Ask a theology student...

[nihilistic]

How about the concept that God created Hell out of Lucifer's own body?

How about the concept that Santa Claus butchered Easter Bunny, placed the carcass in a vat of liquid oxygen for long-term storage, and will serve rabbit soup some time in the distant future? The two claims have essentially an equal amount of empirical evidence and logical veracity: unconfirmable BS. Given the current state of knowledge, the claim is irrelevant even if truthful.

 

[aneeshm]

I am appalled at the spectacular lack of tact displayed by some posters in this thread .

 

[Margim]

well if there is a god Mammon is certaintly one of them. for someone that views so many of his key beliefs as mere guesses how can you feel confident giving someone religious "truth" though preaching, teaching, or influencing? You could very well be leading them to an Islamic hell or a bad reincarnation.

Simply this... while much of what I believe is 'irrational' in an enlightenment sense, it is nevertheless based of experience and prompting... a sense, if you will.

I try and stick true to that. I remain accountable to that. If God is everything I believe he is, then I have no problem, and neither will these 'someones'.

If a god truly is going to send me to hell for doing the best I can, with what I can, with what I know, then its probably not a god I could please anyway, and its not a believe/reincarnation/deity worth following. I've got enough security in what I believe/engage with that I don't believe its an issue.

but what if god is bad and sends all the good people to hell and all the bad people to heaven?

See above... I probably don't mind not serving that kind of a god.

 

[Margim]

I have a total of two operating assumptions:

1. Logic (and by extension mathematics). A systemic catalogue of a priori tautological truths that falsifies against the basis of rational thought itself. In other words, if math is incorrect, rational thought is pointless.

2. Empiricism. A notion that presupposes space-time is regular, that any event can be replicated anywhere else at any time provided that the conditions are replicated to a sufficient degree. Technically, my acceptance of empiricism is less belief and more a judgement that it is the best way to learn about the physical world. It can technically be forfeited if a better alternative comes along, but I don't think that is by any means probable.

Applying mathematics to empiricism yields science.

Wonderful principles, and I'm not denying that they are sound to a certain extent... but how can Logic be used to test something that transcends it? the illogical? You are assuming that logic is an end in and of itself, rather than a method by which one is trying to make and ordered sense of the world, that works to an extent.

How is this any difference from percieving reality through the concept of existance of deity?

Can you be more specific? What specific meaningful theory about existence are you claiming that is original and exclusive to theology? Describe it and I'll debunk it.

God, I guess, would be the start. Theology starts with the assumption of the existance of God.

unconfirmable BS. Given the current state of knowledge, the claim is irrelevant even if truthful.

So this is the enlightened type of argument I can expect from Philosophy 101?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I will then smash it to pieces with my philosophy 101 stuff. Name somethign that theology offers that no one else does, and I'll demonstrate how it is pointless.

Trying to live up to your name Nihilistic? Is it not possible that the desire to understand the Bible alone validates attempting to understand the Bible. I can do this with any of the Humanities. What has Shakespeare offered that no one else does?

 

[CartesianFart]

I've happen to come across a thought over the weekend and come to a near dead-end in overcoming this abtruse subject,the problem of Solipsism.I am not sure i can construct a paradox in shaping a new way of undermining this doctrine.Here is a somewhat brief saying on this subject matter and i am afraid this Austrian philosopher have said it better than anyone else:

"How things stand,is God.God is,how things stand.Only from the consciousness of the uniqueness of my life arises religion-science-and art....."This consciousness is life itself.Can it be an ethics even if there is no living being outside of myself?Can there be any ethics if there is no living being but myself?If ethics is supposed to be something fundamental,there can.If i am right,then it is not sufficient for the ethical judment that a world be given.Then the world in itself is neither good nor evill...Good and evil only enter through the subject.And the subject is not part of the world,but a boundary of the world."-Ludwig Wittgenstein

Of course the 20th century mystic was only being tautologically subjective and this is only somewhat,i think,the foundation of what is postmodernity(the Postmodern Condition in Western or insubordinate Nation-States).Or some people say,power philosophy for the late 20th century or now 21st upper bourgeois professionals .

