| Blogs > GeneralissimoNero |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Do you know much about modern theology? In modern times it seems like Catholicism is really dead in academics compared to the various Protestant streams. I can really only think of Rahner when it comes to modern theology. I usually don't have any interest in patristics but I find Augustine to always be interesting. One of the research papers I'm writing this summer will largely revolve around Augustine. | ||
|
GeneralissimoNero
United States236 Posts
On March 15 2011 08:55 koreasilver wrote: Haha, just put something about being a will-be theology student. Do you know much about modern theology? In modern times it seems like Catholicism is really dead in academics compared to the various Protestant streams. I can really only think of Rahner when it comes to modern theology. I usually don't have any interest in patristics but I find Augustine to always be interesting. One of the research papers I'm writing this summer will largely revolve around Augustine. Catholicism is dead. I can confirm it. Teen Catholics don't care. At all. And no I don't know any modern theologians. Its cliche, but I love C.S. Lewis. The pages of my copy of Mere Christianity is pretty much yellow. I've highlighted just about everything. | ||
|
GeneralissimoNero
United States236 Posts
On March 15 2011 08:52 palookieblue wrote: Also, please elaborate about the aforementioned 'three core values', I'm curious. Many thanks. The sovereignty and foreknowledge of God, Total Depravity/Original Sin, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I can explain these more in depth if you like. Tomorrow. Too lazy tonight... | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On March 15 2011 08:52 palookieblue wrote: This confuses me. If you do not believe all scripture is truth, then do you only pick bits here and there which fit your world view? Also, please elaborate about the aforementioned 'three core values', I'm curious. Many thanks. The problem of scripture is that the fundamentalist "everything must be literally true" view is a very modern way of thinking. If we actually look back at how theologians thought during the scholastic period, a great deal of scriptural interpretation wasn't literal, and basically all theologians thought there were metaphorical and allegorical themes everywhere. There's also the fact that there has always been a "canon within a canon" when the church approached scripture. Some parts of the bible simply hold a higher place than others and this has certainly been true for the entire history of Christianity. | ||
|
GeneralissimoNero
United States236 Posts
What he said. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On March 15 2011 09:01 GeneralissimoNero wrote: Catholicism is dead. I can confirm it. Teen Catholics don't care. At all. And no I don't know any modern theologians. Its cliche, but I love C.S. Lewis. The pages of my copy of Mere Christianity is pretty much yellow. I've highlighted just about everything. I think the stagnation has a lot to do with how controlled everything is by the whole ecclesiastical structure. Everything needs to be approved and stand in line with official doctrine or it is shot down (like that priest in my prof's story). I believe Rahner had conflict with the church because of reasons like this. The only really big thing in modern Catholic theology I can think of is neo-Thomism, and well, Thomism has been officially endorsed by the Catholic church for a really long time and the revival of the sort of orthodox scholasticism kinda replaced the more radical ways of thought that were present in Catholicism. I just haven't really seen much radical theologians except for a few liberation theologians who were, unsurprisingly, shut down by the Vatican for their sympathy to Marxism. I guess no one can be surprised that Protestant theology is more varied and vibrant. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
What I am saying here is, why bother with the foundation of Christianity if you are just going to modify it to your personal desire? In either case, Christianity becomes synonymous with "Opinion". | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Obviously the fact that various people interpret the same text differently can cause issues, but the fact that it is openly interpreted in different ways is a good thing. Imagine some totalitarian ecclesiastical regime prescribed one way of interpretation and no other - there would be no life in this. Despite all the problems of Christianity, there are some very rich and vibrant things within various thinkers that are worth looking at. | ||
|
Ilikestarcraft
Korea (South)17727 Posts
Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly. Not really sure what you meant by that. You don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans? | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On March 15 2011 10:02 Ilikestarcraft wrote: Could you clarify this line Not really sure what you meant by that. You don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans? I don't believe that Christ was first amongst humans in some sort of idealistic or transcendental way. He was a great man in many ways (for example, despite the misogyny all throughout the canonical texts, there aren't recorded any sexist remarks from Christ, even despite the fact that a great deal of the gospels were written and edited to serve ulterior motives; I am a bit inclined to believe that Christ really did think of women in a radically different way from his contemporaries). But despite the great things about Christ I just can't find any real reason to believe that he was the greatest man that there ever was, or that he was the culmination of humanity in the perfect spiritual being (which is kiiiiinda what Schleiermacher was trying to say). | ||
|
GeneralissimoNero
United States236 Posts
