Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-06-2012, 06:51 PM

I have been reading about this case. Rollston published an essay on the HuffPo on the marginalization of women.

There was some criticism. And now the Seminary that employes him is trying to fire him from a tenured position.

The Tabor Blog has a good comment.

Quote:

Many years ago at the University of Notre Dame the brilliant philosopher/theologian Philip Devenish gave a lecture provocatively titled with the question: “Can a Christian Be A Historian?” Devenish’s response was essentially “no,” assuming one defines a “Christian” by the affirmations of the traditional creeds–that Jesus was born of a virgin, raised from the dead, ascended bodily into heaven where he sits at the right hand of God, ready to return in the clouds of heaven and usher in the last judgment. Devenish argued that this is not and can not be the stuff of historical investigation, of Jesus or any other human being of the past. We can talk about the development of ideas, theological or otherwise, but no historian can take literally tales of gods impregnating women, walking on water, turning water to wine, dead people being resuscitated and taken bodily to heaven, or any other mythological story. There is nothing wrong with myth–unless you confuse it with history!

Devenish was of course familiar with ways of “demythologizing” these Creedal statements, and indeed Bultmann was one of his heroes, along with Hartshorne and his teacher Shubert Ogden. His point was that unless Christians are willing to take seriously the differences between “myth and history” they were bound to end up “outside” the bounds of the academic study of religions.

Tom Verenna has an essay here

maryhelena · 10-06-2012, 11:19 PM

Thanks for the links, Toto.

There are a number of comments on Tom Verenna's article that I must go back and read later.

However, I do think that when there is a of crisis of conscience between what ones faith system requires and what ones own reason is questioning - one should just move on. Difficult of course if economic considerations are involved! Stand up and openly challenge the teaching of ones church/faith - or move on...

Trying to reform ones church from within it's set boundaries has it's own dangers - as anyone who has followed the Hans Kung story knows only too well. And where is Kung today? Still doing his utmost - but now calling for 'revolution'....

Quote:

Catholic theologian preaches revolution to end church's 'authoritarian' rule
Hans Küng urges confrontation from the grassroots to unseat pope and force radical reform at Vatican

Friday 5 October 2012

One of the world's most prominent Catholic theologians has called for a revolution from below to unseat the pope and force radical reform at the Vatican.

Hans Küng is appealing to priests and churchgoers to confront the Catholic hierarchy, which he says is corrupt, lacking credibility and apathetic to the real concerns of the church's members.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...pe?INTCMP=SRCH

Kung a 'Catholic theologian'?

That title was removed many years ago by the Vatican.

Quote:

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Declaration

Since some of the writings – spread throughout many countries – and the teaching of Professor Hans Küng, a priest, are a cause of disturbance in the minds of the faithful, the bishops of Germany and this Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, acting in common accord, have several times counseled and warned him in order to persuade him to carry on his theological work in full communion with the authentic Magisterium of the Church.

<snip>

In this spirit the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in order to fulfill its role of promoting and safeguarding the doctrine of faith and morals in the universal Church,7 issued a public document oh Feb. 15, 1975, declaring that some opinions of Professor Hans Küng were opposed in different degrees to the doctrine of the Church which must be held by all the faithful.

<snip>

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role.

In Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on Dec. 15, 1979.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...clesia_en.html

Hans Kung

Quote:

Hans Küng (born March 19, 1928, in Sursee, Canton of Lucerne) is a Swiss Catholic priest, theologian, and prolific author. Since 1995 he has been President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic (Stiftung Weltethos). Küng is "a Catholic priest in good standing",[1] but the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology[2]. He had to leave the Catholic faculty, but remained at the University of Tübingen as a professor of ecumenical theology, serving as an emeritus professor since 1996. Although Küng is not officially allowed to teach Catholic theology, neither his bishop nor the Holy See have revoked his priestly faculties.

Vorkosigan · 10-07-2012, 01:13 AM

There's no hegemony here to see, folks. Move along now.

maryhelena · 10-07-2012, 01:59 AM

Great quote from Philip Davies:

Quote:

What are the canons of academic freedom in confessional institutions? Specifically, what makes them 'academic' and what constitutes the 'freedom'? I can accept that even in secular institutions the value of received knowledge is sometimes over-protected, too, but that knowledge is usually based on academic enquiry, which can be challenged on its own terms, while revealed 'knowledge' and traditional church teaching - it seems to me - are not. I am really puzzled as to why an institutions that already knows the truth about the Bible would bother to entertain critical enquiry. What would be the point?

My request for a definition of 'canons of academic freedom' is not a rhetorical question, and I am ready to hear and be satisfied by an adequate answer.

#22 - philip davies - 10/06/2012 - 03:52

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/ver368003.shtml

my bolding

And it's that sentence that is at the root of this current issue. Confessional 'academic' institutions have a platform to uphold - so, surely, any scholar applying for a job at one of these places must be aware of that platform?