My question to you,Margim;(or any one else who want to join in this investigation in this very thread )

1.Can Solipsism coincide with realism?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'm not misusing words. Where have I said anything here about humanism?

You suffer from a common affliction called selective attention.

You said...

I agree the concept of service to humanity was prominent in the Renaissance, and certainly showed the medieval church up for the fact, but it by no means can claim a monopoly on the idea.

...so you must be talking about humanism.

And I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about Jesus, who was concerned holistically with this life and the next. Again, you are bracketing me and my faith into something that I/it is not...

Christianity and Jesus obviously have nothing to do with each other.

I don't get how you are reading it the way you are. I said 'human self-understanding' is required to 'know God', not 'God' is required for 'self-understanding'. You are twisting my sentence completely around, and then having a go at me for something I did not say at all.

Your memory is so short, I must remind you.

Human understanding of God can only be improved through better understanding of ourselves.

This is essentially a veiled, smug insult to non-believers. It states that we're too stupid to know god because we don't understand ourselves.

Aside from the fact I've acknowledged the entire way through this thread that a) I could be wrong b) these are just my opinions and c) attempted to discuss the issues honestly without resorting to personal attacks?

I better get working on my sense of fair play.

You can't seem to disconnect your opinion from reality. In your perfect world, theology can only be a force for good, but that's rarely the case in reality.

Well that's fair, condemn an entire faith system because of the actions of some of their members.

You paid absolutely no attention to my entire paragraph. I condemned an entire faith system because of the actions of the system, not a few individuals. I gave credit to those individuals where credit was due.

 

[El_Machinae]

Simply this... while much of what I believe is 'irrational' in an enlightenment sense, it is nevertheless based of experience and prompting... a sense, if you will.

This seems to contradict what you stated to me earlier.
Can I think that you feel faith due to an extra-presence spiritual feedback? That you feel that you are not alone, even when you're away from people?

How would you describe this 'prompting'?
Does this prompting increase if you partake in certain rituals, or events?

 

[cegman]

I believe you asked if he feels something when praying.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I thought that most people feel the prompting when they pray (hence the prayer). I should have asked a more open-ended question.

 

[nihilistic]

Wonderful principles, and I'm not denying that they are sound to a certain extent... but how can Logic be used to test something that transcends it? the illogical?

Such as?

How is this any difference from percieving reality through the concept of existance of deity?

Ehh, for starters, it does not include the concept of the existence of deities or of the supernatural at all.

God, I guess, would be the start. Theology starts with the assumption of the existance of God.

Actually, theology starts with the believe in the concept of a soul, Dualism.

But since you mentioned "God", let's discuss that instead. First, I'd have to ask you which theory of "God" are you querying about? A general deity? A general monotheistic deity? "God" as described by church x (if so, name that x)? "God" as described in text y (if so, name that y)? The Cartesian ontological "God"? There are many, many mutually exclusive theories of "God". Specify yours.

So this is the enlightened type of argument I can expect from Philosophy 101?

No, that was an argument from common sense 101.

 

[Margim]

You suffer from a common affliction called selective attention.

You said...



...so you must be talking about humanism.

I 'must be' because you think I am? Well, there's a knock down argument if I've ever seen one

Christianity and Jesus obviously have nothing to do with each other.

Again, your opinion. When a theist posts an opinion, its unfounded rubbish, but when its your opinion, of course...

This is essentially a veiled, smug insult to non-believers. It states that we're too stupid to know god because we don't understand ourselves.

You stick with that story.

You can't seem to disconnect your opinion from reality. In your perfect world, theology can only be a force for good, but that's rarely the case in reality.

Spoken from you extensive study and engagement with the world's theologians, no doubt.

You paid absolutely no attention to my entire paragraph. I condemned an entire faith system because of the actions of the system, not a few individuals. I gave credit to those individuals where credit was due.

I may have misread your post at this point. You may consider us even.

 

[Margim]

Such as?

Again, God... sorry, I should have made it clearer in my post. The idea of God is that God is infinite, transcending human reality.

If that's the case, how can one expect to measure something that transcends all our concievable forms of measurement?

Ehh, for starters, it does not include the concept of the existence of deities or of the supernatural at all.

