large gap between teaching/exploring the effects of religions and their impact on people, their behavior, and how that in turn influences society - its another to make the leap that beliefs (in and of themselves) make the claims anymore "real" then any other, esp. the ones who lost the deity-fight.

A large portion of the population believe in UFO's and other questionable-fantastic claims, doesnt make them real. Makes them interesting, but not real. Many people of faith believe things (about their faith) that their own churches dont even support...and would be heretical under examination, yet they hold them...still doesnt make them real.

The dialogue has to be expanded and the language needs to be better defined so that we can all get to the heart of the problems...and it begins with the free-pass I mentioned.

IMHO, humankind, society in general is ready for the dialogue, the problem is the POWER we continue to give the beliefs that they are to be excluded from critical examination - simply because they are widely held beliefs.

Hello

Belkins..

Maybe you can have a look at Wayne's bible quotes on "That Amazing Book" he sems to really want them answered.. I can't as I'm not educated in the bible...

Atheist

harper wrote:

<quoted text>
why?..
it wasnt long ago that people thought smallpox was a curse of god..a punishment for something the poor ill person had done...even if hat person was a small child..
im pretty certain its ok to dismiss that....and theres 1000s such examples where religion has simply been shown to be nothing more than ignorance...
religion is superstition..nothing more...
if what you meant was 'you cant dismiss superstition'..i agree...

While I agree there is a tremendous amount of superstition involved, most of it at the street-level of the the various religions - we cant simply dismiss the apparent human tendency to NEED them in order to survive, if only on a personal level.

Disbelief, atheism, agnosticism, etc has to be about more the just being anti-belief, or a fancy debate tool. There has to be more to the debate then this...there has to be dialogue as to why religions and their doctrines should be given a continued free-pass on all things. Simply because they are held by so many peoples.

Theologic studies are fine, as long as we can agree that they are about nothing but collected myths, not they are proven "scientific", or even historical facts. Historical in nature? Sure, but not as proofs of anything but humankinds tendency to explain the unexplainable with the supernatural

Studying Religions as organized social movements are not the same as theologic study.