If a scholar can no longer uphold that platform - then it is time to move on. Those who would want to negatively attack such institutions if they seek to take one of their own to task, for failure to support the required platform - are living a pipe dream. Hoping for academic freedom in confessional institutions is hope without any prospect. Delusion.

Yes, Hans Kung can still teach theology - but not within a Catholic faculty. Wishing that it were otherwise - that a tenured professor can teach his latest ideas within a confessional institution - is illogical. Ideas of intellectual freedom and a confessional platform are two sides of the same coin - two sides. Freedom allows both to function - but not hand in hand....

proudfootz · 10-07-2012, 07:14 AM

Getting one's history from devotional books is like getting one's science from them.

Why study biology when God tells us everything we need to know?

If anything needs updating, God will give your pastor a vision...

Bingo the Clown-O · 10-07-2012, 08:09 AM

Can a Christian be anything?

Christians are poor decision makers.

Can a Christian be a scientist?

Can a Christian be a medial doctor?

Can a Christian be a politician?

Can a Christian be a judge?

Christians probably make good carpenters, mechanics, plumbers, and other domestic workers. You charge them up with of the ‘fear of God’ thing and they become obedient little servants.

They’re probably a good choice for the food service industry too.

sotto voce · 10-07-2012, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Many years ago at the University of Notre Dame

Now there's a pretty good joke.

Quote:

the brilliant philosopher/theologian Philip Devenish

Funnier still.

sotto voce · 10-07-2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Kung a 'Catholic theologian'?

That title was removed many years ago by the Vatican.

Küng is still a Catholic, however irrational that fact may be. And he has a habit of saying what so-called Protestant theologians don't dare say. Which of course gives an impression of competence to Catholicism, which doubtless pleases the Vatican, which is why they don't excommunicate him. They are reasonably happy if he is known as a Catholic theologian. This recent 'outburst' is almost certainly a calculated effort to counter the criticisms of Martini, whose censures of his organisation were only posthumous. Of course, what would be a genuine Catholic miracle would be a living cardinal saying out loud what Martini secretly wrote. Not that Küng is likely to actually achieve what he proposes. But to give Catholics hope of achieving it makes his cult seem more open to pluralism than it actually is.

But of course, if a member of a religious or any other body ceases to represent it accurately, a body can take legal steps to remedy the problem. Certainly, Rollston has misrepresented the Bible. It is hard to avoid the impression that he is a liar; he could be merely ignorant, but that might be an accusation he would prefer even less.

hjalti · 10-08-2012, 06:13 AM

Quote:

...no historian can take literally tales of gods impregnating women, walking on water, turning water to wine, dead people being resuscitated and taken bodily to heaven, or any other mythological story.

Maybe a native English speaker will correct me, but does "taking somthing literally" mean that you believe it to be true?

I for example, take all the miracle stories about Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn literally (I don't think they are metaphorical, parables or something like that), I just think they aren't true.

I sometimes feel like liberal Biblical scholars don't want to say outright "I don't think this story is true.", so they instead talk about "not taking it literally". Am I missing something?

sotto voce · 10-08-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

...no historian can take literally tales of gods impregnating women, walking on water, turning water to wine, dead people being resuscitated and taken bodily to heaven, or any other mythological story.

Maybe a native English speaker will correct me, but does "taking somthing literally" mean that you believe it to be true?

I for example, take all the miracle stories about Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn literally (I don't think they are metaphorical, parables or something like that), I just think they aren't true.

I sometimes feel like liberal Biblical scholars don't want to say outright "I don't think this story is true.", so they instead talk about "not taking it literally". Am I missing something?

It's an evasion. They imagine that there is an allegorical sense to any concept. So, to take them seriously, we must suppose that there is an allegorical sense to "Do not murder," and "Do not steal." But we must not literally steal their property, nevertheless.

The whole point of water turning into wine is that it just doesn't happen. Normally. So if it does happen, one may suspect the presence of the inventor and creator of water and wine, who made natural law, and can suspend it, especially if and when he is trying to tell us something to our advantage. Like, "Do not steal."

So the argument is circular: "The supernatural does not happen, because it cannot happen, because I said it cannot happen." There is no proof offered that it cannot happen, so the mind can deceive itself that it has a watertight case.

Perhaps.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2012, 01:13 AM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	There's no hegemony here to see, folks. Move along now.

10-07-2012, 07:14 AM	#5
proudfootz Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Left Coast Posts: 77	Getting one's history from devotional books is like getting one's science from them. Why study biology when God tells us everything we need to know? If anything needs updating, God will give your pastor a vision...

10-07-2012, 08:09 AM	#6
Bingo the Clown-O Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 310	Can a Christian be anything? Christians are poor decision makers. Can a Christian be a scientist? Can a Christian be a medial doctor? Can a Christian be a politician? Can a Christian be a judge? Christians probably make good carpenters, mechanics, plumbers, and other domestic workers. You charge them up with of the ‘fear of God’ thing and they become obedient little servants. They’re probably a good choice for the food service industry too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.