Philosophy? As far as I understood it, the earliest philosophers were quite concerned with the existance of God...? Maybe that's just what I get for taking an Islamic philosophy subject, but as far back as Socrates, I believe God/gods/god was at least on the radar

Actually, theology starts with the believe in the concept of a soul, Dualism.

But since you mentioned "God", let's discuss that instead. First, I'd have to ask you which theory of "God" are you querying about? A general deity? A general monotheistic deity? "God" as described by church x (if so, name that x)? "God" as described in text y (if so, name that y)? The Cartesian ontological "God"? There are many, many mutually exclusive theories of "God". Specify yours.

No, theology starts with belief in God. Dualism was incorrectly worked into theology as part of a way of describing the human condition before God. Theology literally means 'Theo' (God) 'Logos' (words). Its primary role is therefore words about God... everything else in it flows from the assumption of God.

In this case, it is God as monotheistic deity as emergent from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

If you want a broader point for discussion, lets broaden it to general monotheistic deity.

No, that was an argument from common sense 101.

Nice reply. Thanks for playing along

 

[nihilistic]

Again, God... sorry, I should have made it clearer in my post. The idea of God is that God is infinite, transcending human reality.

If that's the case, how can one expect to measure something that transcends all our concievable forms of measurement?

Oh, that was what you meant. It's easy, it's teh same way you measure Santa Claus:

If it actually manifests itself in any physical phenomenon, then measure the phenomenon. Before then, treat it the same way as you would Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Philosophy? As far as I understood it, the earliest philosophers were quite concerned with the existance of God...? Maybe that's just what I get for taking an Islamic philosophy subject, but as far back as Socrates, I believe God/gods/god was at least on the radar

Ehh, philosophy wasn't exactlythe subject, you were asking me about mathematics and empiricism there. And about Socrates, well, he was probably polytheistic as most Greeks were. However, not much of Socrates' writings survived and he is known mainly through his student Plato and Plato's student Aristotle.

No, theology starts with belief in God.

Well, first of all, this statement: "theology starts with belief in God" is incorrect. It may be that your particular theology wishes to define yourself by your deity first, but up to now every known theology has its start in one way or another from controlling the fear of death to the notion of the soul to beings capable of managing such entities as souls. Also, there is also the semantic error of "theology starts with belief in God", in that in the very least polytheistic theologies do not start with "believe in god" with "god" in the singular form.

Dualism was incorrectly worked into theology as part of a way of describing the human condition before God.

You should read up on Dualism. Dualism is the concept that within every human there exists a mind that is seperate from the brain (and thus there exists a sould that is seperate from the body). It makes almost no claims about any specific deities, is compatible with beliefs that include deities, and is neccesary (but arguably insufficient) precondition for any theory of deities to be relevant to humans.

Theology literally means 'Theo' (God) 'Logos' (words). Its primary role is therefore words about God... everything else in it flows from the assumption of God.

Etymology means nothing. Argument by etymology is lame.

In this case, it is God as monotheistic deity as emergent from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Which was emergent from earlier 'pagan' tradition, which was emergent from earlier 'superstitious' tradition ... but let's forget that.

Anyway, even within this frame there are still numerous divergent characterizations of "God". Can you characterize your notion of "God" further? Describe a few properties, behaviors, and manifestations of your "God".

If you want a broader point for discussion, lets broaden it to general monotheistic deity.

Well, I specifically asked you to specify.

 

[nihilistic]

No, theology starts with belief in God.

Well, on second thought, that statement was quite a significant one, probably more significant and more revealing than all other responses you've given in this thread to all other questions. Why? Because it is the only statement that gave an actual characterization of what you as a theology student studied in college. Tragically, it demonstrates only the narrowness of your education and by extension of the courses offered where you attend school. At the beginning of this thread I thought (and I gather many other posters would have thought) that the 'theology' you study would be somewhat comparative or that at least other prominent theories are at least presented, and not a narrow band of sectarian dogma that is more fitting for a church sermon.

From there the impression only got worse: It is apparent that as a student of christian theology you are not even acquainted with such major (christian) theologians as Descartes (as evidenced by your lack of understanding of Cartesian Dualism). You also apparently have scant knowledge of the classic Hellenic philosophers, who are essentially what the Christian Church relied on as both philosophy and science for more than a millenia. And these arguments are only the ones within the framework of Christianity, outside of which resides other Abrahamic religions, general monotheistic religions, and religions in general.

All this reinforces the earlier doubt of the legitimacy of your course of study. What exactly do nyou study and how is what you are studying different from going to your particular denomination's church?

 

[Margim]

Oh, that was what you meant. It's easy, it's teh same way you measure Santa Claus:

If it actually manifests itself in any physical phenomenon, then measure the phenomenon. Before then, treat it the same way as you would Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

But then are you not choosing to value one measurement of observation 'physical phenomenon' over all others? Does that not ultimately come down to a choice in what one values?

Also, I fail to buy into the Santa Claus comparison. I understand why you make it, but there is nevertheless a chance, however small you might believe it is, that theists have it right.

As long as they are not harming the world, and in fact are using their encounter/believe with deity to better themselves and the world around them, how is it either pointless, meaningless, dangerous or delusional? Their experience, however unmeasurable it may be, is nevertheless leading towards the betterment of the world. Not such a bad idea.

Ehh, philosophy wasn't exactlythe subject, you were asking me about mathematics and empiricism there. And about Socrates, well, he was probably polytheistic as most Greeks were. However, not much of Socrates' writings survived and he is known mainly through his student Plato and Plato's student Aristotle.

My mistake, sorry... I'm obviously trying to engage in too many different threads of conversation

Well, first of all, this statement: "theology starts with belief in God" is incorrect. It may be that your particular theology wishes to define yourself by your deity first, but up to now every known theology has its start in one way or another from controlling the fear of death to the notion of the soul to beings capable of managing such entities as souls. Also, there is also the semantic error of "theology starts with belief in God", in that in the very least polytheistic theologies do not start with "believe in god" with "god" in the singular form.

This from 'psychology 101?'

Okay, fair point about polytheistic theology and 'gods'.

Since you obviously know about 'every known theology up till now', its probably an error of mine and my sources that recognises that the earliest OT theology didn't place a particularly negative spin on death, and that their only idea of an afterlife was a rather temporal idea based on how their name lived on through their family, that their soul was no more removable from their body than their heart and brain...? That it was only with hellenism that dualism entered into Judeao-Christian theology, and that theologians since, especially in the modern era, have actually been focusing on a more integrated idea of human existance, wherebye the body and soul are truly seen as the one entity?

I know its more fun to argue against middle ages Catholicism, but its not exactly fair or accurate.

You should read up on Dualism. Dualism is the concept that within every human there exists a mind that is seperate from the brain (and thus there exists a sould that is seperate from the body). It makes almost no claims about any specific deities, is compatible with beliefs that include deities, and is neccesary (but arguably insufficient) precondition for any theory of deities to be relevant to humans.

So perhaps we are working with different ideas about theology? Perhaps here might be the difference. You are arguing against hellenistic theology (and rightly so, undoubtedly, for a philosophy student), which might well start from a dualism and more generally, the possibility of polytheism.

I'm talking about a different tradition, from a different place, into which hellenistic concepts were integrated, but which in itself is not reliant on such ideas for foundation.

Etymology means nothing. Argument by etymology is lame.

Not in this case. The very definition of theology begins with the idea of God. Without the idea of God/(or gods, if you want to do the polytheism thing),it would not be theology.

Which was emergent from earlier 'pagan' tradition, which was emergent from earlier 'superstitious' tradition ... but let's forget that.

Well, it would be an interesting conversation, but we've probably got enough going here.

Anyway, even within this frame there are still numerous divergent characterizations of "God". Can you characterize your notion of "God" further? Describe a few properties, behaviors, and manifestations of your "God".

Purpose of being, exactly? God in itself is the central tenant of theology. Everything else within the discipline is devoted to exploring the specifics.

 

[Margim]

Well, on second thought, that statement was quite a significant one, probably more significant and more revealing than all other responses you've given in this thread to all other questions. Why? Because it is the only statement that gave an actual characterization of what you as a theology student studied in college. Tragically, it demonstrates only the narrowness of your education and by extension of the courses offered where you attend school. At the beginning of this thread I thought (and I gather many other posters would have thought) that the 'theology' you study would be somewhat comparative or that at least other prominent theories are at least presented, and not a narrow band of sectarian dogma that is more fitting for a church sermon.

From there the impression only got worse: It is apparent that as a student of christian theology you are not even acquainted with such major (christian) theologians as Descartes (as evidenced by your lack of understanding of Cartesian Dualism). You also apparently have scant knowledge of the classic Hellenic philosophers, who are essentially what the Christian Church relied on as both philosophy and science for more than a millenia. And these arguments are only the ones within the framework of Christianity, outside of which resides other Abrahamic religions, general monotheistic religions, and religions in general.

All this reinforces the earlier doubt of the legitimacy of your course of study. What exactly do nyou study and how is what you are studying different from going to your particular denomination's church?

1) Read my previous post, which deals with your dualism and hellenism.

2) Descartes was a philosopher, who may have thought theologically occaisionally. He operated out of a western experience, but whether he would be called a Christian theologian in the conventional sense of the term is debatable.

3) The nature of Christian Theology, which I stated from the beginning, is to explore the Christian God. I'm not apologising for that. The questions you've been asking have nothing to do with Christian denominationalism or what is taught at churches, or how my studies might differ (significantly so!) from such institutions. You've been asking the wrong questions for that. Instead of attempting to belittle what I do, why not actually ask a question that tries to find out what I do?

Your first post asking the nature of my studies was constructive in that regard, but since you've obsessively and agressively tried to debunk a construct of me, created in your mind, without actually wanting to hear what I've actually been saying and the possitive attempts theology since the middle ages has been making to deal with many of the tensions you seem to be referring to.

Yes, I am attatched to a tradition, as you yourself are. That carries with it certain assumptions, which you yourself also make in your thought processes.

No human can become completely detatched from certain elements of their upbringing, and no human can completely deny what their experience has taught them to be true, trustworthy or helpful.

I am open to dialogue between my experience and that of others (that was the very point of this thread), but it is not considered constructive when those others only engage in conversation for the purpose of railroading their own agendas through. You want to be heard more than to actually 'talk,' which gets quite boring.

So, if you've more questions about what I believe, ask away, and I'd be more than happy to grapple with the issues they bring.

But please try and refrain from demeaning, patronizing attacks on what you've made no real attempt to understand and have done nothing but force your own parametres of discussion on to.

 

[nihilistic]

But then are you not choosing to value one measurement of observation 'physical phenomenon' over all others? Does that not ultimately come down to a choice in what one values?

Can you specify this alternative form of observation?

Also, I fail to buy into the Santa Claus comparison. I understand why you make it, but there is nevertheless a chance, however small you might believe it is, that theists have it right.

Possibility, not chance. Chance impies probability, and the probabilities of these events converge to 0.

As long as they are not harming the world, and in fact are using their encounter/believe with deity to better themselves and the world around them, how is it either pointless, meaningless, dangerous or delusional? Their experience, however unmeasurable it may be, is nevertheless leading towards the betterment of the world. Not such a bad idea.

Well, would you characterize people who believe in Jedism as delusional? Is Jedism meaningful? What if Jedists begin to believe that they should hijack and wield planes as lightsabers? Are they then dangerous?

This from 'psychology 101?'

No. It would be history, and probably no longer 101.

Since you obviously know about 'every known theology up till now',

OK, that was another broad generalization from history class. Sorry.

its probably an error of mine and my sources that recognises that the earliest OT theology didn't place a particularly negative spin on death, and that their only idea of an afterlife was a rather temporal idea based on how their name lived on through their family, that their soul was no more removable from their body than their heart and brain...?

No. Although death is not universally reviled in terms of mystic traditions around teh world, the believe that something in us will live on is in fact integral to virtually every mysticism/theology. It follows that since these entities live on while our bodies rot there must exist within each of our bodies something seperate (or seperable) from the body itself that would live on after the death of the body. That hypothesis, known as Dualism, is a basic tenet of virtually every religion that have survived today though it may have been called other names.

That it was only with hellenism that dualism entered into Judeao-Christian theology, and that theologians since, especially in the modern era, have actually been focusing on a more integrated idea of human existance, wherebye the body and soul are truly seen as the one entity?

