Julian

Because Biblical studies are steeped in ideology. People sadly think that their religious ideas in some way define them when in reality it is only their dogged persistence in the face of reason that does so. Also, the fields of theology and related philosophical disciplines are not evidence based so no conclusion is ever possible. The field of theology has never advanced and never will. Someone may have some interesting thoughts on the topic but nothing can ever be proven and ultimately it becomes a very individualistic approach.

Julian

ETA: It is worth noting that the 'harder' fields of biblical studies, like textual criticism does move forward because they deal in actual evidence.

Julian

Exactly.

Julian

Solo

I kind of wonder how far that is true. Now obviously people will argue whether God exists or not, "till kingdom come" (as Bertrand Russell put it). So, stagnation is assured for theology. No matter what its form, it will not be believable to some people. God is an non-reflective, intuitive concept to grasp existential totality. We can never be sure of its content. At best we can point to the paradoxical nature of reality. At the same time, while we cannot prove God exists (and I don't even pretend to know how God could exist or whether he/she/it really need to exist, in the sense of a form or entity taking up space inside time frames), the obverse view of the universe as substantively "material", will progressively disappear once we go sub-atomic.

But I think that even an atheist would concede that in his time Paul's theology was superior to the wild apocalyptic beliefs and obsessions with magic that his opponents displayed. In our own time, while the Christian world-view tolerates secular social structures, the Islamic one has never developed a sense of separation between the secular and religious realms. So, then if we cannot really speak of "progress" in theology, then we may certainly grade different quality in theological imagination.

Here is a thought: 'If God did not exist, imagination would have to be invented.'

JS.

Chris Weimer

I wouldn't limit it to them either. Barbara Thiering has a degree. Doherty has a degree. I'm sure I can find many examples of people with degrees whom I disagree with. I would also like to point out that Divinity degrees are leaps and bounds different than other degrees for one reason - they focus on the theological aspect. They come with a religious bias that is not present in other degrees.

No one will deny that there are crackpots with degrees. But that wasn't my point at all.

In this particular instance, yes, but not always. Reader implies the lay, so thus you also have students and other professionals who do not need to be "educated" by the book, etc... I don't always read articles to learn something new - I might look through them to find people who support my position, or I might look through them to find people who disagree with me.

Exactly! Credentials prepare you to be qualified to judge the arguments. An education endows one with the proper tools, such as Latin or Greek, to make the judgments. Gracery baggers who never study Greek will never have the insight needed to comment about the New Testament properly.

Perhaps we're just saying the same thing? Perhaps in clear and plain English you can restate your position in one line?

Sometimes, it cannot be resolved.

Actually, it's both. Credentials places them over the lay, quality arguments, or better yet, profound arguments, places them over their peers.

Sadly enough, yes. But the number isn't as great as you think. Think of all the crackpots you meet on the street or at work, and compare them with the crackpots in the professional field. The number is astounding. Education, oddly enough...works!

Since credentials speak to the probability, thus that makes them important. Credentials are important.

Julian

How? Since it is entirely subjective, one theological view cannot be classified as 'superior,' only different. Why was Paul's view 'better?' It is exactly as baseless as any other theological claim regardless of how much or how little any given view may appeal to you personally. You simply cannot make a quality judgement on theology since we have no factual baseline with which to compare it.

Julian

Julian

That's exactly my point. Credentials (or great knowledge) make you qualified to judge the argument. Not to make the argument (although it probably would), but to judge it. And that's the crux of the matter, our ability to assess arguments is entirely based on our (the readers') ability.

Julian

Solo

Whether "God" is an entirely subjective category is a matter of a rather convoluted debate. At minimum, it is not a semantically empty concept, since even atheists make statements about "God", e.g. "doesn't exist", "was not there", "did not send Jesus", "don't need God to explain this or that". Obviously, they know what they are talking about. There is something called God, and they don't like it, or the don't like the sort of empty-headed, mealy-mouthed promise of salvation the frantic make to the humourless. But, I don't want to go all the way there, since one cannot have a rational argument without agreeing on the underlying principle. I do not believe you could defend the thesis that a belief in God is baseless. The best you would be able to do is to refute a particular belief about God.

How can I explain the superiority of Paul's teachings to the Pentecostalists to someone who takes all beliefs to be equally baseless ? The answer is, I can't. You can either see yourself that an interpretation of a meaningless legal murder of a confused preacher as God's sacrificial atoning for all human iniquities falls into a system of belief way superior to say the one where to placate just one deity in the pandemonium requires the annual butchering of 2,000 real humans on top of a pyramid,..... or you cannot see that. :huh:

Jiri

BH

this is something I've been wondering about too. I have a BS in History and made it half way through graduate school. In three of the grad classes we read around 6 books and wrote a paper. In the the other two we only had one book for the entire semester and it was pretty much like the undergraduate level class I took covering the same thing.

Now, for example, one of those classes covered English History and each person had 6 or maybe 7 books to read. I know someone who loves the subject and has read around 60 books on Norman England alone, and I have seen her books---they look like they were written by reputable scholars. I do know she understands Early and Later Middle English but do not know if she knows Saxon. However, as much studying as she has done whose word should I take on an issue related to Norman England? Hers or the person who took the grad class and wrote the twenty odd or so page paper?

I have never taken PhD level coursework and so can't comment how she would stand up to one of them, though.

JKelly

tenant=a person who rents land or property from a landlord
tenet = a doctrine, dogma or principle held by a group or person
OED.

Solo

Despite my appreciation for your effort to decode the meaning of the sentence, I think it would be fairer to everyone to treat it for what it is, an unintelligible word salad.

JS