DrJim

Because the Society of Biblical Literature allows the following shit at the upcoming annual meeting in November in New Orleans under the auspices of an affiliated theological group.

From their program book.
"The gospel offer an alternative both truer and more fully human", Oh my aching brain cells. How can any academic society pretend that this is OK? "More fully human" my ass.

Fuck. Why can't there be a global Society for Atheist and Agnostic Biblical Researchers and we can get affiliated with the SBL and talk about the need for increased secularism in the biblical studies academy and so forth.

Celsus

Hahaha it must be because we're subhuman, I'm sure. Or maybe they are where the money is...

I always did find it funny that theological seminaries support SBL when half the proceedings are about why those seminaries teach a crock of ****
You start it up and head the thing. I'll sign up as member #1. We'll get spin as chief whip and Vorkosigan as CIO. Apikorus can take care of accounts. Jacob Aliet can do the international relations. We could even let Dawkins join if he brushes up on his theology.

Do you think we could write something more human than the more-than-human gospels? I was thinking a wicked piece of thriller-satire which draws together Caribou Barbie, the Antichrist, global finance and the Illuminati. Or did Dan Brown already do that one... :-/

DrJim

Yeah, half of it is doing real scholarship and the other is playing scholar and then getting indignant self righteous when you call their bluff about having to balance "Church" and "Academy". For most of them, the "Academy" is just the semi independent educational branch of the Church. A lot of them have no conception of a secular academy at all.

Our first SBL session theme could be "On imagining non-illusory criteria for Humaness in a post-modern theological hermeneutic of theosophistry bafflegab: Cabbages". make about as much sense as some of the sessions.

In the very least, I think I should write a letter to those involved in that travesty and cc it to the SBL administration (and some Jewish members...).

Have you read Noll's piece in the Chronicle for Higher Education? When I first read it I thought it was pretty over the top, but after a second or third read, I really like it, although I disagree with some parts.

Steven Carr

NOLL
Theology also views itself as an academic discipline, but it does not attempt to advance knowledge.

CARR
The aim of science is to uncover things that people living at the time of Jesus would not have known.

The aim of theology is to show that everything Jesus believed about God was true.

DrJim

LINVILLE's slight correction of CARR
The aim of theology is to show that everything the theologian believes about God was also considered true by Jesus but not realized by anyone else until the theologian came along.

Celsus

Heh that is a fun article. Part of my journey out of Christianity was grappling with Theology's utter inability to solve any of its problems, any tentative answer reflecting the theologian making the claim. What befuddled Aquinas befuddles Bonhoeffer. I mean, wasn't there a single prayer answered on one of these questions in the last 2000 years to settle it? I mean the only 'new' theology to significantly come out of the Christian movement in the last century is arguably Liberation Theology, and that owes more to Marx than the Bible.

So yes, if Theology can't even solve its own problems, how can it claim to advance knowledge?

spin

That's an ugly reality that many of our members don't realize.



Why not seek out some sort of publication to write to to express the issue and cc all individuals? :devil: (First time I've used this smilie.)

Thanks for posting it here. It would be a good read for all our members.


spin

spin

I should add that the distinction between theology and biblical studies isn't transparent. Biblical studies is somehow seen as the more scholarly thing to do, when it is often the vehicle for theology.


spin

Yellum Notnef

Why is it taking so long? Surely the red emergency light is flashing like crazy at Gibsons lair.

DrJim

I'm always wrestling with this issue. On the one hand, I'm a damned idealist and so the merging of biblical scholarship with theology just pisses me off to no end. What I do has more in common with the historical study of the Vedas or the Tripitaka than it could ever have with theology.
On the other hand, I have learned a hell of a lot from lots of believing biblical scholars and got my PhuD from the Faculty of Divinity at the U. of Edinburgh, and its simply not fair to imply that a believer cannot be a good biblical scholar or historian of ancient Israel and Judah.

Yet, there is a big difference between researching the religions of those ancient lands and its cultural products for the sake of learning about the past and something about how and why people are religious,

and researching those religions for what they collectively says about a god who is supposed to actually exist. Very different indeed, although for those inclined to do both, the boundaries blur hopelessly and the clarity of task #1 suffers as a result.

I actually had LESS trouble feeling like I fit in at Edinburgh than I do at the damn SBL although I am still a little miffed that biblical studies was "Divinity", something separate from "Religious Studies" carried out in a completely different faculty, different building and different library. I think that has changed now. Still, some great people in Edinburgh when I was there.