Firstly in that question you've thrown all eastern, african, and native american religions out. Secondly, that whole statement is mistaken, as that controversy never really existed. A different controversy involving Dualism occurred though, and it was over whether the soul exists. I've mentioned some of the competing philosophies to Dualism in a thread you've already responded to, but you probably don't know what they are.

So perhaps we are working with different ideas about theology? Perhaps here might be the difference. You are arguing against hellenistic theology (and rightly so, undoubtedly, for a philosophy student), which might well start from a dualism and more generally, the possibility of polytheism.

There is in fact a very good chance we are working with different notions of what "theology" we are arguing over and what exactly does the term "theology student" mean. On that second sentence there, well, I'm confused. I've never named or implied any Classic Roman philosopher (you do know the meaning of "hellenistic" do you). Also, I'm not a philosophy student. I majored in mathematics and minored in computer science.

Purpose of being, exactly? God in itself is the central tenant of theology. Everything else within the discipline is devoted to exploring the specifics.

Ok ... so it's your central tenant and you can't characterize it? What exactly do you believe about "God"?

 

[Millman]

How is this thread different than the topic 'question to theists'? At least we know what you are studying.

Just seems funny to me. Hopefully both the threads have helped you.

 

[Margim]

Can you specify this alternative form of observation?

Not really. I'd love to, but I cannot. I'm speaking of experience, encounters, chance, all relatively subjective forms of observation. I give them creidt. You will not.

Its only an analogy, which you will undoubtedly reject, but How would you explain the concept of sight to someone born without it? How do you explain there is a dimension of colour, of different shades, of distance and perspective?

Yet its not a precise parallel anyway, because I also have periods of doubt, as to whether what I see or experience is tangible. That's where the personal idea of faith comes in, accepting despite the lack of clarity.

Well, would you characterize people who believe in Jedism as delusional? Is Jedism meaningful? What if Jedists begin to believe that they should hijack and wield planes as lightsabers? Are they then dangerous?

A line must be drawn, no matter what one's beliefs, at threatening harm to another.

That's a difference between a good idea (of any sort, religious or otherwise) and a bad idea. At least, that's my own learnings from common sense 101

No. Although death is not universally reviled in terms of mystic traditions around teh world, the believe that something in us will live on is in fact integral to virtually every mysticism/theology. It follows that since these entities live on while our bodies rot there must exist within each of our bodies something seperate (or seperable) from the body itself that would live on after the death of the body. That hypothesis, known as Dualism, is a basic tenet of virtually every religion that have survived today though it may have been called other names.

I see where you are coming from, and I'm not denying a tendency towards that in religion generally.

However, there are positive attempts to deal with dualism, the idea of a 'spiritual' and 'temporal' element - at least, in the Christian faith, to which I subscribe - the idea that 'all' will be made new, the belief in renewal of body, the celebration of the temporal existence.

There is a range of Christian theologies, is what I'm trying to say, the emphases of which vary widely.

Firstly in that question you've thrown all eastern, african, and native american religions out. Secondly, that whole statement is mistaken, as that controversy never really existed. A different controversy involving Dualism occurred though, and it was over whether the soul exists. I've mentioned some of the competing philosophies to Dualism in a thread you've already responded to, but you probably don't know what they are.

You are right to point out my Judaeo-Christian bias. In this case, my primary encounter with dualism has been its influence on Christian theology. So no, I probably don't know what you are talking about, since the parameters of conversation continue to be shifting.

There is in fact a very good chance we are working with different notions of what "theology" we are arguing over and what exactly does the term "theology student" mean. On that second sentence there, well, I'm confused. I've never named or implied any Classic Roman philosopher (you do know the meaning of "hellenistic" do you). Also, I'm not a philosophy student. I majored in mathematics and minored in computer science.

Are we working from the same definition of hellenism...? The various religious, ethical, and cultural principles spread by Greek Empire, that influenced not only Roman by Jewish and ultimately Arabic thought?

Ok ... so it's your central tenant and you can't characterize it? What exactly do you believe about "God"?

God. Revealed in Christ. Unique. Gracious. Loving. Yet, at the same time infinite, and all my descriptors are likely inadequate.