On March 15 2011 10:09 koreasilver wrote: I don't believe that Christ was first amongst humans in some sort of idealistic or transcendental way. He was a great man in many ways (for example, despite the misogyny all throughout the canonical texts, there aren't recorded any sexist remarks from Christ, even despite the fact that a great deal of the gospels were written and edited to serve ulterior motives; I am a bit inclined to believe that Christ really did think of women in a radically different way from his contemporaries). But despite the great things about Christ I just can't find any real reason to believe that he was the greatest man that there ever was, or that he was the culmination of humanity in the perfect spiritual being (which is kiiiiinda what Schleiermacher was trying to say). If not him, them who? | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
On March 15 2011 09:58 koreasilver wrote: I have no interest in Biblical hermeneutics and I'm not a Christian anyway because the question, what is a Christian? has become one that really doesn't have an answer. Besides that, even with Schleiermacher's Christology where Christ is wholly human, I just don't believe that Christ was the first amongst humans, which Schleiermacher did seem to believe earnestly. Obviously the fact that various people interpret the same text differently can cause issues, but the fact that it is openly interpreted in different ways is a good thing. Imagine some totalitarian ecclesiastical regime prescribed one way of interpretation and no other - there would be no life in this. Despite all the problems of Christianity, there are some very rich and vibrant things within various thinkers that are worth looking at. So then what is theology anyway? This is a serious question from an atheistic layman. Going by Wikipedia it's the study of religion. If you're saying that your beliefs don't fit with any organized religion (at least that's how it appears that you're answering that question), what makes you a theologian? Is it just contemplating about god? How do you define godhood? What's the main difference between theology and plain philosophy? And so on. Actually looking at it again you've pretty much dodged the question. Assuming that your faith is at least partly based on the Bible, how do you justify taking it seriously at all when you've allowed yourself to determine which parts of it are meaningful and which parts are not? How can you interpret a holy text like that and still hold it as holy? | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
My faith isn't based on the Bible at all, and I don't hold it to be holy. All I did was simply explain Biblical hermeneutics as it has been since the beginnings of modern theology and that historically the reading of the bible was not wholly literalistic like modern fundamentalists falsely believe it to have been. Oh, and the difference between theology and philosophy is something a lot of people don't seem to really get. For example, theology proper, or often called revelational theology, only looks at religious text for the study of God. In this sense it is nonapologetic, as it speaks only to the church and only to the believer; it doesn't think it needs to communicate with anything outside of it. This sort of theology generally eschews philosophy and considers it as unnecessary or as a corrupting force. Revelational theology only needs its own doctrine, the dialog with the questioning and skeptical nature of philosophy is unnecessary for them (Luther and Barth, for example). Since I don't adhere to a religion and my primary focus in my studies of religion is a question of being, nothingness, and the relation to God, my approach is always philosophical because I cannot and do not hold any written work as objective truth. In a confessional context this would be an apologetic approach; to use philosophy in dialog with theology to attempt to answer questions (Schleiermacher and Tillich, for example). So I study philosophy more than most other students in religious studies and have a great interest in Christian and Jewish philosophical theologians because even if they are Christian and Jewish and speak within a Judeo-Christian context, the methodologies of philosophical theologians often help me find a way to study theology beyond the spheres of their religions. I guess another large problem is that most people don't even really understand what academic philosophy really is and think that philosophy is simply an act of "thinking deeply" or something like that. Philosophy and just "thinking" aren't the same. Philosophy is a rigorous and systematic discipline. | ||
|
GeneralissimoNero
United States236 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
As I am, I don't think a label matters much right now. I do have a problem with explaining my position easily though, but that's not really a personal or important issue for me. | ||
|
GeneralissimoNero
United States236 Posts
| ||
|
blankspace
United States292 Posts
On March 15 2011 12:51 GeneralissimoNero wrote: You didn't come to a belief in God rationally. So you do believe in God. Wat. Not everything someone believes in can be proved or purely rational. Things like personal religion and spirituality often cannot be explained too well and depend more on one's personal view on the world (accumulated through life/experience and whatnot). | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Lets just say tldr; I think faith is subjective and and wholly nonrational. I think trying to argue that God exists through rationality is invalid and misguided, etc. Maybe another day. edit: actually, if you really want, try looking up Jean-Luc Marion. He's an eminent Catholic philosopher theologian that was influenced by and was a student to one of the main philosophers I study right now. I haven't read him myself but I know he continues on the topic of God and being that Levinas and Derrida engaged with before him. If his writing is anything like Levinas and Derrida though, you might not understand what he's talking about unless you familiarize yourself with phenomenology... and the languages in philosophy aren't gentle to the uninitiated. edit 2: actually, forget it. you might not really understand the impact of what him and his predecessors are doing unless you understand the full context of it. Start with Tillich and the question of being (and Being) in phenomenology and Existentialism. Tillich is a good place to start for a Christian in looking into these topics. Then go look at Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and then just keep moving around. | ||
| ||
Wardi Open
Mondays #